the right religion

[waitasec]

well, all I know is that if Jesus had had long hair and a beard, and sang about love and kindness...

Oh, wait! He did that!

But he didn't hang out with Ravi Shankar and drop acid...
And he wasn't in the Lonely Hearts Club Band.

::edit::
But, according to Mark, he was the "fool on the hill..."

funny!!!
wait wasn't that paul?

maybe not acid....but perhaps he smoked some hash...ate some mushrooms

 

[9Westy9]

No the definition of objective value has no time requirement. Regardless his standards were only for the Jews of the time. You can call that subjective if you want but I do not agree. They were objective in effect for the Jews. They were not subject to anyones opinion and that is the main requirement. Basically the standard has to have sovereignty over it's subjects and it did.

objective - definition of objective by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Morality isn't objective however much you would want it to be

You are making all kinds of assumptions that are incorrect to support an incorrect premise. God made us perfect for his purpose. That purpose includes the choice to not chose him. It isn't that they couldn't find evidence, there is far more than enough evidence available. It was that they chose to ignore or find invalid fault. They had suffecient power to chose what they wanted. The same is true today. It is hard to claim insuffeciency of evidence when 2 billion plus for it suffecient. Doesn't make it true just suffecient. IMO the claim there is not enough evidence is a cop out used to justify unbelief. If he made us so that we could not chose to refuse him I would consider that unjust, pointless, and a violation of love and freewill. The use of numbers are valid if not used as proof but only a suffeciency of evidence on which to chose.

Seems you don't understand why atheists are atheists. You seem to think that atheists are people who ignore evidence rather than find no sufficient evidence. and yes there is insufficient evidence, for me personally, and God would know that.

 

[Oryonder]

Well, of course he's talking about works (and I appreciate the citations), but I think we have to be careful not to make Matthew all about works. If you'll notice your second source, it mentions that those doing the works aren't doing them "for Jesus." I think that's spot on. We don't do works "in order to be saved" or "to win God's favor." We do good works, because that's what people do who love each other and who love God. And that, I think, is the whole thrust of Matthew.

Matthew is most likely writing to a group of Jewish Xtians living in a Greek city. These are people who have always "kept the Law." But, most likely, they had kept the Law in order to be righteous. But Matthew wants to get rid of the whole righteous/unrighteous, in/out duality. His suggestion that the law be kept with the proper attitude is what separates the old Israel from the true Israel.

You're right, of course.

Actually, I have considered them. But, every good scholar also has to make a decision as to which camp he's going to play in, and which side of the fence he's going to come down on. My NT prof currently has an ongoing argument going with another NT scholar who's arguing for "early John." Both present compelling evidence, and one simply has to decide which evidence one is going to work with as a basis.

I agree that Matt is not all about works and as you mentioned in an earlier post one has to be careful when taking things literally.

There is much in Jesus teachings about forgiveness and also about not Judging others (do unto others, or phrased differently .. that there is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others) and also that we humans are not to speak for God.

These principles seem simple but the history of the Church is a history of massive failure. Much of the Christianity in modern times is no better and I will also note that Islam is also a massive failure in relation to keeping the simple principles given above.

Rather than follow the teachings of Jesus the Church, by violating these principles has perpetrated horror.

Oddly enough this is what is predicted in Matt .. "the awful horror/ abomination of desolation".

 

[Oryonder]

It is really frustrating when people change facts to suit theories. I have looked up the numbers of the inquisition. They are very accurately known.
Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can find all the info you want at that site and it will be exactly what I said. You are also wrong about the trial aspect of the inquisition. It had strict requirements for elaborate trial procedures. The inquisition trial records are far more detailed and comprehensive that the secular courts of the time. Another thing is the inquisition as a rule did not execute any one. They were forbidden by a tradition that stops them from shedding blood and by a secular law that fobid them from condemning people to death. If that was the finding they were turned over to secular courts for prosecution. Of course there are always a few exceptions however no ones knows much about those because there are no records.

Your millions only exists in your head. That site has very detailed records of how many were killed. In fact all the trials put together for evey offense including the ones that were declared innocent adds up to less than a million and the executions less than 5000.

What does this have to do with the inquisition.

What Christians do if completely against what the religion claims has no bearing on the religion. What is the point? That is assuming you are even correct in your claims. I can claim I am a circus clown and blow up a school. Does that have any meaning for circus clowndom. You judge a system by it's adherents not it's rebels.


My claims are far more consistent with history than your distorted claims and I have never "sided" with the inquisition or the crusades etc.... and in fact have condemed them repeatedly. Please employ a basic sence of Honor and quit asserting incorrectly what I believe and get your facts straight.

Dude .. you completely missed the point. The Spainish Inquisition (those who were actually brought to trial) was a minor part of the attrocities committed by the Church in the name of God.

Funny I thought Hitler killed the Jews. He said in his own words that his race superiority ideas justified by evolutionary principles led him to do what he did. The Catholic Church virtually as a whole wanted nothing to do with him that is why he completely turned against the faith in approx 1943. I am speaking as a Christian who doesn't even like the Catholic church and abhores it's history. My position is based on accurate history not biased histerics.

Hitler did kill Jews .. as did the Croations and the Church was complicit in this.
Hundreds of thousands of Orthadox and Jewish Serbs.

Your knowledge of history is as pathetic as your apology for the horrors committed by the church. I gave you a link .. did you not read it or check it out.

This is recent history and there are hundreds of testimonies and witnesses to the atrocities. Since you obviously could not be bothered to look at the link I gave you here is a sample.

Forceful conversion to Catholicism

"Converting" the Orthodox Serbs, December 21st, 1941, Friars, besides Priests, participated in forcible conversions. They were no less ruthless than the parish clergy, e.g. Monk Ambrozije Novak, Guardian of the Capucine Monastery in Varazdin, who, after surrounding the village of Mosanica with Ustashi contingents, told the people:

"You Serbs are condemned to death, and you can only escape that sentence by accepting Catholicism."

Catholic Padres did not hesitate to liquidate those who resisted. Witness Father Dr. Dragutin Kamber, a Jesuit priest and sworn Ustashi, who ordered the killing of 300 Orthodox Serbs in Doboj... Or Father Dr. Branimir Zupanic, who had more than 400 people killed in one village alone: Ragoje. Father Srecko Peric, of the Gorica Monastery, near Livno [Herzegovina], advocated mass murders with the wollowing words: "Kill all Serbs. And when you finish come here, to Church, and I will confess you and free you from sin." This resulted in a massacre, on August 10th, 1941, during which over 5,600 Orthodox Serbs in the district of Livno alone lost their lives.

Its not like the Pope was not aware of these things.

As you go back through the history there are hundreds of examples of atrocities committed in "the name of God"

Those who apologise for such things are no better than the ones who committed the acts.

 

[1robin]

objective - definition of objective by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Morality isn't objective however much you would want it to be

I have actually used that definition to show they are objective. Below are all the relevant definitions from that site. Biblical morallity meets every criteria. Since this definition is speaking about people and doesn't assume God then individual is meant to be person.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

Why do you think that I would want it to be objective? It just is what it is.

Seems you don't understand why atheists are atheists. You seem to think that atheists are people who ignore evidence rather than find no sufficient evidence. and yes there is insufficient evidence, for me personally, and God would know that.

There is more than enough evidence for a decision. The fact that you want more doesn't mean it isn't suffecient. Thats why billion have accepted it. Atheism is defined as a belief that there is no God. That is an absolutely unjustified position. You sound more like an agnostic which believes they do not know and want more info. An incorrect but reasonable stance. Since you suggest God owes you and everyone else all the information they want then you are suggesting God provide enough information to guarantee belief. If that were the case then freewill is invalid. He simply makes you believe. The bible is consistent. It even says there is enough information in nature alone to know that God must exist and so everyone is without excuse.

 

[1robin]

Dude .. you completely missed the point. The Spainish Inquisition (those who were actually brought to trial) was a minor part of the attrocities committed by the Church in the name of God.

When compared to Stalin's atheistic regime killing 15 million. Hitlers evolutionary justified raceism killing ultimately 50 million plus Pol Pot, Kim jong Ill, etc then even if you tripled what the Chrurch has done it isn't a drop in the bucket comparatively. Its way way to much but not anything like the Godless regimes.

Hitler did kill Jews .. as did the Croations and the Church was complicit in this.
Hundreds of thousands of Orthadox and Jewish Serbs.

I said Hitler killed Jews why are you stateing it again. He used evolution to justify it as well as all his other superior race nonesence.

Your knowledge of history is as pathetic as your apology for the horrors committed by the church. I gave you a link .. did you not read it or check it out.

I am an amateur historian I have over 100 sem hours in history and you are just plain wrong.

This is recent history and there are hundreds of testimonies and witnesses to the atrocities. Since you obviously could not be bothered to look at the link I gave you here is a sample.

Your whole point seems to be Christians killed some people. I never said they didn't. I never excused their actions, I have repeatedly condemned them. I said that they are nothing in comparison to the killings done outside of Christianity and you have not provided anything even remotely able to counter that.

Forceful conversion to Catholicism

"Converting" the Orthodox Serbs, December 21st, 1941, Friars, besides Priests, participated in forcible conversions. They were no less ruthless than the parish clergy, e.g. Monk Ambrozije Novak, Guardian of the Capucine Monastery in Varazdin, who, after surrounding the village of Mosanica with Ustashi contingents, told the people:

I am well aware Christianity has done horrible things. Or rather I would say people claiming to be Chrsitians have done horrible things even though those things are forbiden by the bible. You do not judge a philosophy by people who act inconsistent with but by people who act consistent with it. So their actions have no bearing on the religion just the abuse of it.

Its not like the Pope was not aware of these things

. Nice guess work. Regardless is the pope God or Christ. What does this have to do with a religion that teaches the opposite of what these people did. I can claim to be a acrobat and kill a thousand people. What does that say about acrobats. Nothing.

As you go back through the history there are hundreds of examples of atrocities committed in "the name of God"

Agreed so whats the conclusion?

Those who apologise for such things are no better than the ones who committed the acts.

I have already condemned their actions twice in recent posts and I have never suggested they were excuseable and I insist you stop making that assertion if you wish to continue this discussion. You have so far criticised Paul John, accepted commentators, mainstream Christianity, and Christian history in general, What kind of a Christian are you?

 

[helpmeplease]

Since this definition is speaking about people and doesn't assume God then individual is meant to be person.

Says you! You just made the definition subjective to your belief! Unbelievable! God's objective morality is not applicable to God because god is not subject to objective, only the lower classes are subject to an objective morality. I mean just how convoluted do you need to get to present your nonsense?

 

[sojourner]

These principles seem simple but the history of the Church is a history of massive failure. Much of the Christianity in modern times is no better and I will also note that Islam is also a massive failure in relation to keeping the simple principles given above.

Yes, they are. But that doesn't mean that they're not "right religions." They are imperfect, because they are human institutions, and human beings are imperfect.

 

[9Westy9]

I have actually used that definition to show they are objective. Below are all the relevant definitions from that site. Biblical morallity meets every criteria. Since this definition is speaking about people and doesn't assume God then individual is meant to be person.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

Why do you think that I would want it to be objective? It just is what it is.

Using a) all morality is subjective (unless god is emotionless)
Using 1 all morality can be argued as objective.
Using 2 There are several moral standards that are objective i.e. eudaemonism
Using 1 (philosophy) Morality loses all meaning if there is no way to perceive or conceive of it. If you don't know morals then you shouldn't be subject to it (assuming god is "good")
Using 2 God is emotionless and not biased? I highly doubt that
Using 3 Can you show that morality is "actual and external phenomena"?

There is more than enough evidence for a decision. The fact that you want more doesn't mean it isn't suffecient. Thats why billion have accepted it. Atheism is defined as a belief that there is no God. That is an absolutely unjustified position. You sound more like an agnostic which believes they do not know and want more info.

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss the evidence for god instead of de-railing the thread?

Atheism is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
Agnostic is "1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

So someone can be an agnostic atheist "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist."

An incorrect but reasonable stance. Since you suggest God owes you and everyone else all the information they want then you are suggesting God provide enough information to guarantee belief. If that were the case then freewill is invalid. He simply makes you believe. The bible is consistent. It even says there is enough information in nature alone to know that God must exist and so everyone is without excuse.

No, I suggest that God owes everyone the information they need. and does God want to save everyone? if he's benevolent then the obvious answer is yes. If you also contend that he's omniscient then someone not going to heaven is pretty much impossible. Free will is over rated anyway and there isn't enough evidence in nature to come to a conclusion that a loving omnipotent being created the universe and so I have more than enough of an excuse to deny he exists.

 

[1robin]

Using a) all morality is subjective (unless god is emotionless)

For the love, I said specifically this definition was based on humans as the indididuals not God. A secular definition does not assume God and there fore it isn't equivalent with individuals in the statements. He may or may not be emotional that is not where his sence of marality came from. Regardless it is irrelevant. His standard as far as we are concerned are absolute and universal. In effect they are objective because they do not derive from the emotions, etc... of the subjects. Why are you so worried about the word when it is universal and absolute regardless. You are addressing a pointless issue and ignoring the important implications.

Using 1 all morality can be argued as objective.

Most of these are concurrent conditions not isolated. Air and rocks exist but are mute on morals. Your context for the statement is meaningless.

Using 2 There are several moral standards that are objective i.e. eudaemonism

How? What is it?

Using 1 (philosophy) Morality loses all meaning if there is no way to perceive or conceive of it. If you don't know morals then you shouldn't be subject to it (assuming god is "good")

The bible is a perfect way to percieve the morals. Another valid one would be our God given conciences of the holy spirit.

Using 2 God is emotionless and not biased? I highly doubt that

That statement was not assuming God and so doesn't apply. It is assuming a human (and therefore subject of and creator) bias and emotions and is accurate when used like it was.

Using 3 Can you show that morality is "actual and external phenomena"?

Well very good arguments can be made for it, a philosopher could do it without to much trouble I imagine and have heard. Since all human beings appeal to objective standards even if they don't admit it, and Human society needs and utilizes them in it's most important issues (inalienable rights, justification for war), that humans have developed virtually the same core set of morals that suggest a non subjective source, since they exist and they can not be justified suffeciently to be from a subjective source, and since their objective nature is the only thing that makes justice logical then it is a pretty safe bet that they exist. Even children universally appeal to an innate sence of objective fairness that makes no sence in a subjective system. However I would find a philosopher for that one. Here is a chance:
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss the evidence for god instead of de-railing the thread?

If you wish but in my opinion:
1. His morals if he exists are absolute and universal in effect for us regardless of the name you wish to call them.
2. If he exists they are objective.
3. So the only real question is does he exist everything else is obvious. So yes you have identified the only necessary issue.



Atheism is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
Agnostic is "1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

So someone can be an agnostic atheist "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist."

There are quite a lot of definitions for these terms. Everyone seems to have his own take. IMO the only meaningful ones are.
1. Atheism is the possitive assertion that there are no Gods.
2. Agnosticism is the non comitted position concerning Gods.
That is the only definition that makes sence to me, all others are equivocations. However I am not a thesarus.

No, I suggest that God owes everyone the information they need. and does God want to save everyone? if he's benevolent then the obvious answer is yes. If you also contend that he's omniscient then someone not going to heaven is pretty much impossible. Free will is over rated anyway and there isn't enough evidence in nature to come to a conclusion that a loving omnipotent being created the universe and so I have more than enough of an excuse to deny he exists.

His primary goal is not that every one is saved. It is a goal but not the primary one. His purpose is to give people "enough" information to make a decision freely. That is a precarious balance that only he can illustrate. IMO there is more than enough for anyone who does not resist it by using double standards or have unreasonable standards. The bible says nature alone is enough to conclude he exists. Fine tuning alone is enough to justify belief in his existance and his personal care for us. We nor anything else shouldn't exist by natural probability. Why is anything at all here? But then he even throws in personal appearences, prophecy, scientific claims that could only come from him, un avoidable philisohical conclusions, and in the most cherished book in human history etc.....I doesn't matter how you value freewill only how he does.

 

[1robin]

Says you! You just made the definition subjective to your belief! Unbelievable! God's objective morality is not applicable to God because god is not subject to objective, only the lower classes are subject to an objective morality. I mean just how convoluted do you need to get to present your nonsense?

This is nuts you are haveing a word fight and skipping the actual issue completely. It is obvious a secular definition doesn't assume the Christian God exists, nor Thor, Isis, Odin, or any other God. That is just stupid. You have invented a definition for objective morals that you are insisting my claim applies to. Just how desperate are you. Like I said if you wind up at the judgement seat of Christ and are found guilty do you actually think that a "your moral requirements are not objective according to the definition I made up" is a legitamate defence. Even if your definition was correct it changes absolutely nothing. We as humans are still universally subject to his standards and all will face that judgement. It is in effect objective with respect to you and me and every one regardles of your word game diversion.

 

[Oryonder]

When compared to Stalin's atheistic regime killing 15 million. Hitlers evolutionary justified raceism killing ultimately 50 million plus Pol Pot, Kim jong Ill, etc then even if you tripled what the Chrurch has done it isn't a drop in the bucket comparatively. Its way way to much but not anything like the Godless regimes.





I said Hitler killed Jews why are you stateing it again. He used evolution to justify it as well as all his other superior race nonesence.

I am an amateur historian I have over 100 sem hours in history and you are just plain wrong.

Your whole point seems to be Christians killed some people. I never said they didn't. I never excused their actions, I have repeatedly condemned them. I said that they are nothing in comparison to the killings done outside of Christianity and you have not provided anything even remotely able to counter that.

I am well aware Christianity has done horrible things. Or rather I would say people claiming to be Chrsitians have done horrible things even though those things are forbiden by the bible. You do not judge a philosophy by people who act inconsistent with but by people who act consistent with it. So their actions have no bearing on the religion just the abuse of it.


. Nice guess work. Regardless is the pope God or Christ. What does this have to do with a religion that teaches the opposite of what these people did. I can claim to be a acrobat and kill a thousand people. What does that say about acrobats. Nothing.

Agreed so whats the conclusion?

I have already condemned their actions twice in recent posts and I have never suggested they were excuseable and I insist you stop making that assertion if you wish to continue this discussion. You have so far criticised Paul John, accepted commentators, mainstream Christianity, and Christian history in general, What kind of a Christian are you?

You seemed to be on some kind of apologist path previously .. Glad you have changed you tune.

Claiming "the Church was not as bad as Hitler and Stalin" is hardly a compliment.

The point is not to blame all of Christianity for the nasty history. The point is to identify the factors that created the conditions for such atrocities to occur and learn from past mistakes.

The Church should adopt two principles, both taught by Jesus, and teach these rigorously to all humanity.

1) No human speaks for God
2) There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others (do unto others/do not Judge)

If the Church had adopted these to principles, instead of claiming to speak for God and on the basis of "God says" forcing beliefs on people, the evils of the past could have been avoided.

This is about changing humanity and the way people think. IMO that is what Jesus was all about.

 

[helpmeplease]

This is nuts you are haveing a word fight and skipping the actual issue completely. It is obvious a secular definition doesn't assume the Christian God exists, nor Thor, Isis, Odin, or any other God. That is just stupid. You have invented a definition for objective morals that you are insisting my claim applies to. Just how desperate are you. Like I said if you wind up at the judgement seat of Christ and are found guilty do you actually think that a "your moral requirements are not objective according to the definition I made up" is a legitamate defence. Even if your definition was correct it changes absolutely nothing. We as humans are still universally subject to his standards and all will face that judgement. It is in effect objective with respect to you and me and every one regardles of your word game diversion.

And there it is again. You claim divinity over your god by determining what he thinks. Well I think that any god worthy of worship or in any need of it, is simply not capable of being an all powerful god. The fear factor is the greatest you and your imaginary god have to convince the gullible. Try, just for a couple of minutes to think about a creator of EVERYTHING and think would such a being have such rules as you claim he does? I realise that it's a wasted effort, because you could no more think about an omnipotent creator than you could fly to Venus unassisted.

 

[sojourner]

And there it is again. You claim divinity over your god by determining what he thinks. Well I think that any god worthy of worship or in any need of it, is simply not capable of being an all powerful god. The fear factor is the greatest you and your imaginary god have to convince the gullible. Try, just for a couple of minutes to think about a creator of EVERYTHING and think would such a being have such rules as you claim he does? I realise that it's a wasted effort, because you could no more think about an omnipotent creator than you could fly to Venus unassisted.

Fear doesn't have to be involved. At all. Problem is, we're attaching a post-modern world view to an ancient model. We need a new model.

Second point: I think your definition of "omnipotent" is different from the biblical authors' idea of "omnipotent."

 

[Oryonder]

And there it is again. You claim divinity over your god by determining what he thinks. Well I think that any god worthy of worship or in any need of it, is simply not capable of being an all powerful god. The fear factor is the greatest you and your imaginary god have to convince the gullible. Try, just for a couple of minutes to think about a creator of EVERYTHING and think would such a being have such rules as you claim he does? I realise that it's a wasted effort, because you could no more think about an omnipotent creator than you could fly to Venus unassisted.

Well stated. In particular I take issue with people who, on a weekly basis, claim that the "spirit of God .. aka God" speaks through them. This is the same as claiming to know what God thinks. There can be no debating or questioning what the speaker is says because "who can question God".

In many cases there have been people in this forum claim to be able to speak directly with God and that God talks back. In each case, not only on internet forums but everytime I hear this claim being made, I tell the person "fantastic .. I have a few vexing questions I would like answered .. would you mind asking God a few of these for me.

I have yet to have one of these people agree.

If one assumes the Sataniel's purpose is to decieve "believers" and turn them away from Gods teacings then how would he do this ? Would he show up horned with a red cape ?

My contention is that it is a great achievement for Sataniel to convince peopled to "usurp" God. To put themselves in the place of God by claiming to speak for God. This would be the greatest blasphamy IMO.

 

[9Westy9]

For the love, I said specifically this definition was based on humans as the indididuals not God. A secular definition does not assume God and there fore it isn't equivalent with individuals in the statements.

and I decided that God should be included

He may or may not be emotional that is not where his sence of marality came from. Regardless it is irrelevant. His standard as far as we are concerned are absolute and universal. In effect they are objective because they do not derive from the emotions, etc... of the subjects. Why are you so worried about the word when it is universal and absolute regardless. You are addressing a pointless issue and ignoring the important implications.

Just because God is bigger than us does not mean we need to meet his standards

Most of these are concurrent conditions not isolated. Air and rocks exist but are mute on morals. Your context for the statement is meaningless.

eh? Are you trying to say that objective morals are like objects that exist or not?

How? What is it?

Eudaemonism is the belief that happiness is the chief good of man. So any morals would strive towards this goal.

The bible is a perfect way to percieve the morals. Another valid one would be our God given conciences of the holy spirit.

So using the philosophy definition god's morals aren't objective

That statement was not assuming God and so doesn't apply. It is assuming a human (and therefore subject of and creator) bias and emotions and is accurate when used like it was.

if god is immune from it (which I don't agree with) then it doesn't defend objective morality for you. Unless you like double standards.

Well very good arguments can be made for it, a philosopher could do it without to much trouble I imagine and have heard. Since all human beings appeal to objective standards even if they don't admit it, and Human society needs and utilizes them in it's most important issues (inalienable rights, justification for war), that humans have developed virtually the same core set of morals that suggest a non subjective source, since they exist and they can not be justified suffeciently to be from a subjective source, and since their objective nature is the only thing that makes justice logical then it is a pretty safe bet that they exist. Even children universally appeal to an innate sence of objective fairness that makes no sence in a subjective system. However I would find a philosopher for that one. Here is a chance:
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

Some morals may seem objective. i.e. murdering a fellow human is wrong, doesn't make there a single objective code, especially when people do disagree on some morals. For example some people think homosexuality is morally wrong wheras others think it's morally permissible.

Atheism is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
Agnostic is "1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

I see no problem here

There are quite a lot of definitions for these terms. Everyone seems to have his own take. IMO the only meaningful ones are.
1. Atheism is the possitive assertion that there are no Gods.
2. Agnosticism is the non comitted position concerning Gods.
That is the only definition that makes sence to me, all others are equivocations. However I am not a thesarus.

and I disagree. I was mainly quoting the definitions to clarify that there are atheists (a lot of them) who aren't gnostic in their atheism

His primary goal is not that every one is saved. It is a goal but not the primary one. His purpose is to give people "enough" information to make a decision freely. That is a precarious balance that only he can illustrate. IMO there is more than enough for anyone who does not resist it by using double standards or have unreasonable standards. The bible says nature alone is enough to conclude he exists. Fine tuning alone is enough to justify belief in his existance and his personal care for us. We nor anything else shouldn't exist by natural probability. Why is anything at all here? But then he even throws in personal appearences, prophecy, scientific claims that could only come from him, un avoidable philisohical conclusions, and in the most cherished book in human history etc.....I doesn't matter how you value freewill only how he does.

If his primary goal is giving people enough information then the majority of people should be believers

 

[1robin]

and I decided that God should be included

What does this mean. I said a secular definition doesn't assume God when it says individual. You said you decided it should say so. Maybe you should call dictionary people, I don't know why you are telling me this.

Just because God is bigger than us does not mean we need to meet his standards

It is not his size that is relevant it is his sovereignty and capability. He is capable of demanding accountability from us and has said he will. If he exists case closed.

eh? Are you trying to say that objective morals are like objects that exist or not?

No, someone said that for morals to be objective then they must universally applly to everything. I was pointing out how silly that is.

Eudaemonism is the belief that happiness is the chief good of man. So any morals would strive towards this goal.

Many morals we all hold dear run counter to happiness. It won't make you happy to dive into ice cold water to save someone. Things like adultery or theft might make someone happy but they are determined to be immoral. No matter how you repackage it without God all you have left is opinion to make moral requirements and no way to establish which opinions are correct. It is a impotent source.

So using the philosophy definition god's morals aren't objective

How specifically? You have spent quite a lot of time argueing semantics without addressing the actual issues.

if god is immune from it (which I don't agree with) then it doesn't defend objective morality for you. Unless you like double standards.

It has no effect on objective morals. Besides the bible states that murder (unjustified killing) is wrong. What God did at the flood or the cannanites etc....was justified so he did not act inconsistent with his own standards.

Some morals may seem objective. i.e. murdering a fellow human is wrong, doesn't make there a single objective code, especially when people do disagree on some morals. For example some people think homosexuality is morally wrong wheras others think it's morally permissible.

I said virtually all societies have the same core morals. I did not say they have identicle moral codes. How can it be explained that every society believes murder or theft is wrong unless it is an objective truth.

I see no problem here

I have forgotten why we are discussing the semantics of the word atheism.

and I disagree. I was mainly quoting the definitions to clarify that there are atheists (a lot of them) who aren't gnostic in their atheism

I did not say atheists are gnostic, I said the opposite. I said they were not agnostic. They make a possitive assertion there is no God. The agnostic doesn't claim anything possitive regarding God.

If his primary goal is giving people enough information then the majority of people should be believers

That is unbiblical and incorrect.

16:1-4 The Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed to each other in principles and in conduct; yet they joined against Christ. But they desired a sign of their own choosing: they despised those signs which relieved the necessity of the sick and sorrowful, and called for something else which would gratify the curiosity of the proud. It is great hypocrisy, when we slight the signs of God's ordaining, to seek for signs of our own devising.
Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

A person’s sense of reality has a marvelous way of incorporating unusual events. Our minds do not want to see the miraculous, and when they encounter miracles, they have marvelous powers of rationalization to incorporate the miraculous into the humdrum.
Moses worked signs for Pharaoh, but Pharaoh didn’t believe them. Okay, so there’s a plague of frogs. After all those insects, what did you expect? Nature does some pretty strange things sometimes. Do you remember all those birds we saw last year? For some reason they just shifted their normal migratory pattern. Okay, so the river turned red. It’s a big river; who knows what somebody may have dumped into it upstream? Maybe there was a war up there, who knows? And then of course the magicians duplicated most of the others.
Useless Miracles
Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
Useless Miracles
You can see that my position is perfectly consistent with the bible and yours is not.
No matter how many signs people who want to disbelieve see their dark minds will never allow them to believe. That is a very common concept in spiritual warfare. The bible also says that if people resist God long enough he will stop striving with them and allow their evil nature to darken and distort their thoughts.

 

[Oryonder]

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Jesus promises miraculous signs at the end of the world.

A person’s sense of reality has a marvelous way of incorporating unusual events. Our minds do not want to see the miraculous, and when they encounter miracles, they have marvelous powers of rationalization to incorporate the miraculous into the humdrum.
Moses worked signs for Pharaoh, but Pharaoh didn’t believe them.

It was not only the Pharaoh that did not believe. Apparently the Israelites did not think much of the God of Moses either. When Moses leaves for a few weeks they immediately build a Golden Calf in worship of "El and Asherah"

It is not just the Israelites but even Moses own brother Aaron that does not believe.

Then when Moses returns (supposed conduit to this God) 3000 of the Israelites think he is full of it.

Moses, being the keen military strategist that he must of been .. has these 3000 killed.

If his own Brother and the people of Israel did not believe Moses , and these people were there when these supposed miracles occured, why would you ?

What is most likely is that the original story was not so fantastic as todays version. It could not have been that miraculous otherwise the people would have had more "faith".

 

[1robin]

Jesus promises miraculous signs at the end of the world.

So? Of course Jesus has performed signs before. If you would look at the context in which the comment was made. It was in response to someones question and was an attempt to show that even people who see great signs still won't believe. That in the larger context concerning, has God provided enough evidence for belief. Your response above seems to be addressing a context that my statement was not in.

It was not only the Pharaoh that did not believe. Apparently the Israelites did not think much of the God of Moses either. When Moses leaves for a few weeks they immediately build a Golden Calf in worship of "El and Asherah"

Yes quite a few people have not believed throught history regardless how much proof they had.

It is not just the Israelites but even Moses own brother Aaron that does not believe.

Agreed

Then when Moses returns (supposed conduit to this God) 3000 of the Israelites think he is full of it.

Agreed if your numbers are accurate.

Moses, being the keen military strategist that he must of been .. has these 3000 killed.

I don't think that was a military decision. It could have been, I don't find it meaningful or necessary or important to guess his motivation.

If his own Brother and the people of Israel did not believe Moses , and these people were there when these supposed miracles occured, why would you ?

Maybe because I am not a freaking idiot. What does this have to do with anything?

What is most likely is that the original story was not so fantastic as todays version. It could not have been that miraculous otherwise the people would have had more "faith".

Well seeing you don't accept John, Paul, commentators etc... of course you would ignore the old testament as well. Me, I believe God retains a great deal of soveriegnty over his word and would not allow his word to suffer severe corruption. You seem to have the same exegesis of the bible that Thomas Jefferson had. If you don't like it find an excuse and dismiss it. Does your bible have pages, chapters, and verses cut out of it like Jeffersons.

PLEASE RESPOND TO POST 1514 IN THIS THREAD BEFORE WE GET TO FAR PAST IT.

 

[9Westy9]

What does this mean. I said a secular definition doesn't assume God when it says individual. You said you decided it should say so. Maybe you should call dictionary people, I don't know why you are telling me this.

Because you seem intent on forcing me to play by your rules and get upset when I don't

It is not his size that is relevant it is his sovereignty and capability. He is capable of demanding accountability from us and has said he will. If he exists case closed.

My point was more, if God was evil there's be no point in following his standards except to suck up to him. If he exists he gave me free will, yet when I use my free will to do what I've learned to be 'right' he punishes me for it? go figure

No, someone said that for morals to be objective then they must universally applly to everything. I was pointing out how silly that is.

who's the someone?

Many morals we all hold dear run counter to happiness. It won't make you happy to dive into ice cold water to save someone. Things like adultery or theft might make someone happy but they are determined to be immoral. No matter how you repackage it without God all you have left is opinion to make moral requirements and no way to establish which opinions are correct. It is a impotent source.

I disagree. If your main aim is the for everyone to be happy then adultery and theft become immoral (in most cases) and saving someone's life also becomes moral (in most cases)

How specifically? You have spent quite a lot of time argueing semantics without addressing the actual issues.

because God at some point must have conceived morality. So according to the definition it's subjective (or not objective).

It has no effect on objective morals. Besides the bible states that murder (unjustified killing) is wrong. What God did at the flood or the cannanites etc....was justified so he did not act inconsistent with his own standards.

I'll make this simple
1) God is not emotionless and free from bias.
2) Any morals coming from God will be in some way impacted by his emotions and bias.
3) Objective morality must be unaffected by emotion and bias
4) Objective morality can't come from God.

I said virtually all societies have the same core morals. I did not say they have identicle moral codes. How can it be explained that every society believes murder or theft is wrong unless it is an objective truth.

common sense? Evolution? I'm sure there are more explanations but these are the 2 that spring to mind.

I have forgotten why we are discussing the semantics of the word atheism.

Because I'm showing you that not everyone who calls themselves atheist use your definition.

I did not say atheists are gnostic, I said the opposite. I said they were not agnostic. They make a possitive assertion there is no God. The agnostic doesn't claim anything possitive regarding God.

ffs. I explained to you what an agnostic atheist is. An agnostic atheist doesn't make a positive assertion that god doesn't exist they just don't believe that there is a god.

That is unbiblical and incorrect.

I only care about what is logical and makes sense

You can see that my position is perfectly consistent with the bible and yours is not.

see above

No matter how many signs people who want to disbelieve see their dark minds will never allow them to believe. That is a very common concept in spiritual warfare. The bible also says that if people resist God long enough he will stop striving with them and allow their evil nature to darken and distort their thoughts.

I was wondering when this ridiculous "argument" would peer it's ugly head