Morals without god/the bible

[B. W.]

Continued from above post

Post 2 of 3

B.W … response to part 2:

That judgment is just because if you would not return to God on his terms of surrendering your ruling relativism during this mortal life, your ruling relativism will ruin what heaven is about.

What is heaven about and how would I ruin it?

I presume my ruling relativism wouldn't ruin hell for me.

It is nice to know what the correct road to be on is before one's mortal frame dies so as to truly enter heaven and be with God in the only land where uprightness really is.

I'm sure it is nice. I know many people who think they are on the correct road as far as religion goes. From committed Christians to part time Christians, Muslims, atheists, satanist atheists, agnostics, a very good friend who consults the I-Ching and I've met a fair few wonderful people online who practice magic and occult stuff. I've never gotten to known any Hindu or Buddhist people very well.

Everyone is on a different path and some are convinced they are on the right path. Even here where most are following the path of Jesus Christ there are many disputes as to where the path of Jesus Christ lies.

All other religions depend on ones own self efforts and works to earn favor with God, gods, forces, better reincarnation, etc, enter heaven, bliss, etc. Such works declare that human works are superior to God's and thus humanity should be the real god that determines ones personal fate.

In other words, human works and efforts are superior to God's efforts and works — which by they way are defined by his act of grace. If by God's act of grace then why should human works overthrow God's grace and deeds proving that God is not God enough to save anyone and thus not really God at all. God overthrown and man becomes god.

This is more than an insult to a loving God. It is abusing God's love in order to manipulate God into serve them based on their deeds and efforts. God's ways are superior over ours. We deny justice. God does not. He lets people make there own choices despite already foreknowing their answers — he still lets people decide. That is just. Unjust would be in denying this from happening.

Also just, is foreknowing that if He, God, permitted such into heaven to live with him who had manipulated his love, mercy, justice evidenced in mortal life then they would again use God's own attributes against him in heaven as well. Since such have now entered the realm of eternity, what's to stop them from abusing God's character eternally if there are no standards in which they can be held to account accept their own?

Since God is a God of the living and not the dead and just, allowing reason to reason — what's to stop such persons from turning God's own attributes of character against him in order to overthrow God unless they surrendered willingly to be changed by God according to his terms (thru Christ) proven in this mortal life first, before entering the eternal realm?

If such persons reject God's terms in this mortal life, what is to stop them from abusing and using God's own attributes and character against him in the hereafter? Using God's own grace, mercy, love in order to demand their way? From manipulating God's standard of justice by daring God to deny his own standard of justice by annihilating them into non-being; thus, tempting God not able to keep his word justly or a true God of the living?

With such knowledge about God, those who are simply allowed in heaven without surrendering on God's terms would keep sin alive in heaven forever. - Isaiah 26:10 —

That is why you would not be allowed in… You do not think there is any objective moral standard in which to judge behavior as right or wrong. So you carry that attitude into heaven where you'll be dealing with God not men / women.

What is a just God to do? - Isaiah 24:22 -

Should God violate his own justice so our concept of justice is supreme? Who do you think you are thinking like this?

I can't take the plunge, I have little faith in it, presuming we are talking about Christianity. Also that in this mortal life we create right and wrong, we don't discover it. On a very basic level the words right and wrong are human creations in the English language, not absolutes - they are subject to change and we argue about then all the time. I don't think they convey an inherent quality, they are used to convey subjective emotions

No — not all road lead to heaven. The true road is the one that surrenders to God on his terms of grace during this mortal life — not the roads that demand God to surrender to our works. That defies logic of a God who is just way beyond what we can fully grasp.

Biblical Christianity — real Christianity points out that one road. It is different than all others as it teaches the opposite of all the rest. It is by surrendering to His works of grace in this mortal life: His work of grace through the work of the cross. Do you know of this work — what it really is and does?

Being born into a Christian home does not make you a Christian — nor does going to Church. Being a Polish Roman Catholic or from Protestant background does make you a Christian either. Christ does.

The true road is the one that surrenders to God on his terms of grace — not the roads that demand God to surrender to our works, deeds, efforts…

John 14:6
-
-
-

[B. W.]

1/5/2010 -- Continued from above

Post 3 of 3

B.W:Response to part 3:

Therefore: what is keeping you from becoming a habitual violent criminal?

I think it would make my life and the lives of others unpleasant.

I'm also a little confused as to why Christianity is not about one's deeds earning one a place in heaven but one will be judged by God's absolute moral justice before getting into heaven. Being a habitual violent criminal shouldn't affect one's chances in heaven, it's not about the deeds but more about the state of mind when acting. The Gita touches on this idea, it's not about Arjuna killing his relatives or not killing his relatives in war, it's about purity of mind - not the action which stems from it.

I am reminded of the Taoists condemning the government of ancient China for deciding that one should not kill another human being then later on adding a clause to say that killing in war doesn't count. As I've said earlier most agree that murder is wrong but many disagree on what murder is - war, meat, death penalty, abortion, euthanasia etc.

You think it would make life unpleasant?? What standard are you basing this on if none exist other than what we create. If we create, then a violent criminal creates in his / her mind that such acts are morally right.

Again — what standard do you use to make the judgment that violent acts are wrong if we create morals relativisticly?

About ones deeds - this was answered in last post…

How does the swing builder absolve himself from his responsibility of not tying the knot correctly — how? — by justifying that he only thinks it is wrong and thus not a real wrong.

Why assume the swingbuilder absolves himself in the absence of objective swing building criteria? He may take responsibility for whatever injury caused, learn from it and try to do better next time without needing to admit that the swing was objectively wrong. If my daughter's swinging seat I put up falls down I won't think it was objectively wrong, I'll accept responsibility and make sure I do a better job next time. I won't absolve myself of responsibility for whatever injury caused.

What is causing you to take responsibility? Objectively your swing building caused harm… If objective reality and morals cannot exist then was the injury real?

Right and Wrong exist — what we ought to do sometimes is not what we should do. There is a right way to build a swing set and a wrong way. The results testify to this truth. It either works or it doesn't.

There are many ways to build a swing set, not just a right and a wrong way. Shades of grey. Different swingsets work to differing degrees. If there were just a right way and a wrong way there would only be two types of swingsets. As it is there a countless numbers of them from someone swinging on a badly tied rope which wasn't even meant to a swingset in the first place to something made by a master craftsman, where you draw the line between good and bad is relative.

My dad was appalled when I told him how I tiled my bathroom, I tiled it the wrong way and should have taken far more time, preparation and care. My wife was delighted, I was quite pleased myself. If a tile falls off and injures someone, does this mean I was objectively wrong? If it does happen I will accept responsibility and learn from it but only time will tell.

It only prove there is a right way and a wrong way of doing something no matter how you try prove there isn't.

You say you accept responsibility for being wrong but if wrong is relative then how can you really accept responsibility?

What makes you responsible? Why???

When an automobile runs out of fuel — it no longer runs as it was designed. Yes or No?

No…. It was designed to move with fuel and not move without fuel. If it keeps on running when out of fuel it is then running out with the original design, unless on an incline. When an automobile runs out of fuel and stops moving it is doing exactly what it was designed to do, if it kept running the designers would be amazed as it wasn't designed to do that.

Then there are absolutes that are measurable, tangible, and objective then! Glad to see you finally agree!

Next you claim an absolute — that you do not have all the answers. Question — how is that possible if all is relatively defined and explained away?

I said: “As I've hopefully explained I don't think I have all the answers.”

Maybe I do have all the answers, I just don't know. As for relative meaning, different people require different answers - my answers, whilst answering some questions for me may not answer them for you and vice versa.

“Not knowing” is an objective statement.

Does truth exist?

You say you do not have an aversion to switching but you do and it keeps you justifying tying the knots used in life to support life wrongly. Your faith is in relativism that seeks to absolve you for all wrongs.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of anything. If I'm thrown into hell for all eternity for following my heart, asking questions, not accepting Jesus as the only son of God and generally being in a state of wonder as to wealth of religious, scientific, artistic and philosophical out there then so be it.

You proved my statement true by your answer…or you would not have mentioned being thrown in hell as an appeal that accuses God of being wrong for tossing you there. If there are no wrongs — then how can you judge God's actions as fair or not fair as evidence in your statement?

Why not take the plunge?

What is preventing you other than your own relativism? Why??? since in this mortal life we learn that Right and Wrong do exist - why do you keep denying it?

I can't take the plunge, I have little faith in it, presuming we are talking about Christianity. Also that in this mortal life we create right and wrong, we don't discover it. On a very basic level the words right and wrong are human creations in the English language, not absolutes - they are subject to change and we argue about then all the time. I don't think they convey an inherent quality, they are used to convey subjective emotions.

I was brought up Christian and abandoned it along with all religion many years ago. For the past ten years or so I've been realizing the value in religion. Maybe one day I will go back to my roots and accept Christianity but at the moment it seems a little like me beginning to appreciate the arts and being told I should commit to Da Vinci at the exclusion of all else so help my eternal soul.

Sorry for the delay in replying. And for the ridiculous amount of post in a row

What made you abandon Christianity? What standard of judgment did you use if there is none trustworthy enough exists? Again, what makes a Christian is Christ — not a church or affiliation.

Read Luke 15:4

Are you that lost sheep?
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

cslewislover:

Therefore: what is keeping you from becoming a habitual violent criminal?

I think it would make my life and the lives of others unpleasant.

He asked what is keeping you from being that way, not what your judgment of it is. From what you're saying, you mean that you are better somehow than the violent criminal. Maybe the violent criminal sees his actions as totally morally justifiable.

I believe it's my judgment that is keeping me from being a habitual violent criminal. Maybe the violent habitual criminal does see the actions as morally justifiably for themselves, I don't for me. I'm not saying I'm better than the criminal. I suppose I'm saying that I couldn't justify the actions of habitual criminal violence for myself.

It's not about your deeds, except for the one (if you want to call it that) of accepting the salvation offered by God, and His Lordship once again. We fell through disobedience, and to be saved is to have our previous sins not counted against us and for us to acknowledge the Lordship of your creator.

Sorry but this doesn't really clear up the confusion for me. If it is not about one's deeds then why the need for objective moral law that applies to one's deeds. In short if something is objectively wrong but one can still get into heaven if one does something objectively wrong but accepts salvation as offered by God then what is the point in the objective moral law? In deeds one can be a mass murderer but in mind one can be doing what one thinks is right and accepting Jesus. I know it's probably old ground but would someone torturing and killing during the Inquisition with complete devotion to God be let off as the intent was pure, if possibly misguided?

So are you seriously telling me that if an aggressor started a war and invaded your town, that you would not defend your family?? Killing should be avoided, even in these circumstances if possible, but sometimes it can't be helped.

No. I'm saying that if killing other humans is permissible don't outlaw it and redefine killing in warfare as not killing humans. Dropping a bomb which will kill innocent people to win a war is murder as far as I'm concerned. As people hate to be associated with the word murder we come up with fancy new names for it. The problem the taoists had was that the government declared killing humans as wrong but decided that there were circumstances in which the government could kill and it was ok. If you're going to make a law stick to it or don't make it at all. Make a law that says killing is usually wrong but not always, mass killing of innocents is only permitted by the government for strategic purposes.

I'd like to recommend a book that touches on some of what you write of, anyway. It's not too long and pleasant to read as well. It's called: Five Sacred Crossings: A Novel Approach to a Reasonable Faith, by Craig J. Hazen (2008 Harvest House Pub.s).

I've just ordered Antony Flew's There is a God which you recommended to me a while back. I'll stick this on my reading list but it may take me a while. I also need to read some C S Lewis, where do I start?

[Proinsias]

B.W

I'll have a reply in a few days, I'm about halfway there atm.

[cslewislover]

cslewislover:

He asked what is keeping you from being that way, not what your judgment of it is. From what you're saying, you mean that you are better somehow than the violent criminal. Maybe the violent criminal sees his actions as totally morally justifiable.

I believe it's my judgment that is keeping me from being a habitual violent criminal. Maybe the violent habitual criminal does see the actions as morally justifiably for themselves, I don't for me. I'm not saying I'm better than the criminal. I suppose I'm saying that I couldn't justify the actions of habitual criminal violence for myself.

Ok, but I was just wondering what makes you judge that way. But to be fair, you may have answered that earlier in this discussion, and I haven't read it.

It's not about your deeds, except for the one (if you want to call it that) of accepting the salvation offered by God, and His Lordship once again. We fell through disobedience, and to be saved is to have our previous sins not counted against us and for us to acknowledge the Lordship of your creator.

Sorry but this doesn't really clear up the confusion for me. If it is not about one's deeds then why the need for objective moral law that applies to one's deeds. In short if something is objectively wrong but one can still get into heaven if one does something objectively wrong but accepts salvation as offered by God then what is the point in the objective moral law? In deeds one can be a mass murderer but in mind one can be doing what one thinks is right and accepting Jesus. I know it's probably old ground but would someone torturing and killing during the Inquisition with complete devotion to God be let off as the intent was pure, if possibly misguided?

But why not? Doesn't God want us to live well together? Aren't the laws, God's morality as given to us, about that? Besides loving and accepting Him? Love God and love your neighbors. Why not have those two set of moral codes? It's like David said after sinning (having Uriah killed and taking Bathsheba) - he said it was a sin against God. So if you ask for pardon, you will get it, because only God is able to do that. That's His rule. He wants us not to sin and hurt others, and he wants us to seek forgiveness from them, but when it comes to our personal salvation and what those sins means to us personally, only God can clean it up. Your examples make no sense to me, since a person has to be repentant of sins in order to be forgiven. If one says they accept the Lord, yet do things that He clearly has said are wrong and they do not ask for forgiveness, then I don't see how they can even be thought of as followers of Christ. There are false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing. During the early church, many were killed for their faith - they didn't go around killing to protect it. And this is still going on today in various parts of the world.

(My head is tired now . . . I may revisit what I wrote there.)

So are you seriously telling me that if an aggressor started a war and invaded your town, that you would not defend your family?? Killing should be avoided, even in these circumstances if possible, but sometimes it can't be helped.

No. I'm saying that if killing other humans is permissible don't outlaw it and redefine killing in warfare as not killing humans. Dropping a bomb which will kill innocent people to win a war is murder as far as I'm concerned. As people hate to be associated with the word murder we come up with fancy new names for it. The problem the taoists had was that the government declared killing humans as wrong but decided that there were circumstances in which the government could kill and it was ok. If you're going to make a law stick to it or don't make it at all. Make a law that says killing is usually wrong but not always, mass killing of innocents is only permitted by the government for strategic purposes.

Ok.

I'd like to recommend a book that touches on some of what you write of, anyway. It's not too long and pleasant to read as well. It's called: Five Sacred Crossings: A Novel Approach to a Reasonable Faith, by Craig J. Hazen (2008 Harvest House Pub.s).

I've just ordered Antony Flew's There is a God which you recommended to me a while back. I'll stick this on my reading list but it may take me a while. I also need to read some C S Lewis, where do I start?

Great. Hazan's book is way easier to read than Flew's (Flew's is easy at first), but it covers some different things, too. You haven't read Mere Christianity by Lewis yet? That's a good place to start. But maybe I'll list some more in a bit. Thanks for asking.

[B. W.]

B.W

I'll have a reply in a few days, I'm about halfway there atm.

No problem - take your time!
-
-
-

[cslewislover]

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) Romans 2:13-15 (NIV)

As a believer, I can take this to be the true word of God and that He actually knows, whereas we only can guess (apart from His word, that is) at, the nature of morality. It matters not what culture we're raised in, God implants in people the law so that they may follow it if they choose. Besides, the “culture” argument seems thin since culture is so ambiguous and multi-faceted. Our own country has a multitude of cultures with varying codes of conduct. But as humans, there is an objective morality that all can know and follow (or choose not too), as stated in this set of verses.

I just started reading Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. So far, it has been somewhat of an eye-opener. The extent of the teaching of relativistic ideas is apparently worse than I thought, as they provided some examples that were pretty shocking to me. Early in the thread, Byblos provided an example from a TV show of the result of relativism (no morality) reaching its final end. This book made me realize, before I saw what Byblos shared, that TV shows actually have a high degree of morality compared to how a lot of young people actually think (or are taught to think, but reject) today.

I want to reproduce two (true) stories from this book. The persons in the stories are in the same country, and it would seem the same cultures. Yet their outlooks on life, what is right and wrong, are worlds apart. Why?

One night a nurse on my shift came up to me and said, “Jennifer, you need to see the Garcia baby.” There was something suspicious about the way she said it, though. I see babies born every hour, I thought.

She led me to a utility room the nurses used for their breaks. Women were smoking and drinking coffee, their feet up on the stainless steel counter. There, lying on the metal, was the naked body of a newborn baby.

“What is the baby doing here on the counter?” I asked timidly.

“That's a preemie born at nineteen weeks,” she said. “We don't do anything to save them unless they're twenty weeks.”

I noticed that his chest was fluttering rapidly. I picked him up for a closer look. “This baby is still alive!” I exclaimed. I thought they hadn't noticed.

Then I learned the horrible truth. The nurses knew, and it didn't matter. They had presented the baby to its mother as a dead, premature child. Then they took him away and tossed him on the cold, steel counter in the lunch room until he died. His skin was blotchy white, and his mouth was gaping open as he tried to breathe.

I did the one thing I could think of. I held him in his last moments so he'd at least have some warmth and love when he died.

Just then one of the nurses—a large, harsh woman—burst into the room. “Jennifer, what are you doing with that baby?” she yelled.

“He's still alive . . . “

“He's still alive because you're holding him,” she said. Grabbing him by the back with one hand, she snatched him from me, opened one of the stainless steel cabinets, and pulled out a specimen container with formaldehyde in it. She tossed the baby in and snapped the lid on. It was over in an instant.

To them, this child wasn't human. In seven more days he would have qualified, but at nineteen weeks he was just trash (pp 21-22).


As I said, I have just begun this book. The authors are arguing against relativism, which has saturated our culture. Obviously, however, Jennifer did not view this situation relativistically (and neither do the authors, so they are different "culturally"). I imagine that they will get into the why of this, but it seems like a culture becoming totally morally tolerant allows all those who would like to follow the path of immorality free reign to do so.

The second story shows how moral tolerance leads to moral illiteracy, an inability to “even draw the most obvious ethical conclusions” (p 34).

I had [this conversation] with an assistant in a doctor's office. While she prepped me for an examination, I decided to get her opinion about the nature of morality.

“Can I ask you a personal question?” I asked. She paused in her work, uncertain how to respond. “I'm reading a book on ethics, and I want to know your opinion about something.”

“Oh,” she said. “Okay.”

“Do you believe that morality is absolute, or do all people decide for themselves?”

“What do you mean by morality?” she asked.

“Simply put, what's right and what's wrong,” I answered.

We talked back and forth for a few minutes, and it became evident to me that she was having a difficult time even comprehending the questions I was asking about moral categories. I thought maybe a clear-case example would make the task simpler, a question with an obvious answer, such as, Who is buried in Grant's tomb? or, How long was the Hundred Years War? [ ]

“Is murder wrong?” I asked. “Is it wrong to take an innocent human life?”

She waffled. “Well . . . “

“Well . . . what?”

“Well, I'm thinking.”

I was surprised at her hesitation. “What I'm trying to find out is whether morals, right and wrong, are something we make up for ourselves or something we discover. In other words, do morals apply whether we believe in them or not?”

I waited. “Can we say that taking innocent life is morally acceptable?”

“I guess it depends,” she said tentatively.

“Depends on what?” I asked.

“It depends on what other people think or decide.”

I'll make this really easy, I thought. “Do you think torturing babies for fun is wrong?”

“Well . . . I wouldn't want them to do that to my baby.”

“You've missed the point of my question,” I said, a bit exasperated. “I may not like burned food, but that doesn't mean giving it to me is immoral. Do you believe there is any circumstance, in any culture, at any time in history, in which torturing babies just for pure pleasure could be justified? Is it objectively wrong, or is it just a matter of opinion?”

There was a long pause. Finally she answered, “People should all be allowed to decide for themselves” (pp34-35).

I find it very disturbing that these stories come out of medical fields, and in our country. And it is amazing that the woman in the second story didn't realize how absurd her answer was, since the tortured babies couldn't voice their own decision.

[Proinsias]

B.W:

I don't think I've talked to you before arriving here. My grandfather came to Scotland from Poland at the start of WW2. He never really spoke of the war but for fear of being deported - he said he survived the first charge against the Germans which was pretty much a massacre, when he was told he should prepare for the second charge he done the off. He made his way cross country, meeting my grandmother who escaped from a pow camp along the way and eventually settled in Glasgow, hence me. I've only ever posted under the name of Proinsias online and aside from here only touched on these matters over at the Atheist Toolbox

Our assigning a human word such as love to describe love does not disprove that love comes from a source that already exists. It would rather demonstrate the wisdom of the Creator in assigning us the emotional and intellectual make-up in order to learn how to govern in his stead on this earthly realm.

For me it neither proves or disproves the objective existence of love any more that than the word melancholy proves that melancholy objectively exists. We may attach far more meaning and importance to love but that does not prove its existence for me.

The value you discover about love toward your own family simply is the means to discover that indeed a thing called love indeed exists outside ourselves and should be the highest absolute moral value in which to govern the world by.

Again it's about the creation of value or the discovery of value. Do I discover feelings or do I create them - of do I just pick a word that roughly matches my feeling and use it, attaching my own personal feelings as I do.

Love exists because God exist. We fell away from that love and perverted it as evidenced clearly by how we treat each other where ever we are at governing in this world. We fall short...

I have, many different, feelings I call love for things, I don't think this means that something objectively exits that is called love. Because we can attempt to conceive of some sort of perfect love which we measure ourselves against does not show me that it exists.

How do you refine precious metals to make them pure? Answer: By fire and removing of dross...

We make something pure by deciding upon a definition and removing anything which does not subscribe to that definition.

If God denied choice to his intelligent beings he created then how could that be perfectly just? Without choice, how could anyone justly respond? Freedom to reason and discover can not be denied as that would make God absolutely unjust.

God created many intelligent beings, not just humans. If God was perfectly just why create a whole range of beings with different levels of intelligence and reason? Surely every living thing created by God would have the same levels of intelligence and reason, this is clearly not the case even in humans. Another thing would be degrees of freedom. Some level of freedom may be hard to disprove but to say that humans are absolutely free to make choices and reason seems a little far fetched to me - nature and nurture would seem to limit out freedom.

You do exist and can you reason independently

Independently of what?

How do you know what wrong is if wrong doesn't really exist?

The same way I determine value, relatively.

Denying that God exists in order to be sure that there is absolutely no existing objective morality outside ourselves that can objectively judge us! And it is we, humanity, that continues to spread the pain - yet we blame God for not stopping it!

I'm not denying that God exists in order to be sure that no objective morality exists. I'm just not convinced of either. I don't blame God for anything.

Being a former atheist, I used to misuse God's goodness and gifts of reason to accuse him and blame him so I could deny him and exalt myself and human knowledge / wisdom above God.

An atheist who blames God would be more akin to a theist in denial to me, not an atheist.

Since you stated that “Sometimes I decide what I ought to do and don't do it,” then how are you judging that you are falling short if there is nothing to solid — objective — letting you know, personally, how you fall short?

If I decide I should do something and don't do it I've fallen short of my own target. I set targets, sometimes I meet them sometimes I don't. No need for an objective scale, my own subjective one will do.

You raised children so you learned that children need to learn what NO and YES is because you love them. From this they learn right from wrong.

I hope my daughter creates her own ideas of right and wrong. It will not be the same as my right and wrong, she has many influences and I am but one. I can only hope that I respect her decisions even if I disagree with some of them.

Is it a NO — NO to touch an open flame or hot stove top? Is it a NO — NO — to pick up that big paper clip off the floor and put it in your mouth — little child?

Touch the flame, burn yourself a little, get a sore finger, learn. Some things you take from others some you just have to find out for yourself no matter how many times you are told otherwise, it's different things for different people.

There is right and there is wrong. We dare teach our own children but how dare God ever teach us as we would prefer to be thrown in hell than have God teach us! How dare he!!!

I teach my daughter what I can but I make sure to tell her that daddy is ignorant on many matters and encourage her to question, this is in stark contrast to God, absolute trust that God is right on all matters. She currently believes that God is a man that lives in the sky, I'm fine with her belief in God and not so fine with her taking literally what most take to be metaphorical, the idea of Gd being male is something that for me at least made a large impression I wish I never had - I ask her if God might be a woman who lives in the ground. She knows from school and relatives that God is real because the bible says so and she can barely read a Mr Man book, I'd prefer if she waited until she could read the Bible before declaring it true because that is what she was told. Belief in God I'm fine with, belef in God because the Bible says so and she has never read it I'm not so fine with.

Again, how does a person refine precious metals to make them pure?

by defining what it is and removing things which do not fit that definition.

[Proinsias]

B.W

response to part 2:

All other religions depend on ones own self efforts and works to earn favor with God, gods, forces, better reincarnation, etc, enter heaven, bliss, etc. Such works declare that human works are superior to God's and thus humanity should be the real god that determines ones personal fate.

In other words, human works and efforts are superior to God's efforts and works — which by they way are defined by his act of grace. If by God's act of grace then why should human works overthrow God's grace and deeds proving that God is not God enough to save anyone and thus not really God at all. God overthrown and man becomes god.

This is more than an insult to a loving God. It is abusing God's love in order to manipulate God into serve them based on their deeds and efforts. God's ways are superior over ours. We deny justice. God does not. He lets people make there own choices despite already foreknowing their answers — he still lets people decide. That is just. Unjust would be in denying this from happening.

I don't see it like that. Most traditions or schools have rules to follow. Things one should or shouldn't do. Christianity has the ten commandments. To me it is simply that at the lower, for want of a better word, level traditions have easy to follow rules at the higher levels it is understood that one does not need to follow rules one can simply act with complete trust in God, act in accordance with the Tao, or simply be in the in the case of Zen or somesuch. In many eastern traditions there is emphasis on things like meditation, avoidance of certain practices or simply refraining from over indulgence. I don't see it as a huge insult to God that Christians are encouraged to do certain things like obey the commandments, worship or meet as part of a church. As Christianity may place huge importance in faith in Jesus Christ as the Saviour others place huge importance on enlightenment.

I don't see that teaching what deeds one thinks God may approve of or disapprove of is saying that human works are above those of God. Religions have a main thrust whether that be submission to Allah, faith in Jesus Christ or the realization of enlightenment. They also have doctrines which apply to more day to day life, usually written down by people seen to to be inspired by God or simply people who have reached further than others into that particular doctrine.

If Christianity is not based upon ones efforts or deeds then what is the point in the Christian God providing an objective moral framework. If deeds or works don't earn one a place in heaven then what is the point in the objective moral law, surely God will not take into account deeds and efforts. If God does judge by an objective moral law and this has some bearing on life after death then one can earn God's favour through deeds -

It seems that if Christianity is not based upon one's efforts or works then objective morality becomes rather pointless. It doesn't matter what your objective actions were to God, the only thing that matters is the heart and mind. You can build lots of objectively bad swings which injure people or murder, what matters is that is done with the conviction that Jesus is the one true Saviour, with complete faith in God.

To pull up the Inquisition or the crusades, from what I understand from your posts it is not that objectively bad deeds were being committed, what matters is that those who are committing these deeds truly believe they are doing Gods will - even if they may be interpreting it erroneously.

Should God violate his own justice so our concept of justice is supreme? Who do you think you are thinking like this?

I'm not claiming that my own justice is supreme. It's my own, patched together with inconsistences and glaring errors, it's also changing continually.

Being born into a Christian home does not make you a Christian — nor does going to Church. Being a Polish Roman Catholic or from Protestant background does make you a Christian either. Christ does.

I agree.

What makes you responsible? Why???

The thoughts of myself and other people, not God. If God does exist in the fashion that you believe I may find out God's opinion once I've died, in the mean time I'll go with my feeling and those of others.

[Proinsias]

B.W:

response to part 3:

You think it would make life unpleasant?? What standard are you basing this on if none exist other than what we create. If we create, then a violent criminal creates in his / her mind that such acts are morally right.

Again — what standard do you use to make the judgment that violent acts are wrong if we create morals relativisticly?

I'm basing it on my own feelings and the testimonies of others. When I got caught drinking at 15 by the police my mother was upset, it made her life more unpleasant, she told me, no need for objective moral standards. When I lose my temper with my wife or daughter they tell me it makes their life more unpleasant, I believe my mum, my wife and my daughter. It's a relative standard. I deem what makes life unpleasant by my own feelings and what those I relate to tell me - not always in words.

There are many little things that make life unpleasant for others, it really depends on who you have relations with, you adjust accordingly. Here I'm always very aware of capitalising the word 'God', on the atheist toolbox I'm always aware of using a lower case.

A violent criminal may well see violent criminal acts as morally right, I don't agree in most cases. Other people may see violent criminal acts as morally acceptable - attacking peadophiles springs to mind - I don't. The war in Afghanistan or Iraq is seen by many as violent and criminal, who's to say if it is objectively morally right or wrong. In the absence of getting a straight yes or no answer from God on current affairs we are left with the subjective opinion of people. Abortion and contraception also spring to mind

What is causing you to take responsibility? Objectively your swing building caused harm… If objective reality and morals cannot exist then was the injury real?

I don't know if the injury was truly real. In the absence of this knowledge I'll use my judgment and that of others. If I or people I trust say there was injury caused and it was due to me then I'll take responsibility. If it turns out I was on candid camera and it was all big joke I'll rethink it.

Then there are absolutes that are measurable, tangible, and objective then! Glad to see you finally agree!

No. Someone deciding on a design and evaluating the outcome of that design is not the same as objective absolutes. People agreeing that a design did or did not meet it's expected outcome is a case of people agreeing, not absolutes.

I said: “As I've hopefully explained I don't think I have all the answers.”

Maybe I do have all the answers, I just don't know. As for relative meaning, different people require different answers - my answers, whilst answering some questions for me may not answer them for you and vice versa.

“Not knowing” is an objective statement.

Does truth exist?

I think I don't know all the answers, but maybe I do - I just don't know it yet. This to me is not much of an objective statement.

I have no idea if truth exists, again truth means a great many things to a great many people, whether there is an objective part to it that we all access to greater or lesser degrees is something I can't take for granted.

You proved my statement true by your answer…or you would not have mentioned being thrown in hell as an appeal that accuses God of being wrong for tossing you there. If there are no wrongs — then how can you judge God's actions as fair or not fair as evidence in your statement?

I don't think I did. I'm trying to convey that if it turns out that I'm wrong and you are correct I'll take the consequences - I suppose I won't have much choice.

I didn't accuse God of being wrong if God throws me into hell, I said "so be it". There are plenty wrongs, almost every person, even Christians have lists of them even though deeds don't matter. The point is if God has objective wrongs and from what I gather the only wrong that really matters is th one of not accepting the Christian God - building a swingset in an objectively wrong manner and causing injury will make no difference on judgment day - only faith will.

What made you abandon Christianity? What standard of judgment did you use if there is none trustworthy enough exists? Again, what makes a Christian is Christ — not a church or affiliation.

I don't think I did really abandon Christianity. As you say being born into a Christian family etc does not make one Christian, Christ does. I don't think I ever really put much emphasis on Jesus Christ, maybe God but not Jesus, if that makes any sense. I felt I was indoctrinated into a tradition with a huge emphasis on ritual and little on theology. If there was an emphasis it was more on Mary and the saints than Jesus.

I grew out of my upbringing , for a short time I was against all religion. Then I realised the worth and value in religion for me. I began to explore. I found lots of stuff that interested me. As with most things in life I tend to avoid complete adherence to one system. There are great insights to be had from great minds everywhere. If Shankara or Dogen had been born into a Christian environment I think they would be greatly respected by Christians, similarly if Aquinas has been born into a Hindu or Buddhist environment I believe he would be seen as a great Buddhist or Hindu sage.

In short: If the thing that separates Christianity from all other systems is that it is not based on deeds and efforts, then where does objective moral law fit in? Surely it is all dependant on subjective attitudes to God and Jesus? Moral law seems to me based on deeds.

[Proinsias]

cslewislover:

Ok, but I was just wondering what makes you judge that way. But to be fair, you may have answered that earlier in this discussion, and I haven't read it.

I don't know. Unfortunately all can answer with is another question. What makes people make judgments? I suspect you may think that God is responsible for judgments you find agreeable and something else is responsible for judgments you find disagreeable. For me this is the obvious assumption for someone who has decided that God is good, what they attribute to good they attribute God and what they attribute to bad they attribute to something other than God - anything else would require God not being inherently good.

But why not? Doesn't God want us to live well together? Aren't the laws, God's morality as given to us, about that? Besides loving and accepting Him? Love God and love your neighbors. Why not have those two set of moral codes? It's like David said after sinning (having Uriah killed and taking Bathsheba) - he said it was a sin against God. So if you ask for pardon, you will get it, because only God is able to do that. That's His rule. He wants us not to sin and hurt others, and he wants us to seek forgiveness from them, but when it comes to our personal salvation and what those sins means to us personally, only God can clean it up. Your examples make no sense to me, since a person has to be repentant of sins in order to be forgiven. If one says they accept the Lord, yet do things that He clearly has said are wrong and they do not ask for forgiveness, then I don't see how they can even be thought of as followers of Christ. There are false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing. During the early church, many were killed for their faith - they didn't go around killing to protect it. And this is still going on today in various parts of the world.

I mean if someone does a deed like say burning a non Christian but is under the impression they are doing God's work, doing something good, even if it against most interpretations are they condemned to hell? They wouldn't repent as they may be under the impression they were doing what God wanted, they may be wrong but would they be condemned to hell for this?

Do you go to hell for having the strongest conviction in what you are doing being God's work even if it is against what God stands for. Does God punish those who have, possibly, misunderstood the message - is it not the intent that counts?

Besides, the “culture” argument seems thin since culture is so ambiguous and multi-faceted. Our own country has a multitude of cultures with varying codes of conduct. But as humans, there is an objective morality that all can know and follow (or choose not too), as stated in this set of verses.

I would add that along with culture the idea of God is also multi faceted and ambiguous.

The scenarios you provide only show to me that what we consider life or human is relative, or the relative values we place on it. Some people consider contraceptives as wrong, some abortion at different points. Some see it as the choice of the woman - no matter how much you disagree with certain abortions it's not your choice, it's the woman's, once the baby is out of the woman it's a different matter but when it's in the women it's not your call, it's her's.

[cslewislover]

Proinsias, I just saw your response as I was previewing this - just to let you know. I'm going to post this and then deal with your above response.

I don't think I did really abandon Christianity. As you say being born into a Christian family etc does not make one Christian, Christ does. I don't think I ever really put much emphasis on Jesus Christ, maybe God but not Jesus, if that makes any sense. I felt I was indoctrinated into a tradition with a huge emphasis on ritual and little on theology. If there was an emphasis it was more on Mary and the saints than Jesus.

This is sad. Putting the object of God's will and plan above the God who made not only the will and the plan, but the object of his use. Where I live, there is a very large Hispanic population and they glorify the Virgin of Guadalupe. You will see many images in reverence to her, but not of Christ. I went to a Hispanic oriented art museum once and they were showing religious art. I was actually appalled at the show and wrote them a little note about it. The show was full of images not only glorifying Mary, but belittling Christ.

Aside from that, have you read the New Testament, perhaps a few times? That is really necessary, in my view, to learn about Christ. He is the living Word.

In short: If the thing that separates Christianity from all other systems is that it is not based on deeds and efforts, then where does objective moral law fit in? Surely it is all dependant on subjective attitudes to God and Jesus? Moral law seems to me based on deeds.

Please don't be upset with me, but I don't see why you seem so hung up on the do's and don'ts of life instead of God's love for you. Above all, God loves us and wants fellowship with us. The do's and don'ts are quite secondary. The reason Jesus died for us and did His work was so that we can have fellowship with Him, and also not worry about the do's and don'ts so much. The Spirit of God helps us to not do the things we shouldn't, and to do the things we should. This may not seem obvious if you've observed Christians who are legalistic or who have a hard time with some moral issue.

I don't know. I love the invitation at the end of the Bible. "The Spirit and the bride [the church] say, 'Come!' And let him who hears, say 'Come!' Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life" (Rev 22:17). To come to the Lord is to quench your spiritual thirst, and not about what moral condition you're in at the time, or being concerned about how your morality will improve or not or whatever.

[Proinsias]

Please don't be upset with me, but I don't see why you seem so hung up on the do's and don'ts of life instead of God's love for you. Above all, God loves us and wants fellowship with us. The do's and don'ts are quite secondary.

I'm not that hung up on them. But the thread being about morality, or objective morality, I kinda got the feeling that many here were hung up on what is really right and wrong. That there is a right way and wrong way to do things and that God's moral law will judge one upon that - otherwise I don't really see the point in objective moral law - it's more that I have issue with those who are hung up on the do's and do not's.

[cslewislover]

Please don't be upset with me, but I don't see why you seem so hung up on the do's and don'ts of life instead of God's love for you. Above all, God loves us and wants fellowship with us. The do's and don'ts are quite secondary.

I'm not that hung up on them. But the thread being about morality, or objective morality, I kinda got the feeling that many here were hung up on what is really right and wrong. That there is a right way and wrong way to do things and that God's moral law will judge one upon that - otherwise I don't really see the point in objective moral law - it's more that I have issue with those who are hung up on the do's and do not's.

Hmmmm. Well, to me it's not like that. God is righteousness itself, it's like a quality. And we want to be that quality, and a person can only be that quality in reality when they are truly God's.

[cslewislover]

I don't know. Unfortunately all can answer with is another question. What makes people make judgments? I suspect you may think that God is responsible for judgments you find agreeable and something else is responsible for judgments you find disagreeable. For me this is the obvious assumption for someone who has decided that God is good, what they attribute to good they attribute God and what they attribute to bad they attribute to something other than God - anything else would require God not being inherently good.

Yes, I included a group of verses concerning this above, Romans 2:13-15. That's just part of it, but an interesting part. As is on some other threads - I don't know about this one - bad, or evil, can be said to be the absence of good. It isn't a thing in and of itself, it is the will doing something with the absence of good (and God himself is good).

I mean if someone does a deed like say burning a non Christian but is under the impression they are doing God's work, doing something good, even if it against most interpretations are they condemned to hell? They wouldn't repent as they may be under the impression they were doing what God wanted, they may be wrong but would they be condemned to hell for this?

Do you go to hell for having the strongest conviction in what you are doing being God's work even if it is against what God stands for. Does God punish those who have, possibly, misunderstood the message - is it not the intent that counts?

Only God can judge the heart, and I cannot judge if someone is saved or not. But I can say this. If someone is truly saved or they are drawn by God's Spirit to salvation eventually, then they will repent of something that is against God's will. It could be the second before they die for all I know. God is active in those that are His, so I don't see this scenerio of yours happening, unless they are someone who will eventually repent because they are in fact one of God's children. Christians can sin, but if they are truly the Lord's, they will repent of sin before they die.

I would add that along with culture the idea of God is also multi faceted and ambiguous.

The scenarios you provide only show to me that what we consider life or human is relative, or the relative values we place on it. Some people consider contraceptives as wrong, some abortion at different points. Some see it as the choice of the woman - no matter how much you disagree with certain abortions it's not your choice, it's the woman's, once the baby is out of the woman it's a different matter but when it's in the women it's not your call, it's her's.

I am not for legislating Christian beliefs, so I am not going to argue about abortion. There's no need. Because I very much disagree with you regarding your first statement. From what I know of other religions, the idea of God is in fact not really multi-faceted or ambiguous. Other religions might believe in gods and spirits and such, but if they believe in one God, there are fewer differences (I am not saying other religions which believe in one God are the same - that would take too long to get into). When people become a child of God, they tend to think the same about issues like abortion. Not because they are trying to impose on other people (though sure, some do), but because they know that life is precious (that the baby's life has just as much value as the mother's life - so can it not have an advocate?), and other things. It's not a legal idea, it's from God's Spirit. It is much better to reach out in God's love and grace to show people the value of life, than to impose laws.