Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you kidding me? Looks like you didn't even read what I said about Deut. 22:28-29. I said "Duet. 22:28-29 does not say rape is ok. In fact it says the opposite, it says that the man has violated her, and he must pay for his crime by giving money to the girls father." So I guess that does not make it "OK".
Non sequitur said:You are missing the point.
Your god regulated divorce and said he hated it.
Why didn't he "regulate" it (although, it's a stretch to say paying 50 shekels of silver is "fair") and say he hated it, as well?
He forgot to mention it?
You are missing the point.
Your god regulated divorce and said he hated it.
Why didn't he "regulate" it (although, it's a stretch to say paying 50 shekels of silver is "fair") and say he hated it, as well?
He forgot to mention it?
Concept formation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Wait.... so going back... there are atheists who believe in free will? Is there some perception that there is some sort of limited feedback loop involving holes in the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the firing of neurons in our brains?? If so, how would that loop be initiated except through random chance, encounters with external stimuli that could not be controlled(i.e. not "free"), or other deterministic factors on their own terms?
I do see this as important, because I can't see the justification for "morality" in terms of judgment (i.e. you did something wrong, implying freedom of will) or any other level besides a utilitarian harm principle that is nonetheless aware that those who commit grievous violations of that principle are not actually responsible for their actions (and in fact, the entire concept of "self/they/etc..." falls apart into the gigantic web of physical interactions throughout the universe(s)). And even that harm principle would be pursued with the knowledge that active free will (in the immediate sense) is based solely on perception and the impossibility of a LaPlace's Daemon invading that perception!
IMHO.
You have this completely wrong. The only kind of morality you get without a moral law giver is a subjective, relativist morality. Two separate groups of people might have a different morality. One group might say that rape and murder is ok. We all need a moral law giver to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
Ok. Then no.
If you think about it, what is free will? It's the ability (or appearance) to make decisions without outside constraints.
The law given by a law giver would still be subjective.
Does morality exist without God?
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
Simple answer: No! One cannot find absolute morality if all morality is relitive, as humanists would have us believe.
If we are simply animals, how can we expect to behave like anything but animals? Thus, anyone who believes in justifying morality must first justify we are not animals.
How can we hope to have morals if there is no God to give them?
We are merely arguing that we ourselves are gods
So now you saying that anything in the bible that God does not "regulate" and say that he hates, is not wrong after all. I guess it's ok to steal, to murder, dishonor your mother and father, or anything else God said we should not do. Really?
It is you who miss the point. Why do you pretend to take up a Biblical point?
Serious question.
Nope. You are imposing modern terms upon entirely foreign concepts. Language breaks down like that ...
Simple answer: No! One cannot find absolute morality if all morality is relitive, as humanists would have us believe. If we are simply animals, how can we expect to behave like anything but animals? Thus, anyone who believes in justifying morality must first justify we are not animals.
Assume this example:
A boy kills a pregnant woman.
Why has the boy done wrong? Survival of the fittest says that the strong survive, thus promoting the boy for his strength and disregarding the woman and child for their weakness.
Unless we can prove that value is not relitive, the boy's killing cannot be condemned. Many animals will leave their weak to die, or kill them. How can we hope to have morals if there is no God to give them?
We are merely arguing that we ourselves are gods, despite lacking the power to uphold that claim. And if we are all gods, then who is there to tell us we are wrong?
Why? I do not associate with murderers, pushers, frauds, or con artists in life. Why should I be expected to do so in death, when the only thing that connects us is that they simply accepted Jesus as their savior?Not exactly living up to your username with this post!
Why did your god regulate the terms of slavery (paying a fine), but not talk about how he detests it or abolishes it?
Serious question.
Why? I do not associate with murderers, pushers, frauds, or con artists in life. Why should I be expected to do so in death, when the only thing that connects us is that they simply accepted Jesus as their savior?
His question was nearly unintelligible, so I did the best I could.
eudaimonia,
Mark
You have missed ALL the instances of Him saying that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?