The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Tassman]

Well that may be what the majority or the powerful prefer now,

but that doesn't make it good or right.

[seer]

Tass, first that is a lie, I already demonstrated that there is not an evolving interpretation of scripture when discussing the homosexual issue. There is a rejection of scripture.


That is the point, there is no objective good or right in your world. There is no moral progress because there is no objective standard to progress to. There is just moral change.

[seer]

It bears on the question of whether, if they do just whatever they want to do, they will automatically define it to be right.

No, it is not. My point in asking you a question was to find out how you would answer it. You did not answer my question.

Then I have no idea what you are asking. I never suggested that one would automatically define a certain behavior to be right. But like the point on the Holocaust they certainly could. And it was right for them.

[Tassman]

Tass, first that is a lie, I already demonstrated that there is not an evolving interpretation of scripture when discussing the homosexual issue. There is a rejection of scripture.

YOUR

That is the point, there is no objective good or right in your world. There is no moral progress because there is no objective standard to progress to. There is just moral change.

ANY world.

[seer]

YOUR

Tass, again you are being false, if a Christian disagrees with me on homosexuality they are clearly rejecting the text of Scripture. We have been over this and to pretend otherwise is deceptive on your part. And witchcraft and adultery are still immoral whether we apply the death penalty or not.

And so on, ALL based upon differing interpretations of scripture.

Really? Since I am a Christian I get my ethical marching orders from the New Testament. Where does the New Testament command us to execute adulterers? What was Christ's response to the woman caught in adultery?

ANY world.

The moral teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general.

[Tassman]

Tass, again you are being false, if a Christian disagrees with me on homosexuality they are clearly rejecting the text of Scripture. We have been over this and to pretend otherwise is deceptive on your part.

Christians frequently disagree with each other re the underlying meaning of scriptural texts...including homosexuality. Texts have historically been interpreted as a reflection of the moral values of the day.

And witchcraft and adultery are still immoral whether we apply the death penalty or not.

They obeyed scripture and put witches to death. Same with the Inquisitions! And re adulterers scripture demands that we kill them, not vote them into the Oval Office.

Really? Since I am a Christian I get my ethical marching orders from the New Testament. Where does the New Testament command us to execute adulterers? What was Christ's response to the woman caught in adultery?

The Southern Baptist Convention used scripture to retain slavery E.g. Paul returned a runaway slave. Scripture was also used to oppose mixed marriages. ALL based upon differing interpretations of scripture.

The moral teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general.

you've got it right?

[Doug Shaver]

Then I have no idea what you are asking.

All right. But now, I have no idea what you meant when you said, "by definition they would be morally right."

[Doug Shaver]

There is a rejection of scripture.

They say there isn't. Why should I take your word over theirs?

[seer]

All right. But now, I have no idea what you meant when you said, "by definition they would be morally right."

That is just saying that the majority or the powerful define what is right, that since there are no objective moral standard in the atheist world (the exception being Moral Realism, which has its own problems) that would follow. And what majority or the powerful deem is right, by definition is - since there is no objective way to counter that opinion.

[seer]

They say there isn't. Why should I take your word over theirs?

Listen Doug, I spent two years in a liberal church and yes they do reject the texts. There is no question what Scripture teaches, their general argument is that these were merely cultural considerations, but there is nothing in the context to suggest that that is the case. I mean just look at the first reference below. If homosexuality is merely a cultural prohibition, are adultery, stealing, swindling, idolatry also merely cultural considerations?

[Doug Shaver]

(the exception being Moral Realism, which has its own problems)

Moral realism is the claim that there is an objective moral standard. If moral realism has problems, so does your objective moral standard.

[seer]

Moral realism is the claim that there is an objective moral standard. If moral realism has problems, so does your objective moral standard.

No, the atheist has no way of grounding or sourcing universal moral truths. The theist does, in the character and mind of God. I guess they could opt for something like Plato's forms, but I'm not sure how that would actually work.

[Doug Shaver]

Listen Doug, I spent two years in a liberal church and yes they do reject the texts.

I spent two years in one conservative church and four years in another conservative church. They did not reject the texts. Both affirmed that the texts were the inerrant word of God, but they disagreed over what those texts said on several issues.

If homosexuality is merely a cultural prohibition, are adultery, stealing, swindling, idolatry also merely cultural considerations?

My point is not about homosexuality in particular. My point is about whether someone has to reject scripture in order to disagree with you about what scripture teaches.

[Doug Shaver]

No, the atheist has no way of grounding or sourcing universal moral truths. The theist does, in the character and mind of God. I guess they could opt for something like Plato's forms, but I'm not sure how that would actually work.

It works fine for those who believe in Plato's forms. They think we perceive the forms of moral truths the same way we perceive all the other forms.

[seer]

I spent two years in one conservative church and four years in another conservative church. They did not reject the texts. Both affirmed that the texts were the inerrant word of God, but they disagreed over what those texts said on several issues.


My point is not about homosexuality in particular. My point is about whether someone has to reject scripture in order to disagree with you about what scripture teaches.

On this issue of homosexuality, they do disagree with Scripture. Most of Scripture is pretty straight forward, not everything is open to interpretation.