Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Darth Executor]

Aside from the implications being joyless and fearful works-based salvation, nullifying the central tenet of your religion,

Nah, the implications are that there is a reward for your faithfulness so the sacrifices you make are not in vain. As opposed to atheist religions like liberalism where you get nothing (if you're lukcy).

I don't know what to tell you.

You don't know what to tell me because you have been duped into adopting a moral system designed to make you easy prey to unscrupulous individuals. You, and most atheists on tweb, are pretty much one giant sucker brigade. Even the people Benny Hinn gelds aren't as bad off. It's a genuinely pitiful situation.

[Darth Executor]

This realization is why we can - and do - place so much emphasis on making this world a better place to live, especially for the babies whose skulls we drill through and suck the brains out of.

Adjusted for accuracy.

[whag]

Nah, the implications are that there is a reward for your faithfulness so the sacrifices you make are not in vain. As opposed to atheist religions like liberalism where you get nothing (if you're lukcy).

Liberalism isn't an atheist religion. There are liberal Christians who sacrifice without obsessing on punishment and reward.

Even the people Benny Hinn gelds aren't as bad off.

Falling at the wave of a charlatan's coat is pretty bad off. Only suckers believe we were once protected from landslides in a literal Eden. What's funny is Jimmy Swaggart probably sold your parents that creotard nonsense, and the meme passed on to you. Easy peasy, japanesey.

[seer]

But you have no idea they'll be there, meaning heaven could be a disappointment of unimaginable proportions.

No Whag, God has promised to "wipe away every tear." I trust that He can and will do that. Besides there are people who I have loved that that I'm pretty sure died as unbelievers - I'm reconciled to that fact. And there are people I cared for that I'm pretty sure died as believers.

[seer]

In any case, how does your objective moral system help you understand what is right and wrong apart from thinking about what does and does not harm others? What real advantage does your system provide? "Do whatever God says" is hardly adequate because people have been disagreeing about "what God says" since there have been people who have believed in such a power. How do you know what the correct way of understanding his will is? I asked about all of this in post 164, and I don't believe you have addressed the problem:

Again, that is the difference between ontology and epistemology - even if we don't always rightly understand God's law it still exists, and exists objectively. And it is not hard to understand the moral unctions in the New Testament (there is for instance no question that homosexual behavior is sin, it's just that many do not like that fact) . And the second point is that there is no real authority attached to secular systems. A Stalin or Mao can murder millions and die in bed at a good old age. With the law of God the universe is just, without the law of God the universe is ultimately unjust. And that is a great difference Enjolras - it means everything.

[seer]

You could be a transhumanist and believe we'll all eventually have deathless technology-enhanced bodies.

I have no idea what that means - do you think the universe will last forever?

Then you're a consequentialist like the rest of us. No happiness from being moral=no reason to act moral. A true divine command deontologist would say virtue before God is it's own reward even if He decides to snuff our candle out after death.

No, I believe in the biblical model of ethics. You are free to call it consequentialism. And I don't know if any Biblical sect were truly not consequentialists. Even the Sadducees who did not believe in the afterlife believed that future generations would be blessed according to their obedience.

So, now that we agree on that, what is wrong with a secular ethic based on acting for the happiness of yourself and those around you? To repeat myself from an earlier post:

The reason do no harm works and "it's ok to kill whoever you feel like" doesn't is because it leads to a Mad Max world in which somebody will come after you the moment you let your guard down or show signs of weakness. Who wants to live their life that way? Pol Pot, Saddam, Richard Ramirez, think about the way their lives ended. Were these really happy people, regardless of whatever they might have told themselves?

All men make trade offs. They obvious thought it was worth it to them - it would not be worth it to me. "Sweet dreams are made of these who am I to disagree." And when a Stalin or Mao die a good old age in bed, after slaughtering millions, there is, finally, no justice. They got away with it... And I have no problem with secular moral systems per se, like I said in the OP many of them are quite good. But there is no overriding authority in those systems - no ultimate justice. The Hutus slaughter 800,000 fellow human being and walk away clean. Actually, in their country, in a much stronger position - evolution in motion.

[MaxVel]

Except if you're going to evangelize, which is what your ultimate Christian responsibility is, you should be more empathetic. Perhaps Pixies's sister lost a child in a miscarriage (which seems like an arbitrary taking). There are a thousand circumstances that could cause him to struggle with the concept of death. You never know these things, and general platitudes like "God always takes life for good reason" is prosaic twaddle that doesn't help. I think deep down you know that.




Or Job even. You have to cite the hard examples to strengthen your responses and anticipate the replies if you want to be effective. Job's children are taken away because of a wager between God and Satan, which has all the hallmarks of the anthropomorphic whimsy of Greek theology. Anticipate and be thoughtful; don't just react with shallow boilerplate.



And you have a long way to go with evangelism, which is your ultimate purpose. Seer presented the idea very crudely because he himself is struggling with how nature has unfolded and operates (that is obvious) and it's led to this crapshow. Be helpful.

I'm sure (or maybe not) that you meant to be helpful, but don't you think it rather presumptuous of yourself to tell me how I should conduct myself in fulfilling my duties towards a God you apparently don't even believe in? I wouldn't dream of telling you how you should best act to please your wife, or in what precise ways you should do your job.

"Be helpful."


How ironic.

[MaxVel]

What counts as a good reason? Because he feels like? God is God, afterall, and what he feels like would seem to be a great reason to do something. Hey, maybe he wants a new species to worship him (a more reliable one), so he wants to get rid of the human race first. That would be a good reason right? It is not that different to what God did at the Flood anyway. God decided the world would be better if he pretty much started again, so wiped out almost all the world's population, children, babies and all. That that is fine, because human life is meaningless compatred to what what God wants.

Yes.

Then 'because it has a bad impact' is not what makes something morally wrong.

Yes, I agree.

Apparently seer thinks murder is wrong because God says it is wrong. For seer, if God says murder is fine in some situations, such as bashing Babylonian kids against rocks, then in those cases murder is morally right.

The think is that his worldview is not consistent. He thinks murder is wrong because God says it is wrong. He thinks slavery is wrong, even though God says it is fine.

I doubt Seer thinks that God says 'slavery is fine'. You may disagree with him, and attempt to argue that the Bible does say that, but I very much doubt that Seer agrees. So the 'inconsistency' that Seer has is the position you've attributed to him, not the position he holds.

Not sure I quite get this, so I will just try to explain what I mean. What seer is claiming is that he bases his morally on God via the Bible (as I understand it). <y point is that actually he is not doing that consistently. He does it for something, but not for others. Specifically, he does it for murder, but not for slavery. He claims "In the mean time, as a Christian, I'm explicitly called to follow the teachings and example of Christ", but is not (with respect to giving up all property).

Again, then your argument should be: "Seer, you misunderstand what the Bible teaches - see, here is where it says slavery is just fine; and here is where it says all Christians must give up all property." Rather than doing that, you're trying to get Seer to defend all your (mis)interpretations of the Bible. It's a nice rhetorical trick, but you haven't pulled it off.

Protip: If you do not tell people what their misconceptions are, they will not change them.

If I thought you wanted a meaningful discussion, where you would be open to changing your ideas if they were shown to be wrong, then I would have done that. Instead I think you're more interested in trying to maneuver Christians into 'gotcha' traps you've set, so you can feel superior.

And, as it is, it appears others have pointed out and corrected your misconceptions.



Part of the problem you have on this topic, I feel, is that you're importing your worldview into your evaluations of God's actions. I assume that you value human life very highly - perhaps more than anything else - and thus anything that would interrupt that life is taking away the most precious thing someone can have - their life. So, for God to end someone's life is the worst possible thing that can be done to them.

Problem is, that is not how God sees things. God values human life extremely highly, yet there is something even more valuable - the possibility of humans having eternal life in a relationship with God.

Effectively you're evaluating God's moral choices as if God - and eternal life with Him - didn't exist, saying God should act as if He didn't exist. Which is nonsensical.

[Kelp(p)]

I have no idea what that means - do you think the universe will last forever?



No, I believe in the biblical model of ethics. You are free to call it consequentialism. And I don't know if any Biblical sect were truly consequentialists. Even the Sadducees who did not believe in the afterlife believed that future generations would be blessed according to their obedience.



All men make trade offs. They obvious thought it was worth it to them - it would not be worth it to me. "Sweet dreams are made of these who am I to disagree." And when a Stalin or Mao die a good old age in bed, after slaughtering millions, there is, finally, no justice. They got away with it... And I have no problem with secular moral systems per se, like I said in the OP many of them are quite good. But there is no overriding authority in those systems - no ultimate justice. The Hutus slaughter 800,000 fellow human being and walk away clean. Actually, in their country, in a much stronger position - evolution in motion.

Frankly, I'm exhausted of this conversation.

Fine. You win.

[seer]

Frankly, I'm exhausted of this conversation.

Fine. You win.

I wasn't trying to win anything.

[MaxVel]

I wasn't trying to win anything.

You are AMAZING! Winning without even trying!

[Enjolras]

Again, that is the difference between ontology and epistemology - even if we don't always rightly understand God's law it still exists, and exists objectively. And it is not hard to understand the moral unctions in the New Testament (there is for instance no question that homosexual behavior is sin, it's just that many do not like that fact) .

Yes, but it is in epistemology where the rubber meets the road and we can test the usefulness and validity of moral systems. I know you think it is easy to determine correct moral views from the Bible, but history and the positions of your fellow Christians today undermine your case.

And the second point is that there is no real authority attached to secular systems. A Stalin or Mao can murder millions and die in bed at a good old age. With the law of God the universe is just, without the law of God the universe is ultimately unjust. And that is a great difference Enjolras - it means everything.

I will grant that justice in the afterlife for evil deeds is an advantage for your system. I would like to think that Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc did not get away with the evil they committed. But this is counter-balanced by the thought that most of their victims would share the same fate. It has always struck me a bizarre and unconscionable to imagine that the Jews Hitler murdered are in hell with him because they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

[MaxVel]

It has always struck me a bizarre and unconscionable to imagine that the Jews Hitler murdered are in hell with him because they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

Then perhaps it's not the case that they are? God is just, perfectly just.

Which is both comforting and frightening.

[whag]

Then perhaps it's not the case that they are? God is just, perfectly just.

Which is both comforting and frightening.

What you mean is God is perfectly merciful. Justice, according to Christianity, merits Hell. Mercy bypasses justice, in a sense.

You seem to be saying that works, heredity, longsuffering--or a combination of all three--save, rather than the specific belief standard Christianity demands (i.e., faith in the person of Jesus, which the Jews mostly did not have).

[seer]

You are AMAZING! Winning without even trying!

LOL... The reason for this thread is to kind of show that even atheists really do believe that there are objective moral wrongs. Wrongs that are not relative or based simply in culture. Which I believe is inconsistent with their worldview.