The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

I'd like to ask the same question in reverse. For those who are still believers, where did you start? Did you believe in Jesus and then read about the bad stuff? Or did you read about the bad stuff and then choose to believe Jesus logically follows from that? If you've just been a believer as long as you can remember since childhood, what's the earliest stuff about the Bible you learned about?

Right, I read the "bad stuff" and thought to myself...man that makes sense I'm a believer.

 

[Moral Orel]

You mixed up the /QUOTE thing again, so I can't use the quote feature.

When you say this: "killed for that purpose" you are adding to the definition. That is dishonest.

Analogy:

You say, "Apples are a fruit because their seeds are on the inside, which is the definition of a fruit".

I say, "Apples are not a fruit, because they grow on trees which makes them a tree".

I know the definition of a fruit. If I say that something that fits the definition is not a fruit, I am being dishonest.

You said this: "It was specifically because they were Jews." Which is false.
It is because he hated Jews, not because they were Jews. Do you not see the difference between those two statements?

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, I read the "bad stuff" and thought to myself...man that makes sense I'm a believer.

So you acknowledge that reading the Bible in a different order leads to different beliefs?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you acknowledge that reading the Bible in a different order leads to different beliefs?

Where did you get that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mixed up the /QUOTE thing again, so I can't use the quote feature.

I don't know what my deal is today, I can't seem to get the quote signs right. Sorry

When you say this: "killed for that purpose" you are adding to the definition. That is dishonest.



You said this: "It was specifically because they were Jews." Which is false.
It is because he hated Jews, not because they were Jews. Do you not see the difference between those two statements?

First of all I don't know how that would be dishonest. I might be incorrect at best (which I don't believe I am) but dishonest? Really?

Full Definition of genocide

1. : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

What I posted: genocide is the systematic killing of a specific group meaning the type of group is the only one that is killed and killed for that purpose but that was not the case.

I didn't change the definition, I expect an apology for claiming I am being dishonest.

That is what I said. The definition is underlined and I was not "adding to it" I then when on to say what a specific group meant in terms of that definition.

You said this: "It was specifically because they were Jews." Which is false.
It is because he hated Jews, not because they were Jews. Do you not see the difference between those two statements?

Jews were the specific people targeted because they were Jews, He specifically hated Jews for being Jewish or Jews. He hated Jews, thus chose Jews to kill due to that hatred. He didn't pick Christians because He hated Jews, He didn't chose Muslims because he hated Jews. He chose Jews because they were the specific people he hated and he hated them because they were Jews. Jews to him were an inferior race.

That is not true of the Jews. They didn't "pick" the Canaanite or Amalekites because they hated them for being Canaanite or Amalekites but because they attacked them and killed their toddlers, babies, pregnant women and old, sick and weak. It wasn't that the Canaanites and Amalekites were chosen, it was because the Canaanites and Amalekites chose to kill them.

 

[anonymous person]

No, I did not. I was a believer into my teens. Lost interest after that for a while. When I did take an interest again, I knew some things in the OT existed, but not to what extent. I was still a believer, just not a follower at this point. Once I found out the extent, I stopped being a believer. But not solely due to how bad it was, there are a lot of factors.

Do you think Sunday School for children starts with the OT? I've been to a lot of churches as a kid, of quite a few denominations (my parents skipped around a lot). They all start with John 3:16. It may be speculation, but I bet most churches start there and work there way back (no church service I ever attended went to the places we've been talking about at all though). Once you believe the good news, it's easier to rationalize the bad stuff.

So when you say you were a follower of Jesus Christ, what you mean to signify is that while you were a child you kind of just went along with whatever your Sunday School teachers taught you.

Is that about it?

 

[quatona]

No, they are not necessarily the same; a subjectivist need not be a relativist.

...and, btw., an objectivist need not be an absolutist (most actually aren´t, in fact).

 

[anonymous person]

That's the point of objective morals. If it was okay for one group in one circumstance, then it isn't objectively wrong, because being put in the same circumstances would make it okay again. Jesus coming along and making morals different shows that they are no longer objective.

You're confusing objective moral duties with moral absolutes.

There is a distinction.

 

[Davian]

If you are not going to directly answer the question, or keep with the topic of the thread, this came to mind, paraphrased from a post I made in a different thread:

Granting for a moment the existence of a god that is able to provide this religious experience that you speak of;

We observe two individuals, Theist A, and Theist B. Both want to believe, both study their holy texts, and both participate in all the trappings of the associated religion.

Theist A somehow achieves this religious experience that you speak of. However, Theist B only manages to convince themselves of achieving this goal, in the self-deceiving manner of those that have religious experiences in those [for the purposes of this hypothetical] false regions.

Now, how do you and I tell the difference between the two? It's not like the one that has the "real" experience can demonstrate that he has an actual relationship with his god.

And, I know of no criteria by which we could prove the experiences of Theist B to be false, do you?

If what happened to Theist B can explain the experiences for both A and B, while you may disagree with my conclusion, you should consider it as a possibility.

Do you?

Jesus said you could tell the difference between those who were His followers and those who were not by the love they have for their fellow man.

I would say that would be one way of determining the difference.

In fact, the epistles of John go into great depth on this issue. He who says he loves God but hates his neighbor is a liar. Very strong words indeed.

The litmus test is how one loves. We all love sure. But how we love is the test.

How do we conduct this "test"? How can tell which theist is simply self-deceived?

 

[anonymous person]

How do we conduct this "test"? How can tell which theist is simply self-deceived?

Peter received a rebuke and a command as a result of him asking a similar question.

Jesus asked him, "what has that to do with you?" He then commanded Peter to follow Him.

All that we need to know, we will come to know as we follow Christ. Anything that is not necessary for the fulfilling of the will of God to include one's salvation and sanctification is superfluous.

Jesus rebuked Peter because he loved Peter and did not want him spending one single second concerning himself with matters that would not edify, build up, strengthen, and encourage him.

 

[Davian]

Peter received a rebuke and a command as a result of him asking a similar question.

Jesus asked him, "what has that to do with you?" He then commanded Peter to follow Him.

All that we need to know, we will come to know as we follow Christ. Anything that is not necessary for the fulfilling of the will of God to include one's salvation and sanctification is superfluous.

Jesus rebuked Peter because he loved Peter and did not want him spending one single second concerning himself with matters that would not edify, build up, strengthen, and encourage him.

It's good that you concede that one can be self-decieved about religious experiences such as yours, even if you do not have an actual test for its veracity.

 

[anonymous person]

It's good that you concede that one can be self-decieved about religious experiences such as yours, even if you do not have an actual test for its veracity.

There is a difference between asking me if there is a test for determining if another person is self-deceived, and asking me if there is a test for determining if I am self-deceived.

We are exhorted numerous times in scripture to examine ourselves to see whether or not we past the test. I make it my aim to continually check my thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings, my views, and anything else with scripture.

Notice the bold word "ourselves". I cannot examine myself if I am always looking at other people.

Even looking at myself can be done inordinately. But if I ever focus my gaze intently on Christ, I can never be deceived.

There comes a point in every man's life where he has to make a decision. He will either decide to walk by faith and not by sight, or he will decide to walk by sight and not by faith.

I have done the latter and by God's grace, came to an end of myself. Now I desire and strive to do the former for it is written, the just shall live by his faith.

 

[Davian]

There is a difference between asking me if there is a test for determining if another person is self-deceived, and asking me if there is a test for determining if I am self-deceived.

Indeed, and the question was phrased accordingly. You cannot tell if those around you are simply self-deceived about their religious beliefs.

We are exhorted numerous times in scripture to examine ourselves to see whether or not we past the test. I make it my aim to continually check my thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings, my views, and anything else with scripture.

Not a very robust test, if one is self-deceived in these matters.

Notice the bold word "ourselves". I cannot examine myself if I am always looking at other people.

Even looking at myself can be done inordinately. But if I ever focus my gaze intently on Christ, I can never be deceived.

I know you consider yourself infallible. However, for me, that is cancelled out by others that consider themselves infallible, and have beliefs contrary to yours. I will wait for you (or those others) to demonstrate that your/their [religious] beliefs comport with observations of reality.

There comes a point in every man's life where he has to make a decision. He will either decide to walk by faith and not by sight, or he will decide to walk by sight and not by faith.

I have done the latter and by God's grace, came to an end of myself. Now I desire and strive to do the former for it is written, the just shall live by his faith.

An argument for gullibility? I'll pass, thanks.

 

[anonymous person]

Indeed, and the question was phrased accordingly. You cannot tell if those around you are simply self-deceived about their religious beliefs.

I never said there was no way to tell. I emphasized that so long as I am looking at others, I cannot examine myself to see whether or not I pass the test.

Not a very robust test, if one is self-deceived in these matters.

The teachings of Christ and the apostles are not vague or ambiguous. They are there in black and white for me to see. I can either will to conform to them or I can will to have them conform to me.

Adultery, fornication, sexual impurity, pride, arrogance, gossip, homosexual relations, cheating, stealing, lying, not doing what I know is right and doing what I know is wrong.

All of these and more are there in black and white.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control.

These serve as a mirror. If I look into these things and find myself, my conscience either accuses or excuses me.

I know you consider yourself infallible.

Not at all. I am fallible human being who follows the infallible Son of God, Jesus Christ.

However, for me, that is cancelled out by others that consider themselves infallible, and have beliefs contrary to yours. I will wait for you (or those others) to demonstrate that your/their [religious] beliefs comport with observations of reality.

An argument for gullibility? I'll pass, thanks.

No, just plainly stating that I have lived the easy way. I have walked by sight so to speak. I have been there and done that. I have lived the life of a cowardly, self-centered, egotistical, self-sufficient, "I am only going to go by what my two eyeballs see", "I am going to do me regardless" type of person.

It's easy to live like that. Anyone can do it. Many do it. In fact, all are born with that mentality, that carnal disposition. It comes natural to us. Oh sure, men may get educated and may refine their more base passions, but they are still carnal at heart. They may graduate from driving a Ford or a Dodge, to a Ferrari or a Porsche, but the man stays the same. He may graduate from wearing sneakers to wing-tips, from wearing t-shirts to tuxedos, but he's no different underneath all the superfluous externalities. The carnal, natural man may sit under the most learned white haired professors at the most distinguished universities, but the knowledge stays floating around up in his head. It never makes it to his heart.

I have seen the end of carnality, the end of the natural, fleshly life. It is corruption.

Years ago, I was in your position. Totally totally totally at odds with and fully against Christianity because it seemed a very peculiar thing.

The difference between you and I is that I have been on both sides of the fence. You have been on only one and you judge the side I am on now from where you stand. So I expect you to speak as you do. I would be shocked if you spoke in any other way.

The just shall live by his faith.

 

[anonymous person]

sYou have phrases that are your "go to phrases".

"Comports with reality".

"Give me a testable falsifiable hypothesis".

"Test this, test that? What test do you have? Can I test this? How do I test that?"



I have a question for you.

Tell me how you test the veridicality of your five senses.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, just plainly stating that I have lived the easy way. I have walked by sight so to speak. I have been there and done that. I have lived the life of a cowardly, self-centered, egotistical, self-sufficient, "I am only going to go by what my two eyeballs see", "I am going to do me regardless" type of person.

It's easy to live like that. Anyone can do it. Many do it. In fact, all are born with that mentality, that carnal disposition. It comes natural to us. Oh sure, men may get educated and may refine their more base passions, but they are still carnal at heart. They may graduate from driving a Ford or a Dodge, to a Ferrari or a Porsche, but the man stays the same. He may graduate from wearing sneakers to wing-tips, from wearing t-shirts to tuxedos, but he's no different underneath all the superfluous externalities. The carnal, natural man may sit under the most learned white haired professors at the most distinguished universities, but the knowledge stays floating around up in his head. It never makes it to his heart.

I have seen the end of carnality, the end of the natural, fleshly life. It is corruption.

Years ago, I was in your position. Totally totally totally at odds with and fully against Christianity because it seemed a very peculiar thing.

The difference between you and I is that I have been on both sides of the fence. You have been on only one and you judge the side I am on now from where you stand. So I expect you to speak as you do. I would be shocked if you spoke in any other way.

The just shall live by his faith.

The arrogance you display is truly without parallel on this forum. And you are too oblivious to see it. In fact, worse still, you think you are being humble.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Adultery, fornication, sexual impurity, pride, arrogance, gossip, homosexual relations, cheating, stealing, lying, not doing what I know is right and doing what I know is wrong.

All of these and more are there in black and white.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control.

These serve as a mirror. If I look into these things and find myself, my conscience either accuses or excuses me.

You have no scruples about lying, as you have lied on multiple occasions while here. But your conscience always excuses you because you are lying for Jesus.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was not "adding to it" I then when on to say what a specific group meant in terms of that definition.

You added to it when you said that they were "killed for that purpose". The definition of genocide says nothing about what the purpose is. It says the group is identified based on their society, political affiliation, or culture. Why you decide to kill a society, political affiliation or culture has nothing to do with whether it is genocide or not. Attempting to kill a society, political group, or culture, for any reason is genocide. "Based on" does not equal "because of".

I'll use another example to make it clearer, instead of sticking to Hitler. Native Americans.

We (and by "we" I just mean European settlers, not the USA specifically) virtually annihilated the Native Americans. The Americas had somewhere between 50-100 million Native American inhabitants before we showed up. 80-90% of them were exterminated by us by multiple means. True, some of it can be attributed to the natural transmission of small pox, but some of it can be attributed to the intentional transmission of small pox as well. As well as all the villages we slaughtered and burned, as well as all the political policies we enacted to force them around (Trail of Tears), etc... And true, Native Americans fought back, and even they slaughtered entire villages. But a lot more of them were peaceful and welcoming than we were. And they were a lot less equipped to deal with our conquest than we were. We annihilated them because we wanted their stuff, not because we simply wanted to kill Native Americans. This was also genocide.

He specifically hated Jews for being Jewish or Jews

No, he hated the Jews because he basically blamed them for all the evils of the world. Mostly, he blamed them for losing WWI.
Follow this link to learn why he hated the Jews. I found a lot of sites with the same information, I picked that one because it shared a lot of common reasons with a lot of other sites. He did what he did for those reasons, not "because they were Jewish". Your "because" is in the wrong place.

That is not true of the Jews. They didn't "pick" the Canaanite or Amalekites because they hated them for being Canaanite or Amalekites but because they attacked them and killed their toddlers, babies, pregnant women and old, sick and weak. It wasn't that the Canaanites and Amalekites were chosen, it was because the Canaanites and Amalekites chose to kill them.

They were told to kill every single member of a culture. That is the only pertinent information necessary to deem it as genocide. Nothing else you said here has a bearing on whether it was or was not genocide. Nothing you said here is a qualifier for the definition of the word genocide.

What is true is that they were commanded to kill every single member of that culture. So God commanded then to commit genocide. Whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant. When they failed to do so, they were punished, so it is clear that God wanted an act of genocide to occur.

Now you are free to try and justify that act of genocide. But you must acknowledge the definitions of clearly defined words. If you can't agree with the dictionary's definition of some words, then we can't be sure we have any idea what you're talking about at any given time because we have no idea what your definition of a word is without it aligning with the dictionary. It isn't like arguing over whether a moral is good or bad, it is about the objective fact of what a word means. Genocide isn't a word we can quibble over it's definition.

It was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin in response to Nazi Germany. When he says, "By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" you don't get to disagree with him.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where did you get that?

When you said this:

Right, I read the "bad stuff" and thought to myself...man that makes sense I'm a believer.

I assumed sarcasm thanks to your smily. So is it fair to read it as (minus the sarcasm) "I didn't read the 'bad stuff' and then think to myself... man that makes sense, I'm a believer"?
So since I asked about the order you received information here (bolding added for emphasis here):

did you read about the bad stuff and then choose to believe Jesus logically follows from that?

You disagreed that this is the order you received information before becoming a believer. Because you chose to use sarcasm to state that, I read your sarcasm to mean that it is obvious you wouldn't have become a believer by reading the "bad stuff" first. If I misunderstood you, I'm going to have to blame your choice of sarcasm on that one. If you meant something else, please state so more clearly and earnestly.

But the question is, again, were you already a believer when you first heard of the bad stuff, or did you have all the information before you made a decision to believe?

 

[Davian]

sYou have phrases that are your "go to phrases".

"Comports with reality".

"Give me a testable falsifiable hypothesis".

"Test this, test that? What test do you have? Can I test this? How do I test that?"



I have a question for you.

Tell me how you test the veridicality of your five senses.

What does this have to do with the moral argument? Or is this you abandoning the moral argument?