Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#601
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
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.  
Awesome.  Does this mean you believe we should let all Christians out of jails and prisons?
#602
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
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. 
Isn't the penalty for "marital unfaithfulness" death by stoning?
#603
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
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.
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?
Topic's author
#604
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.  
When the "community" turns against you, that is EXACTLY when you endorse moral relativism.
Many subgroups or subcultures exist within any given society or nation that has different values and beliefs. Democrats and Republicans are just two examples, and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.

#605
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"?
Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming. 
In the exact same way that human programming would depend on the moral character of "YHWH".

Are you capable of making such a robot? 
It seems likely that a robot indistinguishable from a human could be produced at some point.

I do not believe you are able.
Please respect the hypothetical.

A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent.
Why not?

Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? 
Did "YHWH" program humans to make moral choices and did "YHWH" determine what the good was and the boundaries to which humans could choose?

IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?
IOW's, is there a best that the human 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?
What is that standard?  "YHWH"?  Jesus?  Is the behavior of "YHWH" 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?
Since "YHWH" is almighty and omniscient, how could it program humans with 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? 
Since "YHWH" knows all things and can presumably determine the good, wouldn't that mean that every human is acting 100% in accordance with their master plan at all times?

In other words, (IFF) "YHWH" can only do good things (AND) "YHWH" makes a human (THEN) that human can only always do good things

In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERROR

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.
So you're saying that sin is genetic?

How was Adam a "blank slate" but not Eve or Lilith?

AND, (IFF) "YHWH" made Adam a "blank slate" (THEN) "YHWH" could have just made Adam infertile and built a new "blank slate" perhaps named "Sammy"(?)

He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)
Hold up.  Full stop.

Who made "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). 
How did "YHWH" screw this up so badly?  Was it lack of foresight?  Poor planning?  Or was this perhaps some sort of 12 dimensional chess game they dreamed up because they were like, super-super bored?
#606
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.
How is this even possible if one group is following universal and unchanging divinely inspired perfect moral dogma?

How can so many "true Christians" disagree?

Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?
Topic's author
#607
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.
What one person calls a "dog" might be a "catellus" to someone else.
'Dog' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular animal type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say dog, I don't mean cat unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'dog' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to. The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else. If you want to use the word "catellus" when speaking of a dog, you will not be understood unless the animal is present and you are pointing to the dog. Then the person you are communicating with is going to correct you of your misconception. 

You're confusing ONTOLOGY with "objective reality".
Words have meaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specific type of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that type of ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describe the nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails to communicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific words have specific meanings. 

If one person measures in inches and the other measures in centimeters, which one is more "objective"?
Inches and meters have equivalencies between the two systems of measurements. We know we have to convert by using a specific measure between the two. An inch equals 2.54 cms. The same is true of some words; they have equivalencies that we call synonyms. It is like using two different languages, say French and English. We know the equivalent word for dog in French is ' le chien' for a male dog and 'la chienne' for a female dog. If I were in France and wanted to express myself to a person who does not speak English, I would have to know the word 'chien/chienne' and what it means, or a synonym like “un toutou," or a French slang word that expresses the same idea of a dog.
Topic's author
#608
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 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.
Sounds good.

So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?
If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone. As for policing, what goes on behind closed doors is their business and it is between them and God unless they are hurting someone against their will and we hear of it, although every time we go against God's good for us we hurt ourselves and others. If you are a follower of Christ you know sexual immorality is wrong, such as having sex outside the boundaries of marriage (fornication) or lusting after a woman who is not your wife (adultery of the mind) or conducting a physical and sexual relationship with a woman who is not your wife (adultery), it is wrong. I believe that (generally speaking) even unbelievers know these things are wrong although the boundaries of sex before marriage are commonly accepted today.  
#609
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
'morality' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular social normative abstract concept type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say morality, I don't mean subjective-morality unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when speaking of subjective-morality, you will not be understood unless the idea is presented clearly and explicitly and you are pointing to the clear and explicit, rigorously defined definition. Otherwise the person you are communicating with is going to (hopefully) correct you of your misconception (if they even recognize the discrepancy). 
#610
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Words have meaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specific type of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that type of ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describe the nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails to communicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific words have specific meanings. 
NOPE.

WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.
#611
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If I were in France and wanted to express myself to a person who does not speak English, I would have to know the word 'chien/chienne' and what it means, or a synonym like “un toutou," or a French slang word that expresses the same idea of a dog.
So, would you say the appropriate use of language is based on geography and the social norms and expectations of proximate observers?
#612
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?
If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.
Why?
Topic's author
#613
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 sa[id by you] is morally wrong!
Yes.  For you and those you are responsible for.
Sorry, my last sentence above was poorly worded and unclear as to meaning. I corrected it.

I meant something along the lines of "Then if what I say is the opposite of what you say, then you are morally wrong. You can never be right." How do you like that?

If we are all arbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.   

'Instinct' and 'right' can be two different things.  

You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's?
You never explain why your "objective" standard is or can be better than anyone else's?
Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge. 

On top of that, I believe I can give reasoned evidence of why this ontological Being is the biblical God that exceeds the reasoned evidence of your idea of God. So, the proof is in us laying down our ideas of God as to which is more reasonable. When two opposing ideas of the same thing (God) are held logically, one has to be false. 

Is it because you believe it?
Is it "objective" because you believe it?
No, it is objective only if it corresponds to what is the case. 

Does that make something good?
Does your OPINION that it is "objective" make something good?
No, once again, opinions are only valid if they correspond to what is the case.

I have asked you to show me that what you believe is good is what is necessary for it to be so. Can you do that? If so, go ahead. You are not answering my questions. You do that constantly, and I believe you do not have the answers, hence the difficulty and intentional avoidance. 

Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view?
(IFF) you have a son, and you call this son "son" (THEN) should everyone on earth call your son "son"?
No, you are confusing what the word son means in this context and what it is associated with - a particular person. It applies to the biological or adopted offspring of a person in this case.  

In another context, the use of the word son may be applicable. Here are the different meanings:

Definition of son
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: a human male offspring especially of human beings
b: a male adopted child
c: a human male descendant
2 capitalized : the second person of the Trinity
3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (such as a nation, school, or race)

We may use the term in a more general way, such as 'the sons of confederation' or 'the sons of anarchy' to denote a particular person to a particular belief or group. But context is key, and your context has a specific meaning of son.

Is one language "objectively wrong" and another language "objectively right"?
No, not to my knowledge. They have the same or similar word equivalencies. 

Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right?
The exact same thing that makes your moral prescription good/right (4 U).
That does not make something right, just because I believe it unless it conforms to what is the case. It only makes it doable. You confuse a description with a prescription. Just because you can say that is morally wrong does not make it so unless there is a moral wrong that it conforms with. You can't make it up and call it morally wrong. All you are doing is stating a preference in such a case. Hitler had a preference to kill Jews. He liked to have them killed. I hope you don't think that just because he had such a preference that it was morally right?? He had the means to do so, but that did not make it right.

Your moral instinct.
Not valid. If my instinct is different than yours, which is right? How do you attach a 'right' to a descriptive and subjective action? I blink twenty times in a minute because my eyes are tired and dry. My instinct is to do so to alleviate my dry eyes. Should you do so too, even though you just woke up and your eyes are moist, and if you don't should I make you?

You confuse moral obligation with instinctive habits. Is there an actual 'right' involved with instinct? My genetic makeup and environmental conditioning make me sneeze around ragweed. Should you too?

Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right?
Good luck trying to force someone to believe something.

That's not how belief works.
Do you recognize that 'right' has to have a fixed value? Something that is right cannot, at the same time, be wrong. It either is the case that something is right or that something is wrong. "Right" has a specific value. 

You can't say, "Torturing innocent babies for fun" is right, and "Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong." Either it is right, or it is wrong. It cannot be both. Forcing you to believe torturing innocent babies for fun is right does not make it right just because you believe it to be. You keep blurring the meaning of 'right.'

Definition of right
 (Entry 1 of 4)
2: being in accordance with what is, good, or proper right conduct
3: conforming to facts or truth: CORRECT the right answer
4: SUITABLE, APPROPRIATEthe right man for the job
5: STRAIGHTa right line
6: GENUINE, REAL 

If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you..., is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his? 
Because it's mine.
You are a true postmodernist. Just because it is your belief does not make it right. It just makes it preferable. "I like ice-cream" is a preference. Does that make it morally obligatory? An obligation is something we should all do because it is the correct thing to do. Kim Jong-Un's belief is not something everyone should do. It is not something anyone should do. That makes his belief wrong. 

Definition of wrong
 (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act: action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or cause
b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another especially: TORT
2: something wrong, immoral, or unethical especially: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: such as
a: the state of being mistaken or incorrect
b: the state of being guilty

I am the ultimate authority over my own body and mind.
Not in Kim Jong-Un's North Korea - he is. And are you an authority on what is right and wrong? No. You fail to understand the concept. 
#614
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
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). 
I'm not saying morality is objective,  I'm saying that whether your standard is well-being, god, or anything else it is a subjective standard. If well-being is our standard, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. If the will of a god is defined, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. In no way am I suggesting either is an objective standard. 




#615
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
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. 

So, if I am going to die without a kidney, I can take one of yours? OF course not. And if you want to argue responsibility, then my kidney was damaged by your actions...can I take one of yours?  Of course not.  By your reasoning you're killing me...but that's not true is it? You have a right to your body no matter what that control disallows to me.  It's not about my consent, but yours since my needs overlaps with your bodily autonomy. There is no right to use the body of another without consent.

I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation.  It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own).  I don't view you as an enemy, Peter, and I believe these conversation aren't helpful to either and simply polarize us from each other. Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends.  ;-)  I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.


#616
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If we are all arbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.
Which country has perfectly moral laws?
Topic's author
#617
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
You can only believe if you are CONVINCED.
And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists. You first have to believe He exists before open yourself to God. God is reasonable to believe. Chance happenstance as your maker is not. So, which "God" becomes the question? That is why I am discussing this with you. I want you to show me your 'version' of God corresponds to the God that is. 

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

You and you alone VALIDATE "the gospel message".
The Holy Spirit, in conjunction with God's word, validates the message. As the highest authority that is possible, God speaks to our hearts and minds through the message. Outside sources confirm the message because the creation should confirm what He says if the biblical God is God. 
#618
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge. 

On top of that, I believe I can give reasoned evidence of why this ontological Being is the biblical God that exceeds the reasoned evidence of your idea of God. So, the proof is in us laying down our ideas of God as to which is more reasonable. When two opposing ideas of the same thing (God) are held logically, one has to be false. 
Please show me some sort of chart I can refer to so I can know for certain if I am doing anything morally wrong.
Topic's author
#619
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Did morality exist before Abraham?
Yes.
Great.

So, we don't need all this special literature in order to be moral.
Although we are created in His image and likeness and are, therefore, moral creatures, the Fall has opened up relativism since we no longer seek after God and find out the good through Him but make it up ourselves way too often. Our reflection of Him is dulled. Thus, God has left us with a moral compass, a written record. It points to true north. He ensured we understood how He created and why things are the way they are by having His servants, Moses, the prophets, His Son's disciples, record His dealings with humanity. Thus, our appeal is to a written record that contains the accounts of Abraham. We have this special revelation as a teacher to lead us back to God and show us what is right. The Ten Commandments are a blueprint for humanity.   
Topic's author
#620
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
If all Christians are reading the same book and speaking to the same "YHWH" shouldn't they all come to exactly the same "objective" conclusions?
They should, but they don't because they read into Scripture things it does not communicate. As I have said many times if you want to find out what someone means, understand their meaning, don't create your own. 

Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?
It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says. If you can show me that I err then I am missing the teaching's true meaning, you have won me over. I should be able to justify what I believe is true. One of the cautions I would warn you of is to pay attention to the relevant audience in Scripture and the time indicators. We are the secondary audience, not the primary one. Jesus is speaking to a specific people He came to, OT Israel, who worshiped according to the Mosaic Law. He comes to fulfill that law to reconcile these OT people to God. He comes to redeem both Jews and Gentiles, whoever will believe. 
#621
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists.
It is impossible to believe something without first being CONVINCED.

Step 1: CONVINCE ME.

Step 2: NOW I BELIEVE YOU.
#622
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?
It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says.
You say that, and so does every other Christian.

How do you know which Christian is correct?
#623
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...speaks to our hearts and minds...
Your heart and your mind VALIDATE your version of "truth".
Topic's author
#624
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 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. 
(IFF) "the ("objective") truth" is so crystal clear (THEN) why are there literally thousands of flavors of Christianity?
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2. Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions. In an easily relatable way, Jesus put it that of two foundations that are built, one on the sand and one on a rock. When violent forces test the structure, the one resting on the sand collapses because its foundation was not solid. It did not have what was necessary to support the building when troubling forces came against it. 

(IFF) theological variation is so slight & unsubstantial (THEN) why did competing denominations historically slaughter each other?
They were not following the teachings but reading into them. There are also fundamental doctrines that every Christian must believe to be a Christian rather than just a profess Christ.  

Why can't the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Calvinists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Anabaptists, Hussites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Messianic Jews set aside their slight & unsubstantial differences of opinion and UNITE under one cohesive and "objective" truth?
The truth is Jesus Christ; the living Word made flesh. The Son became a human being, as well as being God. God stepped into human history. As I said above there are certain fundamental doctrines you must believe to be a Christian. Jesus is the only means God has given by which humans may be saved and have a right relationship with God. I could list others but faith centers on Jesus Christ. We are only justified before God through Him, not by our own works in obtaining our salvation. 

Even iff someone was actually convinced that there was an "objective" moral code, which flavor of Christianity holds the "one true and perfect interpretation"?
We can't be right on all things, but we must be right on who Jesus is, our Saviour, Lord, and God. We must be right on those, or we compromise our faith. On minor doctrines, we have the luxury of being wrong, but it is not desirable. The greater we know the real, the less we fall for the counterfeit. Thus, Paul told Timothy to study to be approved of God one who correctly handles the word of truth.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

There is the accurate handling or interpretation of God's word. It is our responsibility to find it. In this way, we come to understand God more fully and are not tossed about by false teachings. 

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but [e]speaking the truth in love, [f]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ,

The more we study His word, the more we come to know God, what He is like, what He means, for we add line to line, precept upon precept. 

Isaiah 28:9-11 (NASB)
9 “To whom would He teach knowledge,
And to whom would He interpret the message?
Those just weaned from milk?
Those just taken from the breast?
10 For He says,
‘[a]Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there.’”
11 Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

And there is also a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is aptly applying knowledge. 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Words convey meaning and reveal what a person is like. What they say reflects their inner nature, who they are.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16 (NASB)
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written:
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the human heart,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 [a]For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among people knows the thoughts of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him? So also the thoughts of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [b]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But [c]a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But the one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is [d]discerned by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So, believers of Jesus are in a relationship with God, and as we read more and study more, we come to understand more of all that God is and all that He has in store for believers. He directs us through His word and by His Son and Spirit. 

When we relate to unbelievers His words come to mind as we seek to explain things concerning God. 
Topic's author
#625
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 
True north or the North Pole is.
Does your compass point to "true north"?
Jesus Christ is true north. I know where true north is. Jesus is the location, metaphorically speaking. 

No.  It points to magnetic north.

Does magnetic north change by hundreds if not thousands of miles without warning?

Yes.  Yes it does.

Does this mean that your compass is unreliable & utterly useless?

No.  Of course not.
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north; the location, God's word - magnetic north. What you or I do with it or how you use it is another matter. Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction. If compasses did not work people would not use them. They take you to the desired location if you follow them correctly. God's word is our compass. Jesus Christ is our destination. His word takes us to the true north - Himself. 
#626
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2.
You're conflating FACT and OPINION.

Mathematics =/= MEANINGFULNESS

You can never use an "IS" (fact) to substantiate an "OUGHT" (moral commandment).
#627
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north;
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?
#628
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction.
So, we agree that a "fixed reference point" is not a prerequisite.
#629
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, there really and truly is an "objective" moral standard.

And let's say, for the sake of argument, this "objective" moral standard is written in some sort of code in like a really really really old book.

And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you have the one true understanding of this "objective" moral code.

You figured it out.

Now, if you're the only one who knows the one-true-unchanging-universal-perfect-moral-code, how do you convince other Christians that you're right and they're wrong?

Like the Calvinists.  Or perhaps the Amish.  How did they misunderstand everything in the Bible so badly for so many years?

How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?

AND, iff you're unable to convince them, how can you distinguish your "true-truth" from what they're going to call it, "your personal opinion"?

You can't simply slap a label of "objectivity" on your OPINION and then crow about how "objective" it is.  It just makes you sound like you're trying to trick everyone (all the other true-Christians).
Topic's author
#630
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. [...] 

chattel slavery:
the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery.  [Link]

OT slavery allowed non-Hebrews and women to be bought, sold, and forced to perform services without wages (beating was acceptable). This is stated plainly in the Bible and no amount of bad apologetics changes or mitigates this.  
The keyword is 'property' and what it meant in the biblical sense by God as opposed to what it meant to the Egyptians or us today. I explained this to you, I even cited Glenn Miller's research:

Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

 OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.
 §         Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'.

The distinction is clear. Chattel slavers were considered a thing to be done with as the master chose because of his/her ownership rights. Not so with biblical slavery. Economic output is the nature of an employee/employer relationship. Slaves from foreign lands via wars were reaping what they sowed. They were responsible for reparation for all the damages done to Israel. Thus, the penalty was serving others. The penalty was lifelong UNLESS the slave converted to Judaism, then the penalty or what was owed was reduced to a seven-year term. After that, the slave was freed unless the slave wanted to stay with the master. These foreign slaves were not allowed under law to be treated harshly, although they were allowed to be disciplined for wrongs they did. In theory and by law, if the master treated them harshly, they could flee to a safe zone and escape slavery. To discourage harsh treatment, the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life was lawful. That is a big detriment. If these legal conditions were violated and the slave was still alive, they were automatically freed. 

So to be clear, "Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good.'"
'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor).'

Not only this, a Hebrew slave was capable of earning money, and when they left the employment (usually undertaken because of debt), they had money to take with them. These slaves could own land. A foreign slave who was in slavery because of debt and sold to an Israelite would live a life where their wages were their food, protection, and shelter, and in better conditions than the rest of the ANE. Thus, it is reasonable to believe such slavery was desired to that of other ANE cultures. The Hebrews were to love foreigners who were in their land and their households.  

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation.  In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]
(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]

Thus, the foreign slaves were seen as part of the family and became family members, just not having the same rights as free people.