How Do You Feel About Atheists?

[lucaspa]

A claim can be made from either. My assertion is that the relativism angle enters only if God is mutable in nature, changing. Of which He goes to great lenghts to affirm that He is immutable. I'm thinking this is essential, tied to creedal orthodoxy.

The hypothesis that God is "immutable" is an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid the inevitable relativism. I submit that what you call the "immutable" verses refers to God's constancy to Israel, not morality. When you look at the data, however, you find that God does change. Or at least our perception of him does. For instance, God commands and aids David in committing the genocide of the Amelekites. Today we view genocide as immoral. In the process of that genocide, God also commanded that David slay all the domestic animals. David successfully argues to get God to change His mind.

Or look at the dietary laws. In the NT God sends a dream to Peter that makes those laws null and void. So in the OT it is immoral to eat certain foods; in the NT those foods become moral. A boon to all of us that like bacon and ham, to be sure, but God being "mutable".

And, of course, there is the wholesale setting aside the Law as set out in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Paul writes that those laws no longer apply. So, did Paul do that on his own hook, or is God mutable and changes?

I recently defended cival law as a means of cultural stability with an athiest in the Christian Apologetics Forum here. She was determined that Christians were legislating morality and was offended by it. Yet Her own worldview, if ever in majority, will have such as its only means of maintaining order.

What other means do we have now of maintaining order? Any Christian society ends up using civil law as a meand of maintaining order. Look at the Puritans and their laws in Massachussetts, for example.

Look at the rules and "civil laws" within churches now. How do the Presbyterians maintain order in Session meetings? They have civil laws -- rules -- that everyone must abide by or be ejected.

Yes, atheists are going to "legislate morality". They are going to keep laws against theft and murder. What your discussant was claiming was that Fundamentalists legislate rules that only they view as "immoral". Examples of laws in American history that a portion of the population viewed as "moral" but others did not include the Fugitive Slave Law and Prohibition.

 

[followerofchristIN]

I love them as I love everyone else.

 

[rpeg]

I'm new here and also an atheist. Why is the original post so heavily redacted? It seems surprising.

 

[Harfelugan]

The hypothesis that God is "immutable" is an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid the inevitable relativism. I submit that what you call the "immutable" verses refers to God's constancy to Israel, not morality. When you look at the data, however, you find that God does change. Or at least our perception of him does. For instance, God commands and aids David in committing the genocide of the Amelekites. Today we view genocide as immoral. In the process of that genocide, God also commanded that David slay all the domestic animals. David successfully argues to get God to change His mind.

I submit that you have presented a good example of our perception of God having changed, also an ad hoc hypothesis. A direct result of humanities relativistic inability to concieve of someone not being like themselves. A thief is supicious of everyone, and a lier will trust no one.
The examples you gave show a change of direction, not nature. There is a great difference. We today, like David are given the ability to ask God to turn His wrath from those in the path of judgement with similar results. Your example of genocide is left hanging in the air as God isn't within your equasion. We see it as wrong because the act outside of divine command is immoral. Yet we have become very comfortable with the idea of an eternal genocide by God of all unbelievers. How is that any different?

Or look at the dietary laws. In the NT God sends a dream to Peter that makes those laws null and void. So in the OT it is immoral to eat certain foods; in the NT those foods become moral. A boon to all of us that like bacon and ham, to be sure, but God being "mutable".

And, of course, there is the wholesale setting aside the Law as set out in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Paul writes that those laws no longer apply. So, did Paul do that on his own hook, or is God mutable and changes?

And do either of these change the nature of God? You make changes in direction every day and remain the same in nature.

What other means do we have now of maintaining order? Any Christian society ends up using civil law as a meand of maintaining order. Look at the Puritans and their laws in Massachussetts, for example.

Look at the rules and "civil laws" within churches now. How do the Presbyterians maintain order in Session meetings? They have civil laws -- rules -- that everyone must abide by or be ejected.

Yes, atheists are going to "legislate morality". They are going to keep laws against theft and murder. What your discussant was claiming was that Fundamentalists legislate rules that only they view as "immoral". Examples of laws in American history that a portion of the population viewed as "moral" but others did not include the Fugitive Slave Law and Prohibition.

I would propose that there is no such thing as a Christian society, only Christian community within a larger society. The Kingdom is still being revealed, hasn't yet been instituted. At the Churches most prolific historical best, no nation ever was a Christian society. If they had to be compelled, or legislated, they weren't Christ's.

Without civil law would you have any problem with your personal morality, or means of judging said moral behavior? As a Christian operating within the body of Christ do you really need a temporal external enforced moral code to keep yourself in check? In society civil law is needed, and the Church has no biblical mandate to control society. What I have learned is that to control a persons behavior through a civil law, even within a Church setting as you mentioned, produces no inward progression towards morality. The biblical picture of a moral society is is a regenerated society.

 

[Harfelugan]

I'm new here and also an atheist. Why is the original post so heavily redacted? It seems surprising.

I'm sure it wasn't a plot to take away from his post, as I read it before it was edited. There are probably legitimate forum rules here as to mentioning other forums and the like as well as content being allowed. There were no obscenities in the original post, but there is decorum that must be followed. You may get them explained by a moderatror if one comes along, or you could look into the posting rules to see examples .