From where do these moral rules derive their truth from? From God declaring them or are they correct independently?Not what he tells us what to do, but by obeying the moral truths He has established since the beginning of creation. It's sometimes called "playing by the rules". Even though it's hard for some people to do.
That is not what I said There are times when a mother to be should be able to say it would be wrong to have this baby. But not after carrying a baby for 8 months!So if there was a law that protects the unborn from being aborted, the only decision the mother could legally make would be to not have an abortion. And you would be ok with this, right?
Skavau said:From where do these moral rules derive their truth from? From God declaring them or are they correct independently?
mandelduke said:That is not what I said There are times when a mother to be should be able to say it would be wrong to have this baby. But not after carrying a baby for 8 months!
If that absolute transcendent moral standard is god, than morality is reduced to no more than doing what he tells you to do.
From where do these moral rules derive their truth from? From God declaring them or are they correct independently?
Scare quotes aside, it is a violent violation of another human being. Deliberately harming other human beings is immoral in several ethical systems.
Because it causes harm.
How is rape wrong under "Christianity"?
Annnnnd there goes all your credibility, if you had any to begin with.rape doesn't cause physical harm
Outside of an absolute transcendent moral standard, morality is reduced to no more than opinion or personal preference.
If dependence on the mother is the criterion a baby cannot survive on its own after birth. Would you support infanticide?
How do you know it was God that did this?Nope that and The Fact that He wrote morals in our heart.
So you define 'good' as 'approved-of by God'? So what do you mean when you say God is good? That God is approved-of by God? If so, what else determines whether God is good, and vice-versa? What makes God's morality more objective than anyone else's?How? under "atheism"/"naturalism" there is no immaterial, no morals, how can it be wrong without God? rape doesn't cause physical harm, it causes Mental/Spiritual harm which causes physical harm(Dualism once again proven), and in "macro-evolution" would be a tool.
You're just begging the question. Rape is objectively wrong because rape is objectively wrong.However under "atheism" it would be Spiritually/Mentally no different than burping at the dinner table, but obviously that false since rape is objectively wrong and perverse, therefore "atheism" is false.
Do you think cannibalism is wrong?We get Moral Law from God, Morals are written in the heart, and they are objective.
SavedbyChrist94 said:God's nature is Morally Perfect, He Himself is The Law, we were created in His image with a choice to not do as we ought, and we failed.
Moral oughts and ought nots are written in the heart,
Romans 2:15 - since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
How?
under "atheism"/"naturalism" there is no immaterial, no morals, how can it be wrong without God?
rape doesn't cause physical harm,
it causes Mental/Spiritual harm which causes physical harm(Dualism once again proven), and in "macro-evolution" would be a tool.
However under "atheism" it would be Spiritually/Mentally no different than burping at the dinner table, but obviously that false since rape is objectively wrong and perverse, therefore "atheism" is false.
We get Moral Law from God, Morals are written in the heart, and they are objective.
How? under "atheism"/"naturalism" there is no immaterial, no morals, how can it be wrong without God? rape doesn't cause physical harm, it causes Mental/Spiritual harm which causes physical harm(Dualism once again proven), and in "macro-evolution" would be a tool.
However under "atheism" it would be Spiritually/Mentally no different than burping at the dinner table, but obviously that false since rape is objectively wrong and perverse, therefore "atheism" is false.
Is it wrong because God says so, or is it wrong, so God says so?
Annnnnd there goes all your credibility, if you had any to begin with.
How? under "atheism"/"naturalism" there is no immaterial, no morals, how can it be wrong without God? rape doesn't cause physical harm, it causes Mental/Spiritual harm which causes physical harm(Dualism once again proven), and in "macro-evolution" would be a tool.
Because it's physically and emotionally harmful.
Atheism doesn't prescribe morals, no, but that doesn't mean atheists can't have them.
You have got to be kidding.
A tool? How?
Except that burping doesn't cause harm, so they would be different.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked "How is rape wrong under christianity?"
Now you're being both mind-numbingly wrong and offensive at the same time.
So are you the kind of person that will listen if I explain why you're wrong, or are you the kind of person that will keep spouting nonsense even after being told why it's nonsense? Because I'd prefer to set you straight, but don't want to waste my time if you're not going to listen.
You're not destroying anything, you're going in circles. "How is rape wrong under Christianity." "It's wrong because it's wrong under Christianity."What did I supposedly say offensive? I don't appreciate the slander.
Go ahead actually explain(no slander, jokes, insults, lies, etc), and I'll destroy your explanation.
This is a meaningless statement without elaboration. What does it mean to say God's "nature is good"? Does it mean that he has an effective understanding of what is "objectively wrong"? If so, does that mean that what is "objectively wrong" transcends God?SavedByChrist94 said:Because His Nature is Good, therefore since He IS the moral law, it is Objectively wrong.
A good job then that no-one remotely serious on morality sees only physical harm as existent. You should do better to understand that no-one operates by your false dichotomy.On a purely physical basis, under "naturalism" rape causes no physical harm, therefore "naturalism" must be false, the physical harm caused by rape(not the violence, etc) is due to the perversion, abuse, and disrespect, the sickening which is Immaterial, which means under your "atheism" it's ok, which is false.
How appalling of them. This may resonate better if you weren't guilty of repeatedly quote mining me in the other thread. Even in indignation you're a hypocrite.I did not like that slander and playing with context, also you didn't quote the rest of what I said,
You mean like how you imply almost every atheist you talk to must somehow condone it?That was a serious offense to accuse someone of condoning rape, one of the most heinous perversions of God's Creation which I hate.
Under "naturalism" how does it do that? because Under Christianity, with God, it is explained why it is wrong as we have Moral written in our hearts and it is Perverted, Abusive, Sickening, and Disrespect, all 4 which do not exist under "naturalism", rendering "naturalism" false as "naturalism" would condone, rape. rape is really wrong, therefore "naturalism" is false.
"atheist" can be moral, but have no foundation for them as under "atheism", morals would be illusory, which is false since Morals are real, which makes "atheism" false.
That's why "naturalism" is false, rape does cause physical harm(from the mental/Spiritual harm), on a purely physical basis(naturalism), it would not be wrong, which is wrong, so according to your worldview, You have to be the one kidding me.
Advancing a species, notice how sickening the "naturalistic evolutionary" worldview is and how it should be abandoned, literally under "naturalism" rape would be advantageous, get out of here with that, rape is sickening and is one of the worst of worst, maybe the worst, yet under "naturalism" wouldn't be.
"naturalism" is Factually false, it has to be.
Under "naturalism" there would be no difference, however that is very obviously false as rape does cause harm, rendering "naturalism" false, but since you do agree with me that rape is wrong, you disagree with "naturalism", "atheism" and "humanism".
Under Christianity, Immaterial properties like Morals, perversion, dignity, self worth, abuse, etc exist, rape is perverted and despicable, under "naturalism" those things don't exist, which is false.
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?