• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
LOL! There is no criteria because there is no proof of the existence of a God.
Let me give you some advice, that will not be taken. Being un-educated in an area is no moral fault. Being ignorant is human. Even making claims that are untrue is expected and no big deal. However when Ignorance or a lack of familiarity produces contrived information, preemptive denials of reliable data, and will not recognize the abject failure of it's own case things start to get ugly.


Saying this does not make it so. I was raised Christian, and as stated many times, also took Comparative Religions, and a separate course with the Catholic church. You not liking what I say - does not make what I say wrong.

When a person is wrong, attempts to defend being wrong after proof or strong evidence has been given to show them wrong, and then to pile it on uses pop culture acronyms to insinuate the proof they were wrong is silly then that is lethal to their credibility, and you have a full fledged liberal at hand.

Again - you have not proven anything I've said to be wrong.

Proof of God has nothing to do with anything I said. Since you claim God is evil then you must have some standard by which you know this to be actually true. LOL! is not a standard, irrelevant statistics is not a standard, denial of accurate statistics is not a standard, and contrived stories about Cortez that contradict the reliable accounts of even hostile eye witnesses is not a standard.

Is there one? It was your claim not mine? It is your burden, not mine, or even God's.


I don't believe your God exists. I am using what your own Bible claims about your God.

If you are going to use stats - expect others to also come up with stats. LOL!


And finally - the Cortez info is accurate.


Ingledsva said:
It is like asking us to supply the criteria which are capable of accurately judging the moral character of Flying Pink Unicorns.


I did not call pink unicorns evil. If I did you can bet I would have a standard capable of making that judgment. To call X evil then say X does not exist is self contradictory.


I was making a comparison. You basing morals and ethics on an invisible man, is no different then basing them on invisible Flying Pink Unicorns. You set your argument on a not-provable -unknown.


Ingledsva said:
We are discussing a book written by desert people thousands of years ago, and their beliefs. Nothing more. You believing that their God idea exists - does not make it so.


That same book has been evaluated by those experts most able to know (the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history) and have said it meets every standard in modern law and the historical method for reliable testimony. Add to this that billions have experienced the truth of what it claims in ways just as real (and in many cases far more real) than any scientists has for any claim. These and several thousands more pieces of evidence are what has made a story about a man who worked for 3 years in a minor Roman backwater the most important document in human history. Your colorization for convenience of what you apparently do not understand is disingenuous, unjustifiable, and also typical. In my experience the more liberal a person (or their claims) are the more they hate reality and substitute their own, and the less likely they would ever admit it. Once you start off on the wrong side of reality the use of dishonorable argumentation becomes an absolute necessity.


There is no proof what-so-ever for the supernatural/magic parts of the Bible.

And there never will be.



*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
We evolved, and so did "morals" and "ethics," so people could began to live together in groups without killing each other. Hence what is moral and ethical in one place, is not necessarily taught to be so in another. This is proof that it happens this way. There is no proof of your YHVH, let alone that some ancient tribal group has God's moral and ethical laws. We can see the evolution of such when we read the laws of other ancient cultures.
Who's standards are you using. Murder was wrong in some cultures 5000 years ago and right in some cultures today. Is that your evolution. Some cultures love their neighbors today and some eat their neighbors today. Who's evolution are you talking about? 3000 years ago the Hebrews is all life had value and is precious, as little as 300 years ago our founding fathers said they same. Today liberals systematically end human lives in the womb on an industrial scale but are offended by the execution of a convicted killer. That is de-evolution not evolution. The existence of a variation in ethics is no more proof that morality (in totality has evolved). It is proof of two things. 1. People universally believe some things are actually and objectively wrong. 2. That people do not agree on what they are but do agree what 90% of them are. That proves we need a higher standard for humanity than humanity.

Before I object too much let me agree with part of what you say. I agree that without an objective standard morals are not tethered to anything and do evolve, devolve, and float around based on arbitrary social norms at the time. I do not think secular morality has evolved (gotten better, in general), but I do thing it changes constantly (sometimes in diabolical directions and sometimes in good directions). The problem is no actual way to know which is which. This dooms us to constant repetition without hope for general betterment. However with those that believe in a God morals have the capacity to rise above human opinion and preference. That is kind of my point. Your moral system is either right be accident or untrue by definition. You can say Murder is wrong but you have no foundation that makes that statement true. The next generation is free to say murder is just fine because no transcendent that prevents it. I can say Murder is wrong and if God exists that is an absolute truth. The latter produces or can produce a just society with common ideals. The former produces a non-moral (moral) system that is whatever the strongest group decides it is.

These prove what I said. Morals and Ethics evolve over time within groups. As I have said many times - it is perfectly "moral and ethical" to a headhunter, for him to eat an enemy. That is the way it evolved there.

These "groups" are now becoming global - and as such the nations are negotiating what is acceptable, to belong to the new "group." These will become the new standards of Moral and ethical actions.

All "morals and ethics," are what is agreed to be such, within a particular group, - and these change over time.


Ingledsva said:
How do I distinguish right and wrong; - the same way everyone else does - what I learned from my culture - studying the reasoned out laws they came up with, and changed over time with new info - my own growing consciousness about self and other - and how I would want to be treated.
Since what you learned from your culture is equal to what you learned fro other people, then which people were right. If your using popular opinion then your moral system would have been completely different and cruel if you were born in 1925 Germany, 1920 Japan, 1930 USSR, or a thousand other places and times. 2. So whether you are cruel or kind is dependent only on when and where you are born. That is the greatest moral failure a system can have. Hitler and John Wayne Gacey were not actually doing anything wrong in your view, they were only acted socially unfashionable. God help us.


It is "moral/ethical," or "unethical," to the group that agrees to believe it is such.

For instance all of the religions of Abraham have believed at one time or another that it is "moral and ethical" to torture and murder people for nothing other then having a different religion.

This is why we need an evolving world view, and world wide discussion and exchange of ideas. If we had just stopped with the moral/ethical ideas of the ancient Hebrew, we would be in deep do-do. Torture and murder for religion would be rampant.

"In my view" Hitler is wrong because I belong to, and believe, a group that evolved the idea that murder is wrong. If I were brought up as an ancient Hebrew - then obviously I would believe that mass murder is OK.

Ingledsva said:
Abortion has nothing to do with this conversation - however, I'll say it again, - any part of me is ME until birth-autonomy and the breath of life.

1. I use abortion all the time because it is the most glaring failure and hypocrisy of secular morality. It is just an extreme example used to make a point.

That is your opinion - not mine.


2. You have no foundation to make your claims to rights over organs or appendages true. I do. I however grant that you have that right to make a point.


LOL! Right! I'd like to see you stick to that idea, as someone is running down the street with one of your organs.


3. You are taking the very right (and in fact all rights) from a life that you demand for yourself. You demand rights to your body at the exact same time you deny them to the fetus. You have no actual foundation nor even a way to ever have one that separates the time the fetus has no rights from the time it does. Your just choosing what ever standard is convenient for you because you have no transcendent standard. This is about as glaring a failure as a system can exhibit.


I was born, therefore I am an autonomous being. No birth - no being.

Also as discussed before - the two sides have come up with a workable compromise. No abortion after a fetus reaches a stage where it might reasonably take a breath and survive once outside the womb.



4. If someone were to have asked me what is the greatest secular failure a secular moral system could exhibit. I would have answered one that produces massive death among the most innocent group of lives possible on a large scale, which is clothed in some kind of non-existent sovereign right for one group but which is denied to the other helpless group, one which arises from pure convenience, and one which has no actual real justification possible. IOW the greatest possible evidence of secular moral failure is abortion.


I get such a kick out of this - when you folks are arguing the deaths of live babies in your Bible stories are moral.


5. I could use a thousand examples of secular moral failure but if I am talking to a person who cannot acknowledge it's most abject failure what would be the point.

Your moral system is based on whims and arbitrary preferences and opinion. That is about the most immoral foundation possible, and is the worst methodology to achieve a just society I could even theoretically construct.


ALL moral/ethical systems are evolved preference.



*
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It's been a year since the school shooting. It's amazing how much good has come from it. Or not. What good has any of the violence in all of human history done? Most of us seem to forget and move on. Oh, and what was God's plan in allowing kids to be gunned down? Of course he's not evil. It wasn't him that pulled the trigger. The guy made a free-will choice. What could God do? His hands were tied.
 

adi2d

Active Member
It's been a year since the school shooting. It's amazing how much good has come from it. Or not. What good has any of the violence in all of human history done? Most of us seem to forget and move on. Oh, and what was God's plan in allowing kids to be gunned down? Of course he's not evil. It wasn't him that pulled the trigger. The guy made a free-will choice. What could God do? His hands were tied.

His hands were tied? He's God.

Make gun misfire
Make firing pin disappear
Stop the shooter with heart attack
Raise shooter up 1000 ft then let him go

I'm far from being a god but there's four things off top of my head
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
His hands were tied? He's God.

Make gun misfire
Make firing pin disappear
Stop the shooter with heart attack
Raise shooter up 1000 ft then let him go

I'm far from being a god but there's four things off top of my head
That would be intervening. That's against his rules he made for himself, otherwise we'd be like robots or puppets on a string. What would that prove? This way we get to really prove we love him even though we can't see him, but I can feel him. It's like God is pulling me towards him. Like I'm drawn to him in some mysterious way but not with physical strings. That would not allow me my free will--more like with spiritual strings, a soft still voice. So I'm no spiritual robot. He doesn't wind me up and make me blindly follow him no matter how idiotic his rules might sound. I do it willingly because he told me to. Get it. So come follow me. I love you and he loves you. It is the truth. Turn off your brain. Things will all be explained later in heaven where we will all will be perfect and follow his will perfectly like little spiritual robots, oops, I mean like perfect little angels.

Oh never mind, you're right. He could and has intervened in the past, so why not now? Did he really need us to go through 6000 or so years of pain and suffering and death and evil? Just to teach us a lesson? For you Christians out there, are you sure this makes sense?
 

adi2d

Active Member
That would be intervening. That's against his rules he made for himself, otherwise we'd be like robots or puppets on a string. What would that prove? This way we get to really prove we love him even though we can't see him, but I can feel him. It's like God is pulling me towards him. Like I'm drawn to him in some mysterious way but not with physical strings. That would not allow me my free will--more like with spiritual strings, a soft still voice. So I'm no spiritual robot. He doesn't wind me up and make me blindly follow him no matter how idiotic his rules might sound. I do it willingly because he told me to. Get it. So come follow me. I love you and he loves you. It is the truth. Turn off your brain. Things will all be explained later in heaven where we will all will be perfect and follow his will perfectly like little spiritual robots, oops, I mean like perfect little angels.

Oh never mind, you're right. He could and has intervened in the past, so why not now? Did he really need us to go through 6000 or so years of pain and suffering and death and evil? Just to teach us a lesson? For you Christians out there, are you sure this makes sense?


You had me on the hook for a while :D
The way I read the story if God wants to intervene he does
Parents burying their children is a ****** up way to teach a lesson
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Saying this does not make it so. I was raised Christian, and as stated many times, also took Comparative Religions, and a separate course with the Catholic church. You not liking what I say - does not make what I say wrong.
I did not say anything about liking or disliking anything you said. I said it is not historical in Cortez's case. It was mathematical non-sense in the case of your irrelevant statistics (if that had been a statistical exercise in college you would have failed, you equating the evidence for God and the evidence for pink unicorns was a false equality of hyperbolic proportions. That is why your argument was what I said it was. I did not like it for those reasons but whether I liked it or not had nothing to do with what I said.



Again - you have not proven anything I've said to be wrong.
You do not prove historical claims one way or the other. Historical claims are resolved to highest probability or best fit. My data came from far better sources than yours by far. Therefor mine is most probably true and your most probably false. That is how historical conclusions are made. The worst possible methodology is what you have done. Make up something about history that never occurred and suggest it is true until someone proves it is false. That is ridiculous.



I don't believe your God exists. I am using what your own Bible claims about your God.
That has nothing to do with anything. The Bible says God is perfect. You say he isn't. To do that means you must provide a criteria reliable and transcendent enough to judge God's actions, and that you are not using the Bible to claim God is evil. Your taking actions from the Bible that you know next to nothing about and assuming you know everything about, then your assuming that your idea of morality is absolute (when in reality it is not even true), then assuming your "moral system" is binding on God. If every step in a process is an assumption whatever it produces is meaningless.

Let's try again. Lets take the most likely example of where God could be proven to be wrong if he actually ever was. Lets say the flood was literal. Prove God was evil by producing it. I will warn you that I will tear apart any assumption used in that proof.

If you are going to use stats - expect others to also come up with stats. LOL!
I do not care if you use stats. THEY MUST HOWEVER BE APPLICABLE AND USED CORRECTLY, your use of them was the diametrical opposite of it. It was an example of exactly what freshmen statistics teachers say is an improper use of statistics. Your stats do not get any more irrelevant. Use them correctly and I have no problem what ever.


And finally - the Cortez info is accurate.
NO it is not. Give me the sources I asked for and I will show how and why it is not accurate. You picked the wrong person to debate military history with and one of the military leaders I know the most about. I know very well what the reliable and authoritative accounts say (I have read almost all of them), and they have plenty of terrible acts in them but not what you mentioned. For example what you said about his battle with the Spaniards sent by Cuba's governor to stop Cortez is wrong in every detail.








I was making a comparison. You basing morals and ethics on an invisible man, is no different then basing them on invisible Flying Pink Unicorns. You set your argument on a not-provable -unknown.
No they are not. No book (scrutinized more than any other in history) was written by unicorns. Unicorns do not have billions of people that attest to his existence. Unicorns do not have followers that comprise the most generous demographic on earth. Drawing equalities between extremely unequal things is dishonest and plain silly. You set your argument on a non-existent. Any source of morality will be an un-provable unknown. In fact most of the decisions you make everyday use un-provable unknowns. The double standards are exhausting. God just like everything else in reality is a known to those who know, while objectively un-provable today he has more evidence than much of accepted science. Not one sentence you typed here was true or meaningful.


There is no proof what-so-ever for the supernatural/magic parts of the Bible.

And there never will be.
Prove there will never be proof of the supernatural. Billions of people claim to have experienced proof of the supernatural. How many does it require? How many have experienced proof of black holes, multiverses, strings, etc...?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What is arbitrary about using reason to weigh out and analyze the consequences of possible actions? That strikes me as being the opposite of arbitrary.
You so called reason is one assumption based on another speculation. The entire thing is arbitrary. Reasoning out what is right and wrong is irrelevant to what is actually right or wrong without God. Give me any moral absolute derived without God and I will show you it equals opinion at best. Well who's opinion are we to use? What do we do if 1/2 of the population's opinion is that murder is ok and the other half it is wrong?

What does strike me as arbitrary is following the orders of an authority figure just because that authority figure says so. And how on earth is this considered moral?
If that was what I was doing I would be obeying all authority figures. This is another mischaracterization of faith into some grotesquely inaccurate form which will allow you a better chance to condemn it. It also is a genetic fallacy and moral epistemology not moral ontology. I believe God is the best moral foundation by reason and evidence for existence on a far better level and for far more substantial reasons than you have to believe that atoms whirring around in your head are telling you moral truth. Actual moral truth can't be founded on anything without God. Your system is not better or worse. It is impossible.

I have said it a million times so far. It is very easy to prove me wrong.
Give me a single moral belief that you can prove is true or would even be objectively true without God.
If you were right the test to prove it can't get any easier.
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
I have said it a million times so far. It is very easy to prove me wrong.
Give me a single moral belief that you can prove is true or would even be objectively true without God.
If you were right the test to prove it can't get any easier.

What is the point of arguing about absolute moral truths? Exaggerated concepts like this are not needed when talking about universal principles of morality and justice. This is a frequently used sneaky straw-man set up for apologetics - asking for theological constructs (exagerrated imaginations) that don't apply to anything but their concept of the absolute Super Exaggerated Being.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Obviously there was more then one Friar. We are talking years here.There are two sides to this story - the Christian conquerors' side, - and native info, with a few Friars not afraid to write truth, side. I believe the natives.
There were two priests with Cortez when he landed. The most authoritative account (which is honest and forthright) is from Cabbot (the official priest) and does not mention a single event you did (though he mentions many horrible events he did not approve of). The other priest if he actually existed at all did not write anything considered reliable and is so obscure that I have never seen him even mentioned in any of the authoritative accounts. I could not find his name nor anything he authored at all. Do you have the name of this man and the works he produced? Any additional sources that were priests were not contemporary with Cortez expedition to Mexico city.

If you look at any list of contemporary authoritative resources on Cortez in Mexico you will find my sources in every one of them.



There is NO fabrication in what I wrote. The information is in the books as stated.
I did not mean you fabricated the story. I meant you are using stories fabricated or at best distorted that others wrote. Tell you what pick your best one and give me the full version of the event and it's author and we will compare that with the best information and sources available.

Cortez was a lying, cheating, torturing, raping, murdering, nasty individual. What is written about him tells us this.
Unless you are a new species you have lied, cheated, caused misery and suffering of others, and have been nasty. I doubt you have murdered anyone though. Cortez was an extreme hybrid type of person. He did greater things that you, I, or 99% of humanity did, he also did more horrible things than the same people. I have never said anything different and you have never shown anything different. What exactly is the point to this? I would have condemned more than half of what Cortez did, probably far more. However he not do what you suggested and that is not the point anyway.





Hell, he started this with mutiny - when he sailed off with ships and men belonging to Velasquez, - when Velasquez found there to be problems with him. As I'm sure you know, he made it impossible for his own people to leave or escape. He also killed his own countrymen that were sent to reel him back in. They enslaved and raped native women. Tortured and murdered the Nobles.
He was given men, ships, money, horses, etc... from the governor of Cuba. He was even given a royal mandate concerning what he was to do and who got what. I have not read these books in years but he did two things that caused him to fall out of favor with the Governor. One was personal, the other and far more important was the governor thought he would get a higher percentage of stuff using another person. Cortez heard a rumor that he was to be recalled and set sail before the actual order reached him. Technically he was doing as he had been granted permission to do. Because he left in a hurry he also had to quickly pay for much of the supplies himself. Who cares? I never claimed Cortez was some upright moral example anyway. I have no idea why you wish to label him a bad person. As far as what kind of man Cortez was here is my official claim but this claim is not relevant. He did things for God that were right and just and in the face of odds only a handful of men have ever faced. He did horrible things in his pursuit of wealth, land, and power as well. Cortez had no abnormal ration of light and darkness in his heart compared with most of us. He was however in a situation where that same ration of evil and good produced amplified actions. He did great and wonderful things, he did horrible things (none of which are what you claimed). They were huge events by necessity. Your ignoring every extraordinary great act, and concentrating on only the extraordinary bad acts. You are producing what you need by selective inclusion to get a desired result. As usual I am evaluating a concept based on an accurate inclusion of all the facts. You are not. However none of this has anything to do with anything I originally said.





Absolute BULL on your part. If you have studied him, as you say you have, then you would know about these works, and a lot of these things that he did.
There is no reliable record that agrees with yours. Your accounts (almost all of them) are distortions written by separated from the actual events by years and hundreds of miles. I have read every account by people who were there considered reliable and they all agree with what I claimed.

As an example Cortez did not (he did not do so on purpose) massacre the men that were sent after him. He personally drove straight at the commanders quarters in the dead of night and killed or captured him. He then recruited by freewill and persuasion the men that had been sent. He did not want to kill them because he wanted to refill his ranks. You can not do this with dead men and you can not do this by force. Those men freely chose to follow Cortez and only a few were killed. Your version of that story is not only complete historical fabrication, it also defies every principle associated with a conquest where an army is vastly outnumbered. For example never loosing men without great gain. You never risk what few men you have unless what can be gained is of great value. You apparently know very little about warfare and do not know enough to recognize historical inaccuracy. Neither is much of a fault, but it becomes a huge fault when that person refuses to acknowledge those short comings and what they produce.



Again, pick your best single alternate historical account from the list you posted and we will resolve what most reliably is recorded to have actually occurred. You most likely would never admit it (you can't, if one claim goes down the whole house of cards will implode) but it will satisfy me and what I expect of myself.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Give me any moral absolute derived without God and I will show you it equals opinion at best.

Give me any moral absolute derived with God, and I'll show you it equals opinion at best.

Well who's opinion are we to use?

Not the opinions of the men who wrote the Christian Bible... that's for sure.

What do we do if 1/2 of the population's opinion is that murder is ok and the other half it is wrong?

One half tries to outvote the other half. But not to worry. Murder is outlawed in virtually every society on our planet. Even the non-Christians ones, which must be a conundrum for you, I guess.

If that was what I was doing I would be obeying all authority figures. This is another mischaracterization of faith into some grotesquely inaccurate form which will allow you a better chance to condemn it.

That's just silly. The follower of authority chooses one authority and proclaims it to be the truest and best authority in all the land.

Pretty much exactly like you do.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You so called reason is one assumption based on another speculation. The entire thing is arbitrary. Reasoning out what is right and wrong is irrelevant to what is actually right or wrong without God. Give me any moral absolute derived without God and I will show you it equals opinion at best. Well who's opinion are we to use? What do we do if 1/2 of the population's opinion is that murder is ok and the other half it is wrong?
How many times can you answer this question without ever actually answering it? Repeating your empty claims that morality is impossible without god doesn’t actually answer it.

It is now clear to me that you don’t know the meaning of the word arbitrary. Or that following the whims of the boss in the sky (no matter what he says) is just that – arbitrary. Not only that, but it’s not moral, in that you are not actually exercising any morality in doing so. (Except when you decided that god is good in the first place. How you arrived at the conclusion, I don’t know, because you seem to be saying that we can’t make or own moral decisions.)
If that was what I was doing I would be obeying all authority figures. This is another mischaracterization of faith into some grotesquely inaccurate form which will allow you a better chance to condemn it. It also is a genetic fallacy and moral epistemology not moral ontology. I believe God is the best moral foundation by reason and evidence for existence on a far better level and for far more substantial reasons than you have to believe that atoms whirring around in your head are telling you moral truth. Actual moral truth can't be founded on anything without God. Your system is not better or worse. It is impossible.
Sorry, that’s how I see it. And I’m certainly not the only one.

Another non-answer. How did you decide that god is the good one and the devil is the bad one?

That is exactly what you are doing. You don’t have to be obeying all authority figures. Just the one you’ve decided is the ultimate authority figure.

You do what you do because the Bible tells you that God is the best moral foundation and so you have no choice but to justify the actions of said god as moral and good. And if you don’t think that’s true, just look at the way you defend Biblical slavery, murder and genocide. I don’t believe for a second that you would be doing so without consent from the boss in the sky. I don’t think anybody would, because it is immoral.

I think the system human beings actually use (reason, logic, weighing evidence and consequences of actions) is the best system we’ve got and the only one we can have. We couldn’t have made it this far without it. And I do think it is superior to a “system” that appears to be nothing more than obedience to authority or “might makes right.”

And what I don't think is the right thing to do is to follow the morality of people who lived thousands of years ago because to do so would be to ignore how far we've come as a species and how much we've grown and learned since then. Those people didn't know anything close to what we know now about just about everything.

I have said it a million times so far. It is very easy to prove me wrong.
Not only myself, but many others have explained why we think you are wrong.
Give me a single moral belief that you can prove is true or would even be objectively true without God.
If you were right the test to prove it can't get any easier.
Answer my question first, please. Actually answer it. How are you exercising morality when you’re simply following orders from the invisible boss who simply declares that “he” is absolute morality? How is it moral to kill your child on god’s orders? How is it moral to keep slaves, on god’s orders? How is it moral to slaughter and pillage neighbouring tribes on god’s orders? I really want to know, because I just don’t get it.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
These prove what I said. Morals and Ethics evolve over time within groups. As I have said many times - it is perfectly "moral and ethical" to a headhunter, for him to eat an enemy. That is the way it evolved there.
Actual morality never changes. What secular people claim as morals does because it has no actual standards. It can do anything because it is tied to nothing. I have already granted moral apprehension changes when morality is disconnected from any actual foundation. However morality that does have a actual foundation in reality does not change. What secular people do has nothing to do with actual morality and is untethered from anything actually true so yes it can distort, go backwards, forwards, disappear all together, or become over bearing. It will however never be actually moral truth. Biblical morals codes can remain constant because their source remains constant and objective. Your last sentence proves your morality is moral. You say (and it is the honest truth) that morals developed from arbitrary opinion make murder absolutely wrong, or absolutely right based on what culture you grow up in. Forgetting that that is the most dysfunctional moral model possible it proves every single thing I have said about the faults of your moral world view. It by necessity produces suffering and misery and is just as right or wrong as any other arbitrary moral code. That is an abhorrent world view and also proof it can't be used to make any truthful moral judgment about God or anything else.

These "groups" are now becoming global - and as such the nations are negotiating what is acceptable, to belong to the new "group." These will become the new standards of Moral and ethical actions.
That is a legal description not a moral description. We are discussing the latter not the former.

All "morals and ethics," are what is agreed to be such, within a particular group, - and these change over time.
No that is how laws are determined. Legality and morality are independent issues. Even under legal restraint you, I, and everyone actualizes moral decision that laws may not allow for. I am not discussing what the foundation for a statute is. I am discussing why murder is wrong is a truthful statement. Things that are legal are not always moral, things that are illegal are sometimes moral. I do not care about debating the arbitrary whims of human derived institutions. I care about debating what is true.

It is "moral/ethical," or "unethical," to the group that agrees to believe it is such.
No it is not. If everyone agreed that murder is good and God said murder is wrong. Then murder is wrong and everyone on earth is immoral. You have redefined morality as ethics, and they are very different or can be most of the time.

For instance all of the religions of Abraham have believed at one time or another that it is "moral and ethical" to torture and murder people for nothing other then having a different religion.
No they have not. There is not one verse in the NT that allows that for any reason what so ever. It in fact prohibits it. There are some OT stories that require a little context to illustrate it but God never authorized a general (or open ended) dictate to harm people who did not believe. For example the Canaanites were killed because they were sacrificing their own children and raiding Israel at harvest time every year. They were not killed because they believed something different. I will not defend anything Islam claims. God gave the most precious thing he had in order to save people who held every belief possible. I have no desire to debate this. I will prove my point after having supplied thousands of words, historical and theological contexts, etc... and it will not fit your narrative so you will deny it. There is no point as we have done similar things with that exact result many times.

This is why we need an evolving world view, and world wide discussion and exchange of ideas. If we had just stopped with the moral/ethical ideas of the ancient Hebrew, we would be in deep do-do. Torture and murder for religion would be rampant.
You just justified the moral correctness of head hunters chopping off heads by your standard. Here you insist the standard that allows for head hunting, heart removal, and the systematic murder of life in the womb is the one that produces more justice than the one that would have and has prohibited these same events. Amazing. The only need for evolution is if you currently have a deficiency. There is no deficiency with Christian morality. There is quite a deficiency with man's willingness to acknowledge it and employ it. Now if you can get a more obedient human through evolution then maybe, but we will never obey a moral system no matter how perfectly it evolves. Murder was claimed to be wrong 5000 years ago, and we have been killings each other in far larger numbers ever since. The Christian US was morally superior in 98% of the statistical data than the far more secular US in the last 50 years. If that is evolution you can keep it. We have gone from a desire to kill a member of another clan, to a desire to kill another group of people, and have finally evolved to being prepared to annihilate every human on earth and the moral insanity to have almost done so several times. whatever direction we are going in is the wrong one.






"In my view" Hitler is wrong because I belong to, and believe, a group that evolved the idea that murder is wrong. If I were brought up as an ancient Hebrew - then obviously I would believe that mass murder is OK.
However you would have to sit by and allow Hitler to have systematically annihilated the entire Jewish race and take over the free world. Because in your system he was just as morally valid as you are. You would have to abandon your moral foundations completely in order to find a methodology to fight against and kill him and the forces who followed him. That is another perfect example of the immorality or your morality. Mine allows for another and more just society to claim Hitler was violating objective wrongs and that stopping him even at the cost of killing was justifiable. You would have allowed the deaths and enslavement of billons in your views. I and people like me used Christian values to save those billons. Yet you condemn the latter, and support the former. All I have to do is keep talking to an atheist and they three things will always occur.

1. You will always create paradoxes and self contradictions because you deny the existence of half of reality.
2. You will always eventually hang your self given enough rope (as you have done so with that last claim among several).
3. You will employ any means necessary to refuse admitting you are dangling from the noose you tied your self.

You have constructed better and more emphatic examples of the complete failure of your moral system than I could have.






ALL moral/ethical systems are evolved preference.
You missed by far the most important aspect of moral foundations on which everything depends. Moral foundations fail when they either do not exist or reside with their adherents. If foxes made up morality no hens would exist. If USSR party members made up morality no freedom would exist. If Hitler made up reality no Jews would exist. If you made up reality life in the womb could be systematically destroyed at will. If children made up morality the world would be made of candy and puppy's and parent would be in jail. The only way a fallible being can have infallible moral standards is if they come from outside their race. The human race has never, will never, and can never produce any government, law book, or culture that is just and good, because an imperfect source cannot possibly produce a perfect anything. We being far from perfect will produce nothing but far from perfect things until we eventually destroy ourselves.

Under my system torturing a little child is actually wrong.
Under yours there is nothing wrong with killing a child in the womb, and torturing a child is nothing more than acting unfashionably.

I, God, and most Christians will accept that you have the right to believe that.
We deny that you have the right to actualize that but that is not my concern in a debate. I will not allow you to claim that is a moral or better system than mine.


Before you act all offended pay attention to the fact I said it was consistent with your system. I actually believe you think torturing a child is actually and objectively wrong as almost every one else does. That belief however is inconsistent with your contrived system. You and most people smuggle in the things of God as needed or desired but do your best to exclude their only source. An atheist can be as moral as any theist, he just can't account for found his acting moral in any Godless system.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
It's been a year since the school shooting. It's amazing how much good has come from it. Or not. What good has any of the violence in all of human history done? Most of us seem to forget and move on. Oh, and what was God's plan in allowing kids to be gunned down? Of course he's not evil. It wasn't him that pulled the trigger. The guy made a free-will choice. What could God do? His hands were tied.
I am not for violence but in a world full of wicked people it is an honorable necessity.

Violence set an entire race free of slavery.
Violence saved the entire free world from tyranny more than once.
Violence saved the west from Islamic Tyranny more than once.
Violence saved the Jewish race from both German tyranny and Islamic annihilation more than once.

The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing about it.


I also think most of histories violence is abhorrent and war its self is a scourge. However it is also a noble and necessary scourge at times.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
His hands were tied? He's God.

Make gun misfire
Make firing pin disappear
Stop the shooter with heart attack
Raise shooter up 1000 ft then let him go

I'm far from being a god but there's four things off top of my head

So God is obligated to suspend free will and make anyone who is acting imperfectly into an automaton because you say he must? That is just for starters a false optimization fallacy.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Actual morality never changes. What secular people claim as morals does because it has no actual standards. It can do anything because it is tied to nothing. I have already granted moral apprehension changes when morality is disconnected from any actual foundation. However morality that does have a actual foundation in reality does not change. What secular people do has nothing to do with actual morality and is untethered from anything actually true so yes it can distort, go backwards, forwards, disappear all together, or become over bearing. It will however never be actually moral truth. Biblical morals codes can remain constant because their source remains constant and objective. Your last sentence proves your morality is moral. You say (and it is the honest truth) that morals developed from arbitrary opinion make murder absolutely wrong, or absolutely right based on what culture you grow up in. Forgetting that that is the most dysfunctional moral model possible it proves every single thing I have said about the faults of your moral world view. It by necessity produces suffering and misery and is just as right or wrong as any other arbitrary moral code. That is an abhorrent world view and also proof it can't be used to make any truthful moral judgment about God or anything else.
Oh, I see. Secular people, right.
So it’s still considered morally right to burn witches? Because the leaders of the Christian church certainly thought it was for hundreds of years. After all, you say that morality only changes for secular people. Why aren’t you spending a good portion of your time hunting down witches?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What is the point of arguing about absolute moral truths? Exaggerated concepts like this are not needed when talking about universal principles of morality and justice. This is a frequently used sneaky straw-man set up for apologetics - asking for theological constructs (exagerrated imaginations) that don't apply to anything but their concept of the absolute Super Exaggerated Being.

If you see no value in our moral systems being based on truth I do not know what else to say. If I decided it was justifiable to kill Hitler and those that followed him or to take a man's life who had killed another person. I would hope that truthfulness of the moral justification used would have been important to anyone involved.

The terms justice, good, and evil are almost meaningless without a transcendent standard.


Your last statement seems to be surrender but an attempt to blame it on another persons mistake.

Let me restate the official argument since you seem to not be familiar with it.

1. Almost all people believe objective moral truths exist.
2. If even one moral one person things actually is objectively true.
3. That requires a transcendent source.
4. A transcendent source requires a transcendent being, God.

So if any moral actions is actually good or actually evil then it require that God exists.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
If you see no value in our moral systems being based on truth I do not know what else to say. If I decided it was justifiable to kill Hitler and those that followed him or to take a man's life who had killed another person. I would hope that truthfulness of the moral justification used would have been important to anyone involved.

The terms justice, good, and evil are almost meaningless without a transcendent standard.


Your last statement seems to be surrender but an attempt to blame it on another persons mistake.

Let me restate the official argument since you seem to not be familiar with it.

1. Almost all people believe objective moral truths exist.
2. If even one moral one person things actually is objectively true.
3. That requires a transcendent source.
4. A transcendent source requires a transcendent being, God.

So if any moral actions is actually good or actually evil then it require that God exists.

Why do you think objectivity requires transcendence?

And what makes you think your god is objective?
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
Let's try again. Lets take the most likely example of where God could be proven to be wrong if he actually ever was. Lets say the flood was literal. Prove God was evil by producing it. I will warn you that I will tear apart any assumption used in that proof.

Mind if I join in? I was bored, just cruising through various threads when I saw this. I like these sorts of challenges.


Aside from the fact that God admits to creating evil in Isaiah, if we assume that the flood was true then it caused the death of all the earth’s inhabitants, save for Noah and his family. (Oh, and what was it that poor animals did that required them to be being wiped out in such a flash of temper?) But we shouldn’t really be surprised by that act of genocide when the Bible informs us of God’s violent and unforgiving disposition. It is spelled out for us in Matthew 10:34-36: Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household. Oh! Nasty!

Now, an omnipotent God didn’t need to go straight to genocide (to quote Ricky Gervais), he could simply have corrected the behaviour of his creation; after all, whatever he created he could change or amend. But no, as the Bible tells us (Nahum 1:2-8) The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God. And so he caused unnecessary suffering to his creation to satisfy his anger at himself for messing things up at the design stage, and thus he will come: cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate (Isaiah 13: 5-11), and all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy (Zephaniah 1:18), and those slain by the LORD will be many (Isaiah 66: 16).

So although God regretted what he’d done and promised never to do such a despicable act ever again, presumably when he’d calmed down, we see those psychopathic tendencies were still worryingly evident. And there is no escaping the fact that it was an act by God with the deliberate intention to cause suffering and death to his creation. Now then, there are a few itsy-bitsy logical conundrums in the aforementioned. First of all, how come Almighty God, the omnipotent creator of all things, was usurped and challenged by his own creation? Secondly, why did God get so angry when he knew in his omniscience precisely what was going to occur? And thirdly why was is not within his power to forestall the mass murder by simply creating the world they way he wanted it to be. And fourthly, almost as an incidental point, where did the supposed attribute of benevolence come from. If ever there was a missed opportunity for a bit of charity and forgiveness then this had to be it.

So, the flood was an evil act, and if anyone still presumes to grant mitigating circumstances then there is still this to be considered: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. The guy is still boiling with anger, has a persecution complex and is determined to bear a grudge, but at least the animals get off lightly this time.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Give me any moral absolute derived with God, and I'll show you it equals opinion at best.
I will make it even easier. All of them. Any moral truth that exists requires God. I mean that anything if it is actually objectively wrong must have God as it's source.

I can already tell you how your going to screw up your response but why spoil it.

Not the opinions of the men who wrote the Christian Bible... that's for sure.
That is a conclusion based on a premise you nor any human on earth actually can know. The Bible must have been ultimately authored by 1 or two of three sources. Good and honest men, bad and dishonest men, God.

1. Bad men do not admit their own failings and do not live lives of complete self sacrifice for the benefit of others and die passively and willingly for their own lies.

So bad men are out as the author.

2. Good men do not make up lies and doom people by them if they have access to the truth wish they claim and know it is wrong. These same good men said God wrote the bible.

That means good men alone are not sufficient to have produced the Bible on their own.

By deductive logic that leaves.

3. God.


As the author of the Bible along with help from good men.

One half tries to outvote the other half. But not to worry. Murder is outlawed in virtually every society on our planet. Even the non-Christians ones, which must be a conundrum for you, I guess.
That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. 50% is not a majority. In my example a vote would produce a tie every time. However lets enter your imaginary world and pretend the side that loves to murder won the vote. Now you have two and only two choices. You can go along with them and in that we see the utter immorality of your system. Or you can resist them by using some reasoning which your own world view does not contain. In your system there is nor good or right answer. In mine there is a clear and perfectly founded justification within it that allows me to know the murderous side is actually wrong and should and will be resisted. The exact same case is why the free world could stop Hitler, you can't unless you borrow from foundations that come with God and not from your views.


That's just silly. The follower of authority chooses one authority and proclaims it to be the truest and best authority in all the land.
We were not discussing what may be done somewhere (which you did not describe anyway). We were discussing how I (or maybe a Christian) resolved our moral foundations.

Since your pattern has been to make a comment with just enough relevance in it to lure a rational person into a discussion and then to leave relevance and
rationality completely out of your next posts until they give up on you, get the obligatory non-sense freight train in gear.
 
Top