So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[crepuscule]

Where did I say that we should disobey the law of God?

Crep, if ethics are truly relative what is the big deal in how one got there? Why not, to a degree, choose actual pleasure over some relative moral ideal?

Already explained ad nauseam.

Of course I would disagree, the law of God is universal and binding. And all men are accountable to it.

Well they should actually have an argument. Look, math does not exist without minds. Distance for instance would exist between the moon and earth apart from minds, but it takes a mind, or minds, to assign subjective tokens of measurement. But distance is a real physical thing, the math is based on a physical reality, morality is not like that. The ideal that murder is wrong is not a physical thing.

[seer]

No, if a Government did apply the death penalty for witchcraft it would not be a sin our immoral. Remember the Hebrews were under the Mosaic Civil Code, that was a theocracy, we no longer have such a theocracy so it is not necessary to apply said civil code, though witchcraft is still a sin.

Already explained ad nauseam.

I just don't get why you would put more credence in a relative moral ideal than personal pleasure or fulfillment.

Unless of course if the law of God's exists, then our personal opinions would not matter. It would exist and have authority whether we believe in it or not.

Again, there is no 2+2=4 without a mind, and it does apply to physical reality. I can objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4, how can one objectively demonstrate that murder is wrong. I think that would remain a subjective consideration.

[crepuscule]

No, if a Government did apply the death penalty for witchcraft it would not be a sin our immoral. Remember the Hebrews were under the Mosaic Civil Code, that was a theocracy, we no longer have such a theocracy so it is not necessary to apply said civil code, though witchcraft is still a sin.

I just don't get why you would put more credence in a relative moral ideal than personal pleasure or fulfillment.

Unless of course if the law of God's exists, then our personal opinions would not matter. It would exist and have authority whether we believe in it or not.

Glad to hear that, according to you your own opinion does not matter, since you believe God exists. Why should I listen to you if your opinion is irrelevant?

Again, there is no 2+2=4 without a mind, and it does apply to physical reality. I can objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4, how can one objectively demonstrate that murder is wrong. I think that would remain a subjective consideration.

objectively

[seer]

No Crep, I said executing a witch would not in itself be a sin or murder. No matter which government did it.

Yet you would chide the man who chose personal pleasure over a relative cultural norm. I don't get the logic.

Glad to hear that, according to you your own opinion does not matter, since you believe God exists. Why should I listen to you if your opinion is irrelevant?

My opinion does not matter, they only question that matters is, does the law of God exist.

objectively

Again, the difference is that that one can objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4, you can not objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong. And what is objective is that which is true apart from personal opinion, or exists independently of the viewer/subject. And again, if one believes in objective moral truths it is on him to demonstrate how they exist. We have already seen, that at least in one important aspect, it can not be compared to mathematics.

[Tassman]

No, if a Government did apply the death penalty for witchcraft it would not be a sin our immoral. Remember the Hebrews were under the Mosaic Civil Code, that was a theocracy, we no longer have such a theocracy so it is not necessary to apply said civil code, though witchcraft is still a sin.

Where do you find the distinction between the Law of God and the Mosaic Civil Code? IOW: Why don't you obey God and kill those that disobey God's Law as commanded by God in a very long list of offences in the OT? After all, the good Christian folk of Salem killed lots of witches. And the Christian Dominionists seek to order society according to the laws that governed the Israelites in the Old Testament...including lots and lots of capital punishment.

I just don't get why you would put more credence in a relative moral ideal than personal pleasure or fulfillment.

We are acculturated and socialised from infancy onward to be responsible, caring members of family and community. That's why.

Unless of course if the law of God's exists, then our personal opinions would not matter. It would exist and have authority whether we believe in it or not.

The "Law of God" is what man said it was when he first devised the notion of gods. Man came first and made the gods in his own image with the same passions and desire for praise.

Again, there is no 2+2=4 without a mind, and it does apply to physical reality. I can objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4, how can one objectively demonstrate that murder is wrong. I think that would remain a subjective consideration.

Murder is generally considered wrong in the context of the community setting...not necessarily in and of itself.

[crepuscule]

No Crep, I said executing a witch would not in itself be a sin or murder. No matter which government did it.

Yet you would chide the man who chose personal pleasure over a relative cultural norm. I don't get the logic.

My opinion does not matter, they only question that matters is, does the law of God exist.

Or so your opinion is.

Again, the difference is that that one can objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4, you can not objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong. And what is objective is that which is true apart from personal opinion, or exists independently of the viewer/subject. And again, if one believes in objective moral truths it is on him to demonstrate how they exist. We have already seen, that at least in one important aspect, it can not be compared to mathematics.

[seer]

Crep, the New Testament does not forbid governments from executing criminals (Rom.13).

Why would I be obligated not to bed as many women as I desired even though the society generally frowned on that. I don't get your reasoning.

Ok, so there may be a place in the universe where 2+2=5?

Making a rational argument for the universality of mathematics or the laws of logic is a darn sight easier than for objective morality. With consistent experience and observation we have a solid basis for believing in the universal nature of both. With morality you can not even get off the ground.

[Tassman]

Crep, the New Testament does not forbid governments from executing criminals (Rom.13).

Why would a government regard witches as criminals, as opposed to mentally deranged?

Why would I be obligated not to bed as many women as I desired even though the society generally frowned on that. I don't get your reasoning.

Making a rational argument for the universality of mathematics or the laws of logic is a darn sight easier than for objective morality. With consistent experience and observation we have a solid basis for believing in the universal nature of both. With morality you can not even get off the ground.

There is no universal basis for morality other than the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

[crepuscule]

Crep, the New Testament does not forbid governments from executing criminals (Rom.13).

Why would I be obligated not to bed as many women as I desired even though the society generally frowned on that. I don't get your reasoning.

Ok, so there may be a place in the universe where 2+2=5?

Making a rational argument for the universality of mathematics or the laws of logic is a darn sight easier than for objective morality. With consistent experience and observation we have a solid basis for believing in the universal nature of both. With morality you can not even get off the ground.

Universal is not the same thing as objective; the trick is making an argument for the objectivity of mathematics. Or indeed of morality.

[37818]

There is no such teaching in the NT. Not even the execution of the sexually immoral. And the one case the accusers walked away.

[seer]

In the context of Scripture theft in the Old Testament was not a death penalty offense. Witchcraft was.

That is no answer. Why am I obligated to follow community values? Are you saying that you never violated community values?

Then the law of non-contradiction may also not hold, which would reduce all we think or know to nonsense.

Universal is not the same thing as objective; the trick is making an argument for the objectivity of mathematics. Or indeed of morality.

2+2=4 could well be universal and objective. The law of God would be both universal and objective (objective to humankind at least).

[seer]

I'm speaking of consensual sex. So if a gay or straight man has hundreds of partners in his life time that is an illness? And it looks like promiscuity is a genetically predisposed tendency. All perfectly natural.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/210277.php

[Tassman]

I'm speaking of consensual sex. So if a gay or straight man has hundreds of partners in his life time that is an illness? And it looks like promiscuity is a genetically predisposed tendency.

All perfectly natural.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/210277.php

[crepuscule]

In the context of Scripture theft in the Old Testament was not a death penalty offense. Witchcraft was.

That is no answer. Why am I obligated to follow community values? Are you saying that you never violated community values?

obligated

Then the law of non-contradiction may also not hold, which would reduce all we think or know to nonsense.

2+2=4 could well be universal and objective. The law of God would be both universal and objective (objective to humankind at least).

Imo 2+2=4 is extremely likely both universally and objectively true. The point was that showing 2+2 is universally 4 is not proof that it is objectively

[seer]

Let me try one more time. My point is it would not necessarily be unjust for a state to execute a witch. That would not violate Biblical principles. It certainly does not violate OT principles or NT principles. Except for Romans 13, the New Testament does not deal with what a state can or can not do, the focus is on personal behavior.

obligatedAnd yes, I have also violated some. Who hasn't?

Then what is your point? If I violate social norms for personal pleasure - what is the big deal?

How do you know it even holds here? If I follow your reasoning I think it would logically lead to solipsism.

Imo 2+2=4 is extremely likely both universally and objectively true. The point was that showing 2+2 is universally 4 is not proof that it is objectively

If this is correct how can the moral realist claim that ethics are objective? You seem to think that they have an argument.

God's law is objective to humankind because it does not depend on our subjective view. It exists whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not. And is universal.