The definition of sin

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I gave multiple examples in the other thread. Go look for yourself.
No, you misunderstood. You gave examples where you felt God was immoral. We are talking about morality...e.g. morality and immorality. So whether or not you have been very "careful" not to use the word immorality you are claiming it anyway.



I don't know why you're bringing the Bible into this now, lol. I was addressing your misuse of the words "absolute" and "objective."
No, again you are claiming that God is immoral in the cases you have presented and when I and others give you reasons for why God in the Christian doctrine is not immoral you claim we are wrong. I stated very clearly that it would be immoral for a human to torture and kill an infant and that it is absolutely and objectively a sin for any human, anywhere, at anytime. I have also given you the Christian viewpoint on the actions of God in taking a human life.

God says: but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD.

So as Christians we know that His motivation for His actions are based in lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth because he delights in these things.



See, again you aren't paying attention.
But you aren't paying attention.

I told you in the other thread that I went to great efforts to avoid using the word "immoral." Now you think I'm trying to show God is immoral. I don't think you have a clue what this conversation is about. Again, for the one billionth time, I just want a straight answer: is morality, on your view, objective and absolute, or does God make the rules? "God is morality" is nonsensical, and is obviously the result of when you had tried and failed to grapple with the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma.
God makes the rules of morality for human beings.

The Christian Bible says: They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
and:
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

So this supports our view that morality comes from God and is inherent in the human being.
So both of those verses supports Christian dogma in this case.

I didn't begin this conversation. But if you're so eager to continue, I'll need you to explain what you mean when you say "absolute" and "objective." You'll need to explain why 2+2=4 is "absolute and objective" and always true no matter who is doing the figuring, while at the same time morality is "absolute and objective" and yet certain things are or aren't OK *depending upon* who is doing what.
No, it is absolutely and objectively immoral for a human, no matter who, when or where it occurs. Just as God is the maker of time, He sits outside of time, just as God is the Creator of gravity, He is not held to gravitational forces and just as God is the Creator of Life, He has authority over life and death. He is the only Judge of right and wrong, immoral or moral actions of His created and His created can not judge Him.

Psalm 50:6 And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. Selah

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king; He will save us-



The best sense I can make of your position is that you are saying this:

Morality is absolute and objective, and the fact of morality is that if you are the creator of a universe then you can do whatever you want with it and you can set the rules for the inhabitants however you like.
Morality is God's nature, His nature is absolute, unchanging, perfect and independent. Since God’s nature is the greatest of all possible good, an act is moral when it reflects God’s nature, God puts that nature within us with the ability to act upon it or act against it.

However, I find that to be self-contradictory and also poorly applied to Christian theology. So I don't understand your position at all, and I don't think you do either.
Well you think wrong. I understand it and you must as well to consider it self-contradictory at all. You are claiming that God can do what ever He wants to do but that is wrong. He does what is perfect, moral, absolute and unchanging and His moral nature is righteous and good. His actions come forth from His very nature.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, you misunderstood. You gave examples where you felt God was immoral. We are talking about morality...e.g. morality and immorality. So whether or not you have been very "careful" not to use the word immorality you are claiming it anyway.



No, again you are claiming that God is immoral in the cases you have presented and when I and others give you reasons for why God in the Christian doctrine is not immoral you claim we are wrong. I stated very clearly that it would be immoral for a human to torture and kill an infant and that it is absolutely and objectively a sin for any human, anywhere, at anytime. I have also given you the Christian viewpoint on the actions of God in taking a human life.

God says: but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD.

So as Christians we know that His motivation for His actions are based in lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth because he delights in these things.



But you aren't paying attention.

God makes the rules of morality for human beings.

The Christian Bible says: They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
and:
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

So this supports our view that morality comes from God and is inherent in the human being.
So both of those verses supports Christian dogma in this case.

No, it is absolutely and objectively immoral for a human, no matter who, when or where it occurs. Just as God is the maker of time, He sits outside of time, just as God is the Creator of gravity, He is not held to gravitational forces and just as God is the Creator of Life, He has authority over life and death. He is the only Judge of right and wrong, immoral or moral actions of His created and His created can not judge Him.

Psalm 50:6 And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. Selah

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king; He will save us-



Morality is God's nature, His nature is absolute, unchanging, perfect and independent. Since God’s nature is the greatest of all possible good, an act is moral when it reflects God’s nature, God puts that nature within us with the ability to act upon it or act against it.

Well you think wrong. I understand it and you must as well to consider it self-contradictory at all. You are claiming that God can do what ever He wants to do but that is wrong. He does what is perfect, moral, absolute and unchanging and His moral nature is righteous and good. His actions come forth from His very nature.

If you were to succeed in persuading me to become a Christian, I would still have to believe in the nonsensical doctrine of the trinity. So I don't know why you can't admit that this issue here is equally nonsensical. Just like you refuse to admit that God tortured the infant despite also, presumably, believing that God would have been justified in doing so.

But the real issue here, I suppose, is the failure of philosophy itself. You say something, I disagree, and there is no aspect of reality that we can point to in order to resolve the dispute. Is morality absolute and objective, or is it a useful fiction? Well, there's no microscope or telescope that will tell us the answer.

And your theology, as nonsensical as you won't admit it is, could still be correct as long as physical reality vouches for it. Quantum mechanics makes no sense at all, but it's been verified to excruciating detail. If you were to approach an atheist, you should probably lead like this - but also follow up with the evidence supporting your case. As it happens, you have none.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you were to succeed in persuading me to become a Christian, I would still have to believe in the nonsensical doctrine of the trinity.
Whoa, hold on there...I am not trying to persuade you into becoming a Christian. You claim you've been there and done that. What I am doing is presenting my viewpoint on something that you have declared to be wrong or inconsistent in the Christian Theology.
So I don't know why you can't admit that this issue here is equally nonsensical.
The Trinity is complex, I'll give you than but nonsensical...no. Take for example the paradox of Material constitution. It is a paradox but it is not nonsensical. We know that clay and a sculpture are two objects but when a sculpture is made out of clay the clay and the sculpture become one but the two materials still exist as two; so not nonsensical just a paradox.

Just like you refuse to admit that God tortured the infant despite also, presumably, believing that God would have been justified in doing so.
I refuse to admit something that is not in evidence. Just because you want to believe that the infant was tortured doesn't make it true. You have determined that due to your animosity to something you don't even believe exists. I on the other hand want to believe that God did not torture the infant because God has shown Himself to be merciful and loving to me in my life and it doesn't fit with His character. The only evidence for torture would be if the verse claimed that God tortured the infant and it doesn't. If the verse said that God then tortured the infant and in seven days the infant died, then yes, you would have evidence that God indeed tortured him but that is not the case. So, this being the only evidence for God's actions we must then take other Scripture to make a determination of God's motives and I have shown in text what God has said according to his motives:
but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD.

As a Christian I know God and that He indeed exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth and can then with God's own words show He would not torture an innocent infant. He using His mercy would shield that infant from it. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to think that God is any of those things but as a Christian I am not inconsistent to my beliefs, nor am I self-contradictory in my beliefs because Scripture provides evidence for it.

But the real issue here, I suppose, is the failure of philosophy itself. You say something, I disagree, and there is no aspect of reality that we can point to in order to resolve the dispute. Is morality absolute and objective, or is it a useful fiction? Well, there's no microscope or telescope that will tell us the answer.
I find it interesting that you proclaim that there is a failure in the philosophy but have no evidence to provide for that declaration. You claim there is no absolute or objectivity in morality yet stand there and claim an absolute and objective morality in claiming that to torture an infant must not only be wrong for humans but God as well. What in your belief system allows for absolute and objective morality against the actions that you feel God took? You have given no evidence why God would not have the ability and desire to protect the infant from awareness of his illness, yet you claim I have none to show why He would; when in fact, I have delivered evidence from the same book as you have used to show God's torture which has shown in His own words that He is motivated to not allow that suffering. You can't have it both ways, you can't claim you know God's motivation when you are only using your own standard when in fact, God supplies His motivation in the very book you are using to accuse Him.

And your theology, as nonsensical as you won't admit it is, could still be correct as long as physical reality vouches for it. Quantum mechanics makes no sense at all, but it's been verified to excruciating detail. If you were to approach an atheist, you should probably lead like this - but also follow up with the evidence supporting your case. As it happens, you have none.
Well, I believe that I have provided evidence using the same book you have used to cite God's actions and used His own words for His motivation while all you have done is make accusations of my attention span, my nonsensical arguments and making false assessments of my morality so I think the posts speak volumes as to your shortsightedness in regard to anything Biblical and of Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDaddy4
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Nihilist Virus, would it be wrong to go back in time and kill Stalin or Hitler while they was still an infant?

Yes, because to do so might jeopardize all of space, time, and the universe. For that reason, altering any historical event for any reason, or even travelling back in time, would be wrong.

But I assume that you mean this to be a hypothetical in which we can muck around recklessly in the past without damaging the universe. But even then, I would be causing everyone who is alive today to have probably never been born, and instead to be replaced with a totally different population of people. And I can't know what the consequences of that would be. I can't know that polio would be cured, for example.

So perhaps what you really meant was to ask if I would kill the baby Hitler as a denizen of the nineteenth century who somehow had certain knowledge of the future. The problem here is that your peer, Oncedeceived, denied this as a possibility outright. So maybe take it up with her, and then get back to me.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, because to do so might jeopardize all of space, time, and the universe. For that reason, altering any historical event for any reason, or even travelling back in time, would be wrong.

But I assume that you mean this to be a hypothetical in which we can muck around recklessly in the past without damaging the universe. But even then, I would be causing everyone who is alive today to have probably never been born, and instead to be replaced with a totally different population of people. And I can't know what the consequences of that would be. I can't know that polio would be cured, for example.

So perhaps what you really meant was to ask if I would kill the baby Hitler as a denizen of the nineteenth century who somehow had certain knowledge of the future. The problem here is that your peer, Oncedeceived, denied this as a possibility outright. So maybe take it up with her, and then get back to me.
Without even knowing it you made my case very well. We as humans can not know what might be jeopardized if we were to take someone's life and how that might alter what would happen if they were not here; however, God does know what happens in space, time and all of the universe for each and every person ever born or ever will be.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Whoa, hold on there...I am not trying to persuade you into becoming a Christian. You claim you've been there and done that. What I am doing is presenting my viewpoint on something that you have declared to be wrong or inconsistent in the Christian Theology.

I have a serious problem with you saying that infanticide is intrinsically wrong but that it is not wrong when God does it. If that's not your position, and if you don't think that infanticide is intrinsically wrong, then it is utterly nonsensical for you to say that morality is absolute and objective.

The Trinity is complex, I'll give you than but nonsensical...no.

I think most Christians will disagree. They would probably clarify that calculus is complex, but yet nonsensical to, say, an ant. And in the same way, the trinity might make sense to, say, an angel, but no human could ever understand it. If you profess understanding of the trinity, then you don't understand it. It absolutely is nonsensical... at least to any human. And since the existence of God and angels is a point in question between the two of us, there is no being we both agree exists that can make sense of it. Hence, nonsensical.

Take for example the paradox of Material constitution.

Not a paradox any more than the "paradox" of the ship of Theseus.

It is a paradox but it is not nonsensical.

Anything that is a paradox is nonsensical.

We know that clay and a sculpture are two objects but when a sculpture is made out of clay the clay and the sculpture become one but the two materials still exist as two; so not nonsensical just a paradox.

Word play is not a paradox.

I refuse to admit something that is not in evidence. Just because you want to believe that the infant was tortured doesn't make it true.

God has committed countless other atrocities in the Bible, so I don't know why you are taking this position to the grave. Besides, how about the flood of Noah? Do you think that God mitigated the suffering of the infants, or do you think that infants do not suffer when they drown?

You have determined that due to your animosity to something you don't even believe exists.

Sorry, but that's just a stupid thing to say. Jehovah hated other deities such as Baal and Moloch. Does that mean they existed?

I on the other hand want to believe that God did not torture the infant

Proof of bias. This is not how you conduct a legitimate inquiry of any topic for any reason.

because God has shown Himself to be merciful and loving to me in my life and it doesn't fit with His character.

Let me explain this to you very clearly. We don't accept your personal testimony. Here's why:

Most people in the world do not go to college. Many who go to college do not finish it. Of those who finish it, most do not go on to graduate school to get letters after their name. Doctors and lawyers, instead of going to graduate school, go to schools specializing in their specific disciplines. Professionals in both of these fields, who are already academically elite, are trained to fight against their personal biases. And yet the prevailing wisdom is still that doctors make the worst patients and that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Why? How can this be? It's because a doctor, for example, will think he's very sure what the problem is and will relay that information instead of objective facts such as what he actually feels or what actually happened. Objective analysis of the facts is always the best. And a Christian who is convinced that he has Jesus in his life will, in just the same way, deliver a bias instead of an objective sampling of facts.

The only evidence for torture would be if the verse claimed that God tortured the infant and it doesn't. If the verse said that God then tortured the infant and in seven days the infant died, then yes, you would have evidence that God indeed tortured him but that is not the case. So, this being the only evidence for God's actions we must then take other Scripture to make a determination of God's motives and I have shown in text what God has said according to his motives:
but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD.

You skipped over all the times it said that God burned with anger or burned with hatred. Cherry picking something like this out of context isn't going to accomplish anything.

As a Christian I know God

False.

and that He indeed exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth

False.

and can then with God's own words show He would not torture an innocent infant.

Could you just imagine a guy on trial being excused and found not guilty because his own words show that he would never commit a crime? LOL.

He using His mercy would shield that infant from it.

Sorry, sister, but after all that you said about how I have no evidence that the baby suffered... and you said it would have to directly say in the text that the baby suffered... no, you can't do this here. You have to show me where it says that the infant was shielded from torture. You have a double standard.

You're providing other details as evidence for God's character. When I did this, you said I was moving the goalposts.

You don't have to believe it, you don't have to think that God is any of those things but as a Christian I am not inconsistent to my beliefs, nor am I self-contradictory in my beliefs because Scripture provides evidence for it.

As a Christian you can't not be inconsistent in your beliefs.

I find it interesting that you proclaim that there is a failure in the philosophy but have no evidence to provide for that declaration.

Exhibit A: this discussion.

You claim there is no absolute or objectivity in morality yet stand there and claim an absolute and objective morality in claiming that to torture an infant must not only be wrong for humans but God as well.

I'm saying that *IF* morality is absolute and objective, *THEN* God was wrong to torture the infant.

I fully acknowledge the possibility that you hold to divine command theory, in which case right and wrong is not absolute or objective but rather just whatever God says.

But thanks for misrepresenting me and making me look like I contradict myself.

What in your belief system allows for absolute and objective morality against the actions that you feel God took?

I think that it is nonsensical to even say that morality is absolute and/or objective.

You have given no evidence why God would not have the ability and desire to protect the infant from awareness of his illness,

Yes, I absolutely did, and you said I was moving the goalposts. You said I started talking about something else which is irrelevant to the passage, and that your standard of proof is that the passage must say that the infant was tortured. And then you go on to provide details about other things to serve as evidence for your position, and you suddenly don't require the passage to explicitly state that the infant did not suffer in order to prove your side of the argument.

yet you claim I have none to show why He would; when in fact, I have delivered evidence from the same book as you have used to show God's torture which has shown in His own words that He is motivated to not allow that suffering. You can't have it both ways, you can't claim you know God's motivation when you are only using your own standard when in fact, God supplies His motivation in the very book you are using to accuse Him.

How about you fix the mess that I described above and get back to me?

Well, I believe that I have provided evidence using the same book you have used to cite God's actions and used His own words for His motivation while all you have done is make accusations of my attention span, my nonsensical arguments and making false assessments of my morality so I think the posts speak volumes as to your shortsightedness in regard to anything Biblical and of Christians.

Again, find some consistency, lady.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Without even knowing it you made my case very well. We as humans can not know what might be jeopardized if we were to take someone's life and how that might alter what would happen if they were not here; however, God does know what happens in space, time and all of the universe for each and every person ever born or ever will be.

Infanticide is intrinsically wrong, objectively immoral, and absolutely evil - absolute as in without exception. Except the one exception which is God.

Is that your position?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have a serious problem with you saying that infanticide is intrinsically wrong but that it is not wrong when God does it. If that's not your position, and if you don't think that infanticide is intrinsically wrong, then it is utterly nonsensical for you to say that morality is absolute and objective.
Ok, lets go another way here. God knows exactly what that infant will do if it were to grow up. What if that infant grows up and rapes, tortures and kills dozens of babies? Is it then wrong for God to have taken his life?



I think most Christians will disagree. They would probably clarify that calculus is complex, but yet nonsensical to, say, an ant. And in the same way, the trinity might make sense to, say, an angel, but no human could ever understand it. If you profess understanding of the trinity, then you don't understand it. It absolutely is nonsensical... at least to any human. And since the existence of God and angels is a point in question between the two of us, there is no being we both agree exists that can make sense of it. Hence, nonsensical.
We can't know if how we "try" to make sense of it is correct, I'll give you that. I think the clay example is a good one but again, there is no way to know for sure so it is nonsensical in the sense that we don't know how exactly the Trinity works. That doesn't mean it has no meaning or is illogical it just means we don't understand.



Not a paradox any more than the "paradox" of the ship of Theseus.
I didn't say it was.



Anything that is a paradox is nonsensical.
Really? Interesting.


God has committed countless other atrocities in the Bible, so I don't know why you are taking this position to the grave. Besides, how about the flood of Noah? Do you think that God mitigated the suffering of the infants, or do you think that infants do not suffer when they drown?
So what you are doing here is trying to convince me that God is an immoral being who is unfit to be God?



Sorry, but that's just a stupid thing to say. Jehovah hated other deities such as Baal and Moloch. Does that mean they existed?
He hated His creation worshiping false deities.



Proof of bias. This is not how you conduct a legitimate inquiry of any topic for any reason.
Do you feel you are free of bias here?



Let me explain this to you very clearly. We don't accept your personal testimony. Here's why:

Most people in the world do not go to college. Many who go to college do not finish it. Of those who finish it, most do not go on to graduate school to get letters after their name. Doctors and lawyers, instead of going to graduate school, go to schools specializing in their specific disciplines. Professionals in both of these fields, who are already academically elite, are trained to fight against their personal biases. And yet the prevailing wisdom is still that doctors make the worst patients and that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Why? How can this be? It's because a doctor, for example, will think he's very sure what the problem is and will relay that information instead of objective facts such as what he actually feels or what actually happened. Objective analysis of the facts is always the best. And a Christian who is convinced that he has Jesus in his life will, in just the same way, deliver a bias instead of an objective sampling of facts.
Perhaps you should look in the mirror. You have several times in the other thread claimed your personal testimony of suffering when critically ill as criteria for your argument. You, who are convinced that God/Jesus do not exist will deliver a biased view rather than an objective sampling of facts.



You skipped over all the times it said that God burned with anger or burned with hatred. Cherry picking something like this out of context isn't going to accomplish anything.
Is anger immoral? Is hatred immoral?



False.



False.



Could you just imagine a guy on trial being excused and found not guilty because his own words show that he would never commit a crime? LOL.
Your evidence against God would never hold up in court and it won't hold up when you face Him either. I'll let God handle His own defense, but I have been consistent in my belief system and I've given you points towards that consistency.



Sorry, sister, but after all that you said about how I have no evidence that the baby suffered... and you said it would have to directly say in the text that the baby suffered... no, you can't do this here. You have to show me where it says that the infant was shielded from torture. You have a double standard.
No, I gave you examples of what my viewpoint was in regard to God's actions.

You're providing other details as evidence for God's character. When I did this, you said I was moving the goalposts.
True.



As a Christian you can't not be inconsistent in your beliefs.
I think I've shown I am.



Exhibit A: this discussion.
False.



I'm saying that *IF* morality is absolute and objective, *THEN* God was wrong to torture the infant.
*IF* God exists and created the complex and vast universe, *THEN* isn't it plausible that He could shield an innocent infant from suffering in any and every situation created?

I fully acknowledge the possibility that you hold to divine command theory, in which case right and wrong is not absolute or objective but rather just whatever God says.
I don't.

But thanks for misrepresenting me and making me look like I contradict myself.
Considering you have evaded almost every single question I've had for you about your own belief system you have no room to complain that I "misrepresent" you. You are a nihilist which is a label that requires certain beliefs which you seem to adhere to, so if I am wrong in anything you must correct it rather than complain about it.



[QuoteI think that it is nonsensical to even say that morality is absolute and/or objective.[/Quote]Right, so you have really no actual belief that God *IF* He exists is immoral in His actions.



Yes, I absolutely did, and you said I was moving the goalposts. You said I started talking about something else which is irrelevant to the passage, and that your standard of proof is that the passage must say that the infant was tortured. And then you go on to provide details about other things to serve as evidence for your position, and you suddenly don't require the passage to explicitly state that the infant did not suffer in order to prove your side of the argument.
Did you provide any verses that said God tortured any innocents? I missed it if you did. God is a God of justice as well, and will punish and cause harm to those who do horrible things.







Again, find some consistency, lady.
You haven't shown me to be inconsistent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Infanticide is intrinsically wrong, objectively immoral, and absolutely evil - absolute as in without exception. Except the one exception which is God.

Is that your position?
You feel that there is no intrinsically wrong or objectively immoral or absolutely evil act by humans nor God...Is that your position?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

OK. Thank you for the yes/no answer. I will now refine the question further.

Is it intrinsically wrong to kill an infant?

Please don't tell me for whom it is wrong, don't say "for God" or "for humans". Please, just a yes or a no.

I'll go first. My answer would be "no."

You feel that there is no intrinsically wrong or objectively immoral or absolutely evil act by humans nor God...Is that your position?

Yes.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK. Thank you for the yes/no answer. I will now refine the question further.

Is it intrinsically wrong to kill an infant?

Please don't tell me for whom it is wrong, don't say "for God" or "for humans". Please, just a yes or a no.

I'll go first. My answer would be "no."
What?? lol Really? This is so ridiculous, it amazes me. Don't answer this way or that way just the way I want you to so I can say gottcha, you are being inconsistent when in fact, I've stated my position on this over and over. Good try.



Then you have no basis for claiming that God has committed atrocities or has been immoral.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What?? lol Really? This is so ridiculous, it amazes me. Don't answer this way or that way just the way I want you to so I can say gottcha, you are being inconsistent when in fact, I've stated my position on this over and over. Good try.



Then you have no basis for claiming that God has committed atrocities or has been immoral.

Like I said multiple times, I'm not getting a straight answer out of you. Obviously you can justify yourself later in the posts that follow. I just want your thesis here, not the justification. Just a yes or a no, for clarification. I went first, in good faith, and you betrayed my trust by refusing to answer while jumping all over my answer.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
OK. Thank you for the yes/no answer. I will now refine the question further.

Is it intrinsically wrong to kill an infant?

Please don't tell me for whom it is wrong, don't say "for God" or "for humans". Please, just a yes or a no.

I'll go first. My answer would be "no."



Yes.

...why start with the concept of an infant? Why not start with the concept of a conceptus or fetus? So, we could then ask: Is it intrinsically wrong to kill a conceptus, fetus, or an infant.

And in which case, I would say that for God, the answer is 'NO.' He can kill these things because He is sovereign over the design of His Creation. However, since human beings are NOT sovereign over God's creation, it is wrong for them to kill these entities without God's permission.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
...why start with the concept of an infant? Why not start with the concept of a conceptus or fetus? So, we could then ask: Is it intrinsically wrong to kill a conceptus, fetus, or an infant.

Incidentally, the Bible advocates magical abortions. And, astonishingly, it is simultaneously anti-life and anti-choice.

But sure, we could start there.

And in which case, I would say that for God, the answer is 'NO.'

Like I said to her, I want answers without qualifications. The qualifications would come as answers to follow-up questions. There is no better way for me to understand her position than for me to ask a battery of questions and get properly formatted answers from her. Normally it wouldn't have to come to that, but for whatever reason she and I are not communicating effectively.

He can kill these things because He is sovereign over the design of His Creation.

By "can" do you mean "is allowed to" or do you mean "is able to"?

I wouldn't contest the latter, but the former needs some clarification.

However, since human beings are NOT sovereign over God's creation, it is wrong for them to kill these entities without God's permission.

So... might makes right?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like I said multiple times, I'm not getting a straight answer out of you. Obviously you can justify yourself later in the posts that follow. I just want your thesis here, not the justification. Just a yes or a no, for clarification. I went first, in good faith, and you betrayed my trust by refusing to answer while jumping all over my answer.
We'll get back to this, but I'll wait for your response to my long post.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Incidentally, the Bible advocates magical abortions. And, astonishingly, it is simultaneously anti-life and anti-choice.

But sure, we could start there.
Magical abortions? Really? It says it, just like that, "magical abortions"? ;)

Like I said to her, I want answers without qualifications. The qualifications would come as answers to follow-up questions. There is no better way for me to understand her position than for me to ask a battery of questions and get properly formatted answers from her. Normally it wouldn't have to come to that, but for whatever reason she and I are not communicating effectively.
... I know, you want the answers that you want. But, if reality is complex and not simple, and Christianity is definitely epistemologically complex and not simple, then I'm thinking that all the answers we think we need from God are severely qualified. (I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here ...)

By "can" do you mean "is allowed to" or do you mean "is able to"? I wouldn't contest the latter, but the former needs some clarification.
I mean that God, like a Communistic Politbureau, creates rules for the masses and is 'above' the rules since He is the Creator and Designer of the World and of the Social Standards by which humanity should live; and the rules themselves are articles which are meant to "qualify" how human life on earth is to be best lived. So, there is no Platonic moral reality that somehow sits as some extra moral reference outside of God Himself and His Creation, although there may be moral deliberation among human beings who are either morally ignorant or are trying to figure out the best course of existential action in their lives.

So... might makes right?
NO..........knowledge and ability make right; knowledge and ability that human beings all by their lonesome don't have. :rolleyes: ...if we had the perfect knowledge and the perfect ability God has in creating, understanding, and knowing, then we would be above 'the Law,' too. Hence, this is one reason why I think we find God telling us to not engage in vengeance upon others who do us wrong, but to leave it up to Him for any retributions which may be due to those other persons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Magical abortions? Really? It says it, just like that, "magical abortions"? ;)

Obviously it does not use those terms. But it nevertheless describes exactly that. Look for yourself at the bottom half of Numbers 5. Start at verse 11.

... I know, you want the answers that you want. But, if reality is complex and not simple, and Christianity is definitely epistemologically complex and not simple, then I'm thinking that all the answers we think we need from God are severely qualified. (I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here ...)

I'm not disallowing qualifications to statements. It's just that this one conversation I'm having with someone else is so unclear that I'm forced to separate the thesis from the justification so I can tell what she is even trying to say.

I mean that God, like a Communistic Politbureau, creates rules for the masses and is 'above' the rules since He is the Creator and Designer of the World and of the Social Standards by which humanity should live; and the rules themselves are articles which are meant to "qualify" how human life on earth is to be best lived. So, there is no Platonic moral reality that somehow sits as some extra moral reference outside of God Himself and His Creation, although there may be moral deliberation among human beings who are either morally ignorant or are trying to figure out the best course of existential action in their lives.

Ok, thanks for the answer, but you have now killed Christianity. If God decides the rules, and if Jesus is God, and if Jesus absolutely did not want to be crucified, then Jesus/God could have, should have, and would have actualized the "benefits" of the crucifixion without going through with the crucifixion. So his crucifixion - the crux of your religion - is totally pointless.

NO..........knowledge and ability make right;

Knowledge and ability... AKA power... AKA might.

knowledge and ability that human beings all by their lonesome don't have. :rolleyes: ...if we had the perfect knowledge and the perfect ability God has in creating, understanding, and knowing, then we would be above 'the Law,' too. Hence, this is one reason why I think we find God telling us to not engage in vengeance upon others who do us wrong, but to leave it up to Him for any retributions which may be due to those other persons.

2PV, every time we do this it's the same result. How many times do I have to mop the floor with you before you realize that I'm winning because I'm defending the correct position?
 
Upvote 0