Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Wayne, every time you speak you only further prove my point. What you state with the heart example is exactly MY point. Let's see my analogy is wrong because of conditions.

Now THAT is a poor analogy.

Duh, that is exactly what I was trying to convey. man, you really should steer clear of any analogies.

You want to hold fast to your "slavery is wrong." But, by the same reason your analogy is flawed. Why? Conditions. Context.

Slavery is wrong. Well, yes, under certain conditions. Under other conditions slavery could actually be the most humane alternative.

If that's true, the Golden Rule still takes it into account.

"If your being enslaved would be 'wrong' in a given specific situation, enslaving others is also wrong in the same situation"

You see, this is what I talked about earlier. You build an unreasonable standard. You are saying that slavery in the bible is a reason you discard its claims of divinity. But your position is one you have built in your own mind and not based on the actual conditions and context.

Since you bring up context, how does your objective reality deal with varying contexts - how does it let you know if a given moral issue is affected by a certain context, and if so, in what way?

As to slavery, the issue we were discussing was whether God was required to define objective morality. Slavery is just an example of a moral issue for discussion purposes, and I don't recall saying anything in this thread about slavery in The Bible.

Since you bring up context, how does your objective reality deal with varying contexts - how does it let you know if a given moral issue is affected by a certain context, and if so, in what way?

A lot of it is common sense. In the context of slavery, it is a moot point. We don't have slavery in our society today, so treating a slave as we would want to be treated if we were slaves is a pointless question. That's really not hard to figure out. There are absolutes, which do not vary regardless of time or place. Murder and rape. Is there any context in which rape is justified? I think we can say, no. Which means it is absolute. Even if everyone in the society condones rape, we can still KNOW that it is wrong. If human agreement is the basis for morality then we are in big trouble. Hitler had a society agreeing that Jews were sub-human. Was exterminating the Jews morally OK because that society condoned it? Of course not.

So, you may in fact be talking about two different things. Absolute Moral truth versus social standards. The bible deals with each, and I believe it is simple enough to know when and where it is dealing with the two.

We can't define morality based on preferences like, "I would not like to be a slave, therefore slavery is wrong." I would not like to pump sewage, but it has no bearing on whether it is wrong or not. Plus it isn't just a matter of would I want it done or not done to me. As a child I didn't want to be punished. But my parents were not violating "do unto others" by punishing me. Conditions. In fact, to not discipline would have violated do unto others. Raping is certainly something I would not want done to myself, but it isn't wrong simply because of my preference, but because it is absolutely wrong. Believe it or not, there are perverts who want to be raped.

Is doing unto others the objective truth or subjective truth? I agree it is true. Why is it true?
This is a teaching of Jesus. You say God should spell out objective moral truth. Yet, in a way you are arguing that He in fact has. That do unto others is as obvious as the nose on your face. That God has in fact etched it on your heart.

jlay wrote:

Since you bring up context, how does your objective reality deal with varying contexts - how does it let you know if a given moral issue is affected by a certain context, and if so, in what way?

A lot of it is common sense. In the context of slavery, it is a moot point. We don't have slavery in our society today, so treating a slave as we would want to be treated if we were slaves is a pointless question. That's really not hard to figure out. There are absolutes, which do not vary regardless of time or place. Murder and rape. Is there any context in which rape is justified? I think we can say, no. Which means it is absolute. Even if everyone in the society condones rape, we can still KNOW that it is wrong. If human agreement is the basis for morality then we are in big trouble. Hitler had a society agreeing that Jews were sub-human. Was exterminating the Jews morally OK because that society condoned it? Of course not.

So, you may in fact be talking about two different things. Absolute Moral truth versus social standards. The bible deals with each, and I believe it is simple enough to know when and where it is dealing with the two.

We can't define morality based on preferences like, "I would not like to be a slave, therefore slavery is wrong." I would not like to pump sewage, but it has no bearing on whether it is wrong or not. Plus it isn't just a matter of would I want it done or not done to me. As a child I didn't want to be punished. But my parents were not violating "do unto others" by punishing me. Conditions. In fact, to not discipline would have violated do unto others. Raping is certainly something I would not want done to myself, but it isn't wrong simply because of my preference, but because it is absolutely wrong. Believe it or not, there are perverts who want to be raped.

Is doing unto others the objective truth or subjective truth? I agree it is true. Why is it true?
This is a teaching of Jesus. You say God should spell out objective moral truth. Yet, in a way you are arguing that He in fact has. That do unto others is as obvious as the nose on your face. That God has in fact etched it on your heart.

So you use common sense to determine the objective morality of each issue that comes up? That doesn't seem very objective to me so I assume there's more to it than that.

What I'm trying to figure out is how you "know" (or find out) the morality of any issue that you encounter (ie is it "good" or "evil").

So you use common sense to determine the objective morality of each issue that comes up? That doesn't seem very objective to me so I assume there's more to it than that.

No, I use common sense to discern when the bible is referecing moral absolutes, or when it is dealing with legal and moral codes relevant for a specific people at a specific time.

What I'm trying to figure out is how you "know" (or find out) the morality of any issue that you encounter (ie is it "good" or "evil").

Curious, I thought that is what we were asking you??

Depends. My parents didn't have to sit me down one day and say, "Joel, you shouldn't murder anyone." I, you, we KNOW that. It is written on our hearts.

I remember stealing something as a child. I knew it was wrong, even though no one had implicitly said, "don't take that off the shelf and put it in your pocket." I stole it, knowing in my heart of hearts that it was absolutely wrong. So the conscience is one way. But a person's conscience can be out of sync with right and wrong. There are plenty of people who do wrong things, but don't view them as wrong. They have either seared their conscience, or have perverted their conscience through continued disobedience. Or they have been influenced by a culture that has had the same effect.

The commands. Jesus gave numerous other commands besides "do unto others..." The old testament 10 is the basic moral code given to man by god, through the nation of Israel. For a Christian the 10 is summed up in these two: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Anything that would violate those two would cross God's moral boundry.

My parents did teach me rules of society, conduct, manners, etc.

As a born again person I am taught by the Holy Spirit and thus with an enlightened eye towards the scriptures. In following Christ I have found I began to hate the things I used to love, and love the things I used to hate. It is a transforming work. The more sensative I am to this nature, the more I am transformed, and able to discern this inner voice. That is the absolute filter through which everything in my life passes today. This means my preferences are not the issue. I would hope that my preferences would always reflect what the spirit desires, but sadly this isn't the case. Then I must obey the spirit, and not my feelings.

You can say, "do unto others," but that may have a different meaning for you and for the Christian. For a Christian, they are seeing their sin primarily as vertical (towards God), where as the secular is only concerned with the horizontal (towards others). The Christian knows that no trangression will go unnoticed. This would appear not to be a concern to the secular person. But many will find their consciences gnawing at them, even though their transgressions have gone unobserved.

For a Christian it is about being inside the will of God. Anything outside the will of God is immoral and is sinful. For a secular person this is where the shades of gray come in. This is why Jac will not be able to convince you through philosophy. You see morality as shifting and changing through time according to cultural and societal perferences. Jac is saying that this isn't morality at all. The Christian knows that despite the flawed and often confused moral interpretations of secular society that there is a fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all.

I think another problem you run into is in defining what is morality. I don't remember when slavery came in to this converstation, but I don't think I introduced it. It seems to me that you have addressed it as evidence that the bible is not a moral book. In other words, because the bible has regulations dealing with slavery, the bible condones slavery. In your mind slavery is wrong, regardless of context, and thus the bible is wrong and immoral. If this is wrong please correct me. Sorry, but the bible dealing with slavery does not mean that the the bible condones all kinds of slavery at all kinds of times.

It is not a direct moral issue. It is a contextual issue. And making a blanket statement, "slavery is wrong," is not a contextually considerate conclusion. Although it may serve your function to build an unreasonable standard. No one edited out the difficult parts of the bible. The bible dealt with the harsh realities of a fallen world. To reject it on such grounds is unreasonable.

jlay wrote:

So you use common sense to determine the objective morality of each issue that comes up? That doesn't seem very objective to me so I assume there's more to it than that.

No, I use common sense to discern when the bible is referecing moral absolutes, or when it is dealing with legal and moral codes relevant for a specific people at a specific time.

What I'm trying to figure out is how you "know" (or find out) the morality of any issue that you encounter (ie is it "good" or "evil").

Curious, I thought that is what we were asking you??

Depends. My parents didn't have to sit me down one day and say, "Joel, you shouldn't murder anyone." I, you, we KNOW that. It is written on our hearts.

I remember stealing something as a child. I knew it was wrong, even though no one had implicitly said, "don't take that off the shelf and put it in your pocket." I stole it, knowing in my heart of hearts that it was absolutely wrong. So the conscience is one way. But a person's conscience can be out of sync with right and wrong. There are plenty of people who do wrong things, but don't view them as wrong. They have either seared their conscience, or have perverted their conscience through continued disobedience. Or they have been influenced by a culture that has had the same effect.

The commands. Jesus gave numerous other commands besides "do unto others..." The old testament 10 is the basic moral code given to man by god, through the nation of Israel. For a Christian the 10 is summed up in these two: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Anything that would violate those two would cross God's moral boundry.

My parents did teach me rules of society, conduct, manners, etc.

As a born again person I am taught by the Holy Spirit and thus with an enlightened eye towards the scriptures. In following Christ I have found I began to hate the things I used to love, and love the things I used to hate. It is a transforming work. The more sensative I am to this nature, the more I am transformed, and able to discern this inner voice. That is the absolute filter through which everything in my life passes today. This means my preferences are not the issue. I would hope that my preferences would always reflect what the spirit desires, but sadly this isn't the case. Then I must obey the spirit, and not my feelings.

Believe me, I respect your sincerity and am not accusing you nor anyone else on this board.

That said, I AM concerned by the interaction of two of your statements ...

The more sensative I am to this nature, the more I am transformed, and able to discern this inner voice. That is the absolute filter through which everything in my life passes today.

... and ...

But a person's conscience can be out of sync with right and wrong. There are plenty of people who do wrong things, but don't view them as wrong. They have either seared their conscience, or have perverted their conscience through continued disobedience. Or they have been influenced by a culture that has had the same effect.

Are you not concerned about the possibility of someone with your level of sensitivity to "this nature" having their conscience seared, perverted, influenced, or otherwise hijacked? Is this not what happens with cults or in the case of religious extremism as manifested in mass suicides, suicide bombers and such?

For a Christian it is about being inside the will of God. Anything outside the will of God is immoral and is sinful. For a secular person this is where the shades of gray come in. This is why Jac will not be able to convince you through philosophy. You see morality as shifting and changing through time according to cultural and societal perferences. Jac is saying that this isn't morality at all. The Christian knows that despite the flawed and often confused moral interpretations of secular society that there is a fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all.

Actually, that was the reason for bringing up the ethic of reciprocity (aka "the Golden Rule"). It IS quite constant at avoiding the shifts over time and across different societies. The problem I have with the "fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all" is that it is not written down in any definitive form (ie not requiring interpretation). Once you include people to interpret the law, you no longer have an objective morality.

I think another problem you run into is in defining what is morality. I don't remember when slavery came in to this converstation, but I don't think I introduced it. It seems to me that you have addressed it as evidence that the bible is not a moral book. In other words, because the bible has regulations dealing with slavery, the bible condones slavery. In your mind slavery is wrong, regardless of context, and thus the bible is wrong and immoral. If this is wrong please correct me. Sorry, but the bible dealing with slavery does not mean that the the bible condones all kinds of slavery at all kinds of times.

It is not a direct moral issue. It is a contextual issue. And making a blanket statement, "slavery is wrong," is not a contextually considerate conclusion. Although it may serve your function to build an unreasonable standard. No one edited out the difficult parts of the bible. The bible dealt with the harsh realities of a fallen world. To reject it on such grounds is unreasonable.

Slavery was only an example for discussion purposes. At least that was all it was from my perspective.

I think you are blending the "slavery in The Bible" thread with this one.

Are you not concerned about the possibility of someone with your level of sensitivity to "this nature" having their conscience seared, perverted, influenced, or otherwise hijacked? Is this not what happens with cults or in the case of religious extremism as manifested in mass suicides, suicide bombers and such?

No, this is not what happens with cults. I'm concerned about the people without the right level of sensitivity. And I am more concerned with those in secular society being carried away. The overwhelming majority of cults are outside of Christianity. Cult elements that invade "Christianity" are typically not extreme. Mormonism for example. Your question reveals a predjudice, that people of Christian faith are brainwashed drones, easily carried away. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Cults are not synonomous with Christians. Rarely if ever will you find examples of solid, fundemental, traditional Christianity being hijacked by such things. Within Christianity, they are almost exclusively groups who start off way outside the fringe, and prey upon people without a faith rooted in the scriptures. By nature, the Christian faith resist such things. It emphasizes personal accountability towards God, studying to discern the truth, testing all elements of the faith, and strong warnings against false teachers.

For example, Jim Jones collected and disposed of all bibles. He didn't want his cult reading the Word for themselves.
If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and follow the scriptures then alarm bells ring. One can not serve two masters. Everyone is mastered by something. Everyone. If one is following the scriptures and holy spirit faithfully then they will be able to discern such. One of the biggest problems in the church today, is that people leave too quickly.

The problem I have with the "fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all" is that it is not written down in any definitive form (ie not requiring interpretation). Once you include people to interpret the law, you no longer have an objective morality.

I agree that is a problem. But for different reasons.

It IS quite constant at avoiding the shifts over time and across different societies.

You say this element is knowable and constant, and without interpretation. The conscience is knowable. You must have both. So, truth is knowable.

jlay wrote:

Are you not concerned about the possibility of someone with your level of sensitivity to "this nature" having their conscience seared, perverted, influenced, or otherwise hijacked? Is this not what happens with cults or in the case of religious extremism as manifested in mass suicides, suicide bombers and such?

No, this is not what happens with cults. I'm concerned about the people without the right level of sensitivity. And I am more concerned with those in secular society being carried away. The overwhelming majority of cults are outside of Christianity. Cult elements that invade "Christianity" are typically not extreme. Mormonism for example. Your question reveals a predjudice, that people of Christian faith are brainwashed drones, easily carried away. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My concern is that ANY one who believes they are hearing the Word of God could have their conscience hijacked. Have not there been instances of assassinations of employees at Planned Parenthood facilities? What are your feelings about the Westboro Baptist Church? (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

Cults are not synonomous with Christians.

I never said that.

Rarely if ever will you find examples of solid, fundemental, traditional Christianity being hijacked by such things. Within Christianity, they are almost exclusively groups who start off way outside the fringe, and prey upon people without a faith rooted in the scriptures. By nature, the Christian faith resist such things. It emphasizes personal accountability towards God, studying to discern the truth, testing all elements of the faith, and strong warnings against false teachers.

Don't you consider Christian morality "objective", but when asked how you "read" the objective morality, you base it on "common sense" and interpretation of scripture. Both are subject to the experiences and motives of the "reader" - in other words, the "objective" morality sounds like it is subjective after all.

For example, Jim Jones collected and disposed of all bibles. He didn't want his cult reading the Word for themselves.
If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and follow the scriptures then alarm bells ring. One can not serve two masters. Everyone is mastered by something. Everyone. If one is following the scriptures and holy spirit faithfully then they will be able to discern such. One of the biggest problems in the church today, is that people leave too quickly.

What happens if someone is NOT filled by the Holy Spirit, and/or is misinterpreting the scriptures?

The problem I have with the "fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all" is that it is not written down in any definitive form (ie not requiring interpretation). Once you include people to interpret the law, you no longer have an objective morality.

I agree that is a problem. But for different reasons.

What is your "other reason"?

It IS quite constant at avoiding the shifts over time and across different societies.

You say this element is knowable and constant, and without interpretation. The conscience is knowable. You must have both. So, truth is knowable.

I have no idea what you mean by "The conscience is knowable. You must have both. So, truth is knowable."

Have not there been instances of assassinations of employees at Planned Parenthood facilities? What are your feelings about the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes, but these are rare and so far on the fringe that they are unquestionably rejected and condemned by the vast majority of Christians. The fact that they are so minor and so condemned should be all the evidence you need.

Don't you consider Christian morality "objective", but when asked how you "read" the objective morality, you base it on "common sense" and interpretation of scripture. Both are subject to the experiences and motives of the "reader" - in other words, the "objective" morality sounds like it is subjective after all.

That's not what I said.

What happens if someone is NOT filled by the Holy Spirit, and/or is misinterpreting the scriptures?

What do you mean? In what context? Why would you ask what would happen if someone is "misinterpreting" the scriptures? that's a given. They'd be wrong.

What is your "other reason"?

The problem is that you have broken God's law, and are an enemy of God in your mind through wicked works. it is not ambiguous as you imply. Do not covet, Do not lie, Do not steal. I don't think that leaves much room for faulty interpretation.

I have no idea what you mean by "The conscience is knowable. You must have both. So, truth is knowable."

You know you have a conscience. You know the golden rule is discernable and innate, even to someone who has never heard of Jesus. Therefore truth is knowable.

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:Have not there been instances of assassinations of employees at Planned Parenthood facilities? What are your feelings about the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes, but these are rare and so far on the fringe that they are unquestionably rejected and condemned by the vast majority of Christians. The fact that they are so minor and so condemned should be all the evidence you need.

Yes, but it DOES happen, hence my concern.

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:Don't you consider Christian morality "objective", but when asked how you "read" the objective morality, you base it on "common sense" and interpretation of scripture. Both are subject to the experiences and motives of the "reader" - in other words, the "objective" morality sounds like it is subjective after all.

That's not what I said.

Here's what you said (emphasis added) ...

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is how you "know" (or find out) the morality of any issue that you encounter (ie is it "good" or "evil").

Curious, I thought that is what we were asking you??

Depends. My parents didn't have to sit me down one day and say, "Joel, you shouldn't murder anyone." I, you, we KNOW that. It is written on our hearts.

I remember stealing something as a child. I knew it was wrong, even though no one had implicitly said, "don't take that off the shelf and put it in your pocket." I stole it, knowing in my heart of hearts that it was absolutely wrong. So the conscience is one way. But a person's conscience can be out of sync with right and wrong. There are plenty of people who do wrong things, but don't view them as wrong. They have either seared their conscience, or have perverted their conscience through continued disobedience. Or they have been influenced by a culture that has had the same effect.

The commands. Jesus gave numerous other commands besides "do unto others..." The old testament 10 is the basic moral code given to man by god, through the nation of Israel. For a Christian the 10 is summed up in these two: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Anything that would violate those two would cross God's moral boundry.

My parents did teach me rules of society, conduct, manners, etc.

As a born again person I am taught by the Holy Spirit and thus with an enlightened eye towards the scriptures. In following Christ I have found I began to hate the things I used to love, and love the things I used to hate. It is a transforming work. The more sensative I am to this nature, the more I am transformed, and able to discern this inner voice. That is the absolute filter through which everything in my life passes today. This means my preferences are not the issue. I would hope that my preferences would always reflect what the spirit desires, but sadly this isn't the case. Then I must obey the spirit, and not my feelings.

... which sounds to me as if you are basing your morality on your interpretation of scripture, what others have told you, and your feelings. (You referred to "common sense" elsewhere - sorry for the confusion)

Are there any other inputs to your morality? If one of those inputs is divine, how do you "read" what He's saying to you?

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:What happens if someone is NOT filled by the Holy Spirit, and/or is misinterpreting the scriptures?

What do you mean? In what context? Why would you ask what would happen if someone is "misinterpreting" the scriptures? that's a given. They'd be wrong.

I was asking it in the context which I quoted when I posed the question, namely (emphasis added) ...

jlay wrote:For example, Jim Jones collected and disposed of all bibles. He didn't want his cult reading the Word for themselves.
If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and follow the scriptures then alarm bells ring. One can not serve two masters. Everyone is mastered by something. Everyone. If one is following the scriptures and holy spirit faithfully then they will be able to discern such. One of the biggest problems in the church today, is that people leave too quickly.

... in other words, none of his followers were able to discern that Jim Jones's teachings were wrong and they paid with their lives because of it. How do we know what God really wants as opposed to what the Jim Jones of the world TELL US He wants?

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:What is your "other reason"?

The problem is that you have broken God's law, and are an enemy of God in your mind through wicked works. it is not ambiguous as you imply. Do not covet, Do not lie, Do not steal. I don't think that leaves much room for faulty interpretation.

This was is response to ...

waynepii wrote:The problem I have with the "fixed, immovable and unchangable law that stands above all" is that it is not written down in any definitive form (ie not requiring interpretation). Once you include people to interpret the law, you no longer have an objective morality.

... what about all the other issues? For instance, how do you KNOW homosexuality is wrong?

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:I have no idea what you mean by "The conscience is knowable. You must have both. So, truth is knowable."

You know you have a conscience. You know the golden rule is discernable and innate, even to someone who has never heard of Jesus. Therefore truth is knowable.

I thought you considered your objective morality superior to the golden rule (??) As a long-time user of the golden rule, what "truth" am I supposed to know (other than that it is a pretty good moral compass).

rules of society (look both ways), conduct (sit quietly), manners (saying thank you) are mot the same as morality.
This could branch off into a different issue.

Yes, but it DOES happen, hence my concern.

Concerned about what? That there is an absolute moral truth that can be violated?

Are there any other inputs to your morality? If one of those inputs is divine, how do you "read" what He's saying to you?

the apostle Paul does a much better job explaining. it would be foolishness to explain what you can't understand. As foolish as trying to explain the color blue to a person who has never seen.
Just one example: 1 Cor 2:
10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul goes on in many other epistles to further explain.

jlay wrote:rules of society (look both ways), conduct (sit quietly), manners (saying thank you) are mot the same as morality.
This could branch off into a different issue.

Yes, but it DOES happen, hence my concern.

Concerned about what? That there is an absolute moral truth that can be violated?

No. That someone convinces others to do "God's will" and that God wants them to do something distinctly un-God-like.

Are there any other inputs to your morality? If one of those inputs is divine, how do you "read" what He's saying to you?

the apostle Paul does a much better job explaining. it would be foolishness to explain what you can't understand. As foolish as trying to explain the color blue to a person who has never seen.
Just one example: 1 Cor 2:
10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul goes on in many other epistles to further explain.

So if someone claims "God hates cursing your parents" and a child who does so should be killed - should I follow him? (he DOES have scripture to "prove" his claim, after all)

What about something less obvious? Like contraception? Like pre-marital sex? "Unnatural" sexual activities? ...

So if someone claims "God hates cursing your parents" and a child who does so should be killed - should I follow him? (he DOES have scripture to "prove" his claim, after all)

If the bible confirms that as the truth for you, then yes, you are to follow. However, it does not.
Are you an Israelite?
I wonder if this is an objection of your own, or did you just read it on a anti-Christian site?
What we need to avoid here is being willfully ignorant. You read the bible in light of all of what the bible has to say. The bible explains why we don't do this. The same reason we don't execute our children for cursing their parents is the same reason you don't sacrifice, observe the Jewish festivals, and refrain from eating pork.
You and I do not live under a theocracy. Christians do not live under the code implemented to govern the nation of Israel under the old covenant. That code is no longer in effect. Christ fulfilled the Law and ushered in the age of grace. That is good news, is it not?

Although we are not under the Law there is a very important thing we can learn from this. That God sees sin much more seriously than you or I do. That God is absolutely intolerant of sin. So, although we do not observe those laws, we can still learn from them. We can learn that under the old covenant, that God has strict, unwavering rules they were to follow.

jlay wrote:

So if someone claims "God hates cursing your parents" and a child who does so should be killed - should I follow him? (he DOES have scripture to "prove" his claim, after all)

If the bible confirms that as the truth for you, then yes, you are to follow. However, it does not.
Are you an Israelite?

No - but where does The Bible say these laws apply only to Israelites? Who decided that Lev 20:9 (among others) is rescinded, while Lev 20:13 remains in effect? Who decided that while Lev 20:13 is still in effect, the penalty has changed?

I wonder if this is an objection of your own, or did you just read it on a anti-Christian site?

I read The Bible from cover to cover several times as a young man, and found there were certain "anomalies" that made it impossible for me to accept as "the inerrant word of God". OTOH, the Bible serves very well as a historical narrative of a people (the Israelites,in the OT) and a person (Christ, in the NT). In both cases, IMO the Bible describes, in great detail, what people believed at the time it was written, compiled, and translated.

What we need to avoid here is being willfully ignorant. You read the bible in light of all of what the bible has to say. The bible explains why we don't do this. The same reason we don't execute our children for cursing their parents is the same reason you don't sacrifice, observe the Jewish festivals, and refrain from eating pork.

This brings us yet again to what I am having trouble understanding. "You" (collectively) claim there is an objective morality, but it seems to me that to "read" this "objective" morality, it must be interpreted by humans. To me, an objective morality that requires interpretation, feelings, or "knowing" results in a perception of the objective morality that is no longer objective. I am NOT rejecting the idea that an objective morality exists. But, IMO having to observe the objective morality through the flawed lens of personal experience, intuition, prejudice, and preferences distorts the objective morality into a highly personal view of morality.

You and I do not live under a theocracy. Christians do not live under the code implemented to govern the nation of Israel under the old covenant. That code is no longer in effect. Christ fulfilled the Law and ushered in the age of grace. That is good news, is it not?

Did God change His mind as to what He expected from people (in which case, was He "infallible")? Or did men's view of what He wanted change?

Although we are not under the Law there is a very important thing we can learn from this. That God sees sin much more seriously than you or I do. That God is absolutely intolerant of sin. So, although we do not observe those laws, we can still learn from them. We can learn that under the old covenant, that God has strict, unwavering rules they were to follow.

I wonder if this is a conclusion of your own, or did you just read it on a pro-Christian site, book, or in a sermon?

No - but where does The Bible say these laws apply only to Israelites?

Oh come on Wayne, I thought you said you read through the bible twice. Did you just have one eye open?

Exodus 19:3 (right before He gave the Law)
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

vs 8The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.


Exodus 20:22
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:

Who decided that while Lev 20:13 is still in effect, the penalty has changed?

God did.
Homosexuality is still a sin, as is lying, coveting, and fornication.
1 Tim 1:9-10
1 cor 6:9-10

"You" (collectively) claim there is an objective morality, but it seems to me that to "read" this "objective" morality, it must be interpreted by humans. To me, an objective morality that requires interpretation, feelings, or "knowing" results in a perception of the objective morality that is no longer objective. I am NOT rejecting the idea that an objective morality exists. But, IMO having to observe the objective morality through the flawed lens of personal experience, intuition, prejudice, and preferences distorts the objective morality into a highly personal view of morality.

I can see how someone who does not have the counselor to teach them would feel this way. In fact the Bible says such.
Apply that same standard to math, and then tell that to your Calculus instructor.
There are facts of math that I do not know or understand. But they are knowable and teachable.
You confess your own lens is flawed. So perhaps so is your reasoning.

Did God change His mind as to what He expected from people (in which case, was He "infallible")? Or did men's view of what He wanted change?

It is all part of the same plan.

I wonder if this is a conclusion of your own, or did you just read it on a pro-Christian site, book, or in a sermon?

I read it in the Bible. It is obvious and reasonable.

Simple question. "If" God is real, based on the Bible alone, what is His position on sin? Now remember I am only saying "if" He is real.

a) tolerates it
b) dislikes it
c) abhors it beyond what we can comprehend.
d) indifferent

waynepii wrote:Did God change His mind as to what He expected from people (in which case, was He "infallible")? Or did men's view of what He wanted change?

Excellent question, Wayne. I wish more "Christians" would ask themselves this question.
.
.