Fairness?

[JimL]

No Jim, God's laws are not arbitrary. They are grounded in His immutable, moral character. They can not be arbitrary. And God's laws would still be objective to mankind. And they have authority - violate them and unless you are covered by the blood of Christ, you will face consequences. There is no escape.

If morals are not arbitrary decisions made by God, then they are objectively real in and of themselves whether God exists or not. All you are doing is asserting the objectivity of morals, and then denying their objectivity by connecting them to a dependence upon God. To be truly objective, a thing need be real unto itself, not dependent upon the existence of another.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

And If you could please stop with the proselytising, it is not essential to the debate.

[Truthseeker]

If there is such a thing as morality that exists objectively, then based on what I think I know, science cannot demonstrate its existence. It cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted. God may exist, but science, being what it is, cannot demonstrate that he exists, either.

[Tassman]

Since no one mentioned any imaginary ones, what's your point?

Is there any other kind?

The problem with gods is that those proclaiming

[Tassman]

No Jim, God's laws are not arbitrary. They are grounded in His immutable, moral character. They can not be arbitrary.

…except that you’ve never been able to say what God’s immutable laws are despite many requests in many threads over the years. The best you’ve come up with is the Golden Rule, which long pre-dates the Christian God.

And God's laws would still be objective to mankind. And they have authority - violate them and unless you are covered by the blood of Christ, you will face consequences. There is no escape.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

So what does all this stuff have to do with non-Christians?

[Bill the Cat]

Is there any other kind?

Yes. And thanks for asking.

The problem with gods is that those proclaiming “justice in God’s eyes” can never agree upon just what constitutes “God’s justice” (or even which god) and yet they will vigorously defend their particular version of it come what may.

That sounds more like a human problem than God's.

[seer]

If morals are not arbitrary decisions made by God, then they are objectively real in and of themselves whether God exists or not. All you are doing is asserting the objectivity of morals, and then denying their objectivity by connecting them to a dependence upon God. To be truly objective, a thing need be real unto itself, not dependent upon the existence of another.

No James, it is not either or. If God's laws are grounded in His immutable moral character then they can't be arbitrary. "God can not lie" - that is not an arbitrary choice on His part, it is who He is - and that is unchangeable. And His moral law against lying is grounded in that immutable nature. And it remains objective to humankind.

And If you could please stop with the proselytising, it is not essential to the debate.

This is my thread Jim, I will say what I want. But the point is, violating God's law will have consequences if one does not repent. In your world there are no consequences for a Stalin or Mao that murder millions. If you can get away with evil in this world you win - no matter how evil your acts were.

[JimL]

If there is such a thing as morality that exists objectively, then based on what I think I know, science cannot demonstrate its existence. It cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted. God may exist, but science, being what it is, cannot demonstrate that he exists, either.

Thats true, nobody can demonstrate the existence of that which doesn't exist. Laws are not things that have existence of themselves, physical laws have no existence apart from the universe, and moral laws have no existence apart from the minds that establish them. You could argue that physical laws and moral laws are subject to God or subject to nature, but in either case they are subject and not objectively real in and of themselves. But that leaves no reason to assume that either physical or moral laws are subject to God, since only nature has known empirical objective reality. In my opinion, of course!

[seer]

…except that you’ve never been able to say what God’s immutable laws are despite many requests in many threads over the years. The best you’ve come up with is the Golden Rule, which long pre-dates the Christian God.

Of course I have. Read your New Testament. And just for a point of clarification - I said that God's laws are grounded in His immutable character.

[JimL]

No James, it is not either or. If God's laws are grounded in His immutable moral character then they can't be arbitrary. "God can not lie" - that is not an arbitrary choice on His part, it is who He is - and that is unchangeable. And His moral law against lying is grounded in that immutable nature. And it remains objective to humankind.

Just as an aside here: Would you claim then that Gods actions as defined by you are determined by his own nature? Seems like you are describing the immutability of universal physical law and applying it to the moral nature of God. Second, you need to define what you mean by "the laws are gounded". Do you mean that without God, morals have no existence of their own? That without God there is no such thing as good and evil? If so, then morality is subjective!

This is my thread Jim, I will say what I want.

I asked nicely.

But the point is, violating God's law will have consequences if one does not repent. In your world there are no consequences for a Stalin or Mao that murder millions. If you can get away with evil in this world you win - no matter how evil your acts were.

At any rate in my world there are no eternal consequences for Stalin or Mao, no. They don't exist. In your world there are no consequences either, so long as you say you are sorry!

[seer]

Just as an aside here: Would you claim then that Gods actions as defined by you are determined by his own nature? Seems like you are describing the immutability of universal physical law and applying it to the moral nature of God. Second, you need to define what you mean by "the laws are gounded". Do you mean that without God, morals have no existence of their own? That without God there is no such thing as good and evil? If so, then morality is subjective!

1. Yes, I would say that God's actions and moral law flow from His being. What He is ontologically.

2. And yes, without God there is no objective good or evil (objective to humankind) just opinion.

At any rate in my world there are no eternal consequences for Stalin or Mao, no. They don't exist. In your world there are no consequences either, so long as you say you are sorry!

1. If there are no ultimate consequences then we live in an unjust universe. Stalin and Mao get away with murder.

2. Christian repentance is more than saying that you are sorry. One must be born again, regenerated. We become a new person in Christ. So justice is met in one of two ways - either full and complete reformation or punishment. You, I'm sorry to say old friend, are on the road to punishment.

[Adrift]

No James, it is not either or. If God's laws are grounded in His immutable moral character then they can't be arbitrary. "God can not lie" - that is not an arbitrary choice on His part, it is who He is - and that is unchangeable. And His moral law against lying is grounded in that immutable nature. And it remains objective to humankind.



This is my thread Jim, I will say what I want. But the point is, violating God's law will have consequences if one does not repent. In your world there are no consequences for a Stalin or Mao that murder millions. If you can get away with evil in this world you win - no matter how evil your acts were.

He's basically throwing the Euthyphro dilemma at you. Good on you for answering the dilemma by splitting it down the middle. I'm a little wary of saying that moral goodness is subjective from God's point of view, but I don't know how better to put it other than maybe somehow tying into it the ontological argument and arguing that God is the greatest conceivable being, which is sort of what you're doing here.

[Darth Executor]

At any rate in my world there are no eternal consequences for Stalin or Mao, no. They don't exist. In your world there are no consequences either, so long as you say you are sorry!

In your world there were no temporal consequences for Stalin or Mao either. You can slaughter millions and not even have to do as much as say you're sorry.

[seer]

He's basically throwing the Euthyphro dilemma at you. Good on you for answering the dilemma by splitting it down the middle. I'm a little wary of saying that moral goodness is subjective from God's point of view, but I don't know how better to put it other than maybe somehow tying into it the ontological argument and arguing that God is the greatest conceivable being, which is sort of what you're doing here.

Yes, I think appealing to God's immutable moral nature removes the possible charge of His commands being arbitrary. I would however agree that God's moral law is subjective to Him - though objective to mankind. I don't see a way around that.

[Tassman]

Yes. And thanks for asking.

It was a rhetorical question. All gods are imaginary entities.

That sounds more like a human problem than God's.

[Tassman]

Of course I have.

Read your New Testament. And just for a point of clarification - I said that God's laws are grounded in His immutable character.