The definition of sin

[Nihilist Virus]

No and no.

No and no.

You don't understand what I say. No human is born pure of heart. The only humans who had a pure heart were adam (before sin) and Christ (because of his divine nature). When I say perfectly good and pure of heart I mean someone who is perfect in both action and motive. It's an ideal by which we can define sin as being anything less than that. You wanted a definition of sin, I gave you one.

So it seems you are saying that God has created a losing game, a game in which the only way to win is to randomly choose the correct God, presumably by being lucky enough to have been born in the right place and time, and then to worship him. Failure to do so, given your lack of belief in hell, results in annihilation; those who do worship God are allowed to continue to worship him forever.

Sounds great if you're God and you're into forcing tiny beings to worship you.

Objectivity is not some natural law. Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If we could objectively define morality there is still no reason why we wouldn't be able to transgress it, it just means we could define morality on facts alone.

Your definition is pointless. There is absolutely no feature of reality, whatsoever, that would be noticeably different whether objective morality does or does not exist, as you have defined it.

Like I've said several times, I think a list of rules is not really a useful or authentic way to approach morality.

OK, so a mother who genuinely believes she needs to drown her children in the tub is pure of heart, right? Because there's no rule saying that she should not do that.

You make the assumption that you are not ignorant of anything, and that anyone who doesn't hold the same values as you is ignorant. I hope you can see the problem with this attitude. Have you arrived at perfect morality because you feel it's obvious to you? To me that is a claim that you have arived at objective morality that is above your personal opinions or feelings.

I'm open to correction. I don't want to assume that I'm not ignorant of anything. But it seems obvious to me that killing something for the purposes of eating it is wrong. We don't need to do it. In fact, we're not even supposed to. Look at our intestine - it's too long to process meat. Carnivores have short intestines. Also, every carnivore on earth does not need to cook its food. We do, which makes it obvious that we're not supposed to eat meat.

That being said, I do eat meat. I won't cross the line of condemning people for eating meat, as that would of course make me a hypocrite. I'm merely pointing out that we should not lie to ourselves and deny the obvious: it is wrong to kill a conscious creature with a central nervous system.

The whole world was homophobic back then. Paul's writings are influenced by some of his personal opinions and reflect the culture and morality of his times. Like I said before the scripture is not the end point of morality.

You asked me how I know we're not moving toward divine inspiration right now. Well, if Paul wasn't divinely inspired, and we're moving towards it now, then that's kind of the opposite of what 99.9999% of Christians say.

Some parts of the church resisted others fought for social progress.



William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King were christians. Your blanket statement is incorrect, not all the church resisted progress and many have driven progress.

The majority of the church was anti-human rights, and slowly it had to be dragged away from that. The fact that Christians initiated it doesn't say much since the whole country was Christian.

I really think you have a poor understanding of morality, or you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. A dictated morality is deficient because it only deals with our actions and not our motives. True authentic morality arises out of good motives. I doubt you subscribe to a dictated morality, what guides your moral senses?

We have no control over our motives. You won't ever eat a bowl of salt because the idea repulses you. You have no control over the fact that the idea repulses you. You have no control over your base desires. Morality is not about what intrinsically drives you, but rather objectively assessing a situation and doing what is the most good.

For example, consider a man who is sexually attracted to young boys. But he knows it's wrong, and so he absolutely does not do it. He lives a life of celibacy. How is he not good? He's motivated to do something terrible, but he objectively concludes that he ought not do it because of what he understands to be moral rules.

The entire book of Revelation is a vision. I don't know what more to say or why the concept of metaphor is so difficult for you to understand.

A vision of what... things that never happened or never will happen? Most seem to think it's a vision of what will happen. You seem to think it's a vision of nothing.

Whoa there... when did I call you dishonest?

In Post #63 you said,

You should probably debate a sola scriptura conservative fundamentalist. It seems like this is the kind of Christianity that you are familiar with in your part of the world.

In Post #65 I replied,

No thanks. Virtually everything they say is a lie. I find liberal Christians to be immeasurably more honest.

In Post #68 you replied,

The way you interpret scripture is the same.

I just disagree with your rigid literalist approach to understanding scripture. You can interpret it that way if you like but I don't. I'm going to lengths to explain the way I approach scripture but you keep trying to peg me back in the fundamentalist box with a "gotcha".

You are relying on your own understanding. You want to say that some things are literal and others aren't... where do you draw the line? Because it is *you* drawing the line, saying, "This is what scripture says, and this here is what it means." How do you know Jesus even existed? Was his existence a metaphor? How do you know, either way? As an atheist, I rely on my own understanding. That's what we do - we think for ourselves. As a Christian, you have thoughts that you are forbidden from thinking, so I do not think that your method of exegesis is legitimate on Christianity.

I'm not trying to prove it true. Religion is about meaning not truth (in the empirical, scientific sense).

Couldn't any religion have meaning then? Is every religion on equal ground?

I'm unaffiliated.

OK.

We are given some ideas of hell but never a complete definition.

OK, and to be clear, you don't think it exists, right? Or am I mistaken?

Explain morality to me using the scientific method.

Mathematics is my field of "expertise", if you were to go that far. As an armchair biologist, I would say that we have morality because we are mammals. Reptiles, for example, reproduce in mass, and it is not even feasible that all offspring survive. So it is not considered a bad thing when a baby turtle dies on its way to the ocean. Mammals, on the other hand, reproduce in small amounts and heavily invest in the offspring. We don't want any of our young to die. So it's obvious why we would develop morality.

I know that many mammals reproduce in litters, so my explanation is not perfect... as I said, I'm an armchair biologist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Determinism... not a fan. Quantum mechanics appears to be unravelling the deterministic approach in that certain particles appear to act "randomly".

Randomness does not imply free will. Also, you completely ignored what I said. Let me know when you address it.

Ok. The main point is that God wanted to give them a law that they could keep so He didn't have to be punishing them (which was a requirement in the kind of law they desired -- a law similar to those of the surrounding nations).

Didn't address my point.

A covenant was made between two parties (usually two nations). They would agree on certain terms and conditions and then each party would say "If I don't keep the covenant, may my God punish me". The Israelites wanted the same type of covenant, because all the cool kids were doing it. God had already promised Abraham and Jacob that He would bless their offspring so He was bound to continue working with them. He agreed to the arrangement hoping they would keep the terms of the covenant, if they didn't keep the terms, He was their God, it was His job to punish them. There is a huge difference between how God interacted with the Israelites before and after the Mosaic Covenant was established. The wrath of God did no exist until the Law required it.

Nonsensical. God killed the entire planet aside from eight people long before the law.

I didn't pull this out of thin air hahaha. I read Dr Jonathan Welton who has his PhD in covenants made between nations around the time of Israel; I do not have my PhD in history, and I don't know too much about it, so I trust what he says about it. Also, Moses killing an Egyptian may have been random, or it may have been something that built up and built up and eventually his frustration exploded into murder (have you seen Bloodline on Netflix?). Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that Genesis through Revelation is hand-written by God. I believe the authors input their own biases. Slavery could very well be from Moses and not God, though God accepted Moses' Law for the reasons I've already covered.

Still seems pretty much out of thin air to me.

Omniscience means "all knowing". As I understand God is all knowing of all there is to know and this can not include future free actions because that is impossible (in the same way that can not create a square circle). Because God does not know our future actions He does not know the unsettled future.

The future is not unsettled. That's not how physics works as far as I understand it.

There has to be a sacrifice because the wages of sin is death (disconnection from God's life giving Spirit -- Romans 6:23).

Why are the wages of sin death?

There has to be a sacrifice because all have sinned and should die (Romans 3:23).

Non sequitur.

There has to be a sacrifice so that we might become righteous again (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Non sequitur.

As @RaymondG already said, Jesus died as a seed that sprouted into a life giving spirit of forgiveness to all (John 12:24; 1 Corinthians 15:45).

Non sequitur.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Randomness does not imply free will. Also, you completely ignored what I said. Let me know when you address it.

Arguments are thrown both ways at the highest points of philosophical debate, free-will is a valid opinion. Quantum mechanics reveals that not every action has a cause. If actions do not always have a cause, then free-will remains on the table. I am not saying quantum mechanics prove free-will is true, I am saying quantum mechanics leave free will on the table as viable. What exactly do you want me to address that I haven't?

Didn't address my point.

I have, but I think you've missed it. You've pointed out the moral problems in the law and assume God agrees whole-heartedly with what is written -- and I completely understand that this is a problem. To defend I have questioned the inspiration of the bible and God's relational position towards Israel i.e. How was the bible inspired? Why did God condone immoral laws? First, Moses had a say in what was written even if he was inspired by God in a general sense. Second, God agreed to the law because He had an obligation to the promises He made to Israel's forefathers -- He agreed to a law that the people would be able to keep, that wasn't too hard for them to understand, so that they wouldn't be constantly breaking it. But even the law he agreed to was too hard for them. If he had added extra stipulations such as "no slaves" it would have been even more difficult for them. Because slavery was normal back in the day, to abolish such a practise would have caused an uproar that was too much to deal with for the people at that time. I've only come upon this view recently, but I think it makes more sense than any other response.

Nonsensical. God killed the entire planet aside from eight people long before the law.

It was not wrath that birthed the flood. God was grieved in Genesis 6:6-8 and said to Himself, "This is not turning out how I thought it would, these people are only every hurting each other and doing evil". It saddened God, He was deeply grieved, and realised He needed to put a stop to it. Then He offered an escape with the ark and the 120 years of preaching by Noah. Not wrath, not anger, but sadness and grief. There is a difference and the difference is important. The Mosaic Covenant called for wrath. It was an ingredient of the covenant system back then.

Still seems pretty much out of thin air to me.

Sorry, I'm confused? What is pulled out of thin air? I can't find or remember what you are saying this in reference to...

The future is not unsettled. That's not how physics works as far as I understand it.

There are two reasons the future is unsettled, free-will and quantum mechanics.

Why are the wages of sin death?

Because God is wholly good and the only source of life. Sin is that which is not good and causes disconnection from the source of life -- disconnection then leads to death.

 

[Everybodyknows]

So it seems you are saying that God has created a losing game, a game in which the only way to win is to randomly choose the correct God, presumably by being lucky enough to have been born in the right place and time, and then to worship him. Failure to do so, given your lack of belief in hell, results in annihilation; those who do worship God are allowed to continue to worship him forever.

Sounds great if you're God and you're into forcing tiny beings to worship you.

No I'm not saying any of that. I'm giving you a definition which presumably you are looking for, since the thread is titled the definition of sin. Do you accept my definition or do you prefer some of the others presented here or do you have a better one?

Your definition is pointless.

That's the dictionary definition.

There is absolutely no feature of reality, whatsoever, that would be noticeably different whether objective morality does or does not exist, as you have defined it.

It just means there would be some way of determining what is moral apart from our subjective emotional experiences.

OK, so a mother who genuinely believes she needs to drown her children in the tub is pure of heart, right? Because there's no rule saying that she should not do that.

Are you just pulling random cards out of your arguments against Christianity box? I think I've made a pretty good case of why I think morality is more than just rules (rules are only one element of morality). If you want to argue this point then present a positive argument for a rules only version of morality.

I'm open to correction. I don't want to assume that I'm not ignorant of anything. But it seems obvious to me that killing something for the purposes of eating it is wrong.

Obvious to whom?

We don't need to do it. In fact, we're not even supposed to.

So humans were vegetarian and then at some point in history we decided to eat meat? What determines what we are supposed to do.

Look at our intestine - it's too long to process meat. Carnivores have short intestines. Also, every carnivore on earth does not need to cook its food. We do, which makes it obvious that we're not supposed to eat meat.

We are omnivores. Presumably you believe in evolution. Our primate ancestors ate meat, our closest primate relatives eat meat. We discovered cooking as a means to reduce the amount of energy required to digest food and our digestive systems have evolved accordingly since. So why is it wrong for us to eat meat. Is it wrong for chimps or pigs?

That being said, I do eat meat. I won't cross the line of condemning people for eating meat, as that would of course make me a hypocrite. I'm merely pointing out that we should not lie to ourselves and deny the obvious: it is wrong to kill a conscious creature with a central nervous system.

I find the statement that eating meat is wrong strange coming from an atheist. Animals have evolved to eat other animals and we are just part of that continuum. I personally don't think it's morally wrong to eat meat so I'm not sure why you are so certain that it's obviously wrong. Is evolution immoral?

You asked me how I know we're not moving toward divine inspiration right now. Well, if Paul wasn't divinely inspired, and we're moving towards it now, then that's kind of the opposite of what 99.9999% of Christians say.

Divine inspiration doesn't mean free from any personal opinions or errors. Paul was divinely inspired in his teachings but he is human so his culture and opinions also come through in what he says.

The majority of the church was anti-human rights, and slowly it had to be dragged away from that. The fact that Christians initiated it doesn't say much since the whole country was Christian.

Then it doesn't say much about the Christians that resisted it either. It just seems like human nature to resist social change regardless of faith.

We have no control over our motives. You won't ever eat a bowl of salt because the idea repulses you. You have no control over the fact that the idea repulses you. You have no control over your base desires. Morality is not about what intrinsically drives you, but rather objectively assessing a situation and doing what is the most good.

For example, consider a man who is sexually attracted to young boys. But he knows it's wrong, and so he absolutely does not do it. He lives a life of celibacy. How is he not good? He's motivated to do something terrible, but he objectively concludes that he ought not do it because of what he understands to be moral rules.

That lack of control over our motives is what we Christians call the sinful nature. The gospel presents us a path that we can be renewed in our motives through the power of the Holy Spirit. Even so I think we can change some of our motives through discipline and psychology. We would say a man who is not attracted to young boys is better than one who is, even if he doesn't act on it. This is why I think a system of morality that addresses motives is superior.

A vision of what... things that never happened or never will happen? Most seem to think it's a vision of what will happen. You seem to think it's a vision of nothing.

Was it a vision of things in the actual world or was it a vision of symbols that represent things in the world. If it's symbols representing things then it's by definition metaphoric whether or not you understand them.

In Post #63 you said,

You should probably debate a sola scriptura conservative fundamentalist. It seems like this is the kind of Christianity that you are familiar with in your part of the world.

In Post #65 I replied,

No thanks. Virtually everything they say is a lie. I find liberal Christians to be immeasurably more honest.

In Post #68 you replied,

The way you interpret scripture is the same.




You are relying on your own understanding. You want to say that some things are literal and others aren't... where do you draw the line? Because it is *you* drawing the line, saying, "This is what scripture says, and this here is what it means." How do you know Jesus even existed? Was his existence a metaphor? How do you know, either way? As an atheist, I rely on my own understanding. That's what we do - we think for ourselves. As a Christian, you have thoughts that you are forbidden from thinking, so I do not think that your method of exegesis is legitimate on Christianity.

I don't even know where you get the idea that Christians are forbidden from thinking, that statement is so daft I don't even know where to begin. There simply is no consensus on interpretation of scripture among Christians. It's impossible to understand scripture without using your own understanding.

Couldn't any religion have meaning then? Is every religion on equal ground?

Every religion has meaning to those who follow it. Religions are systems to explore meaning and every one does it in a different way so no they are not on equal ground.

Mathematics is my field of "expertise", if you were to go that far. As an armchair biologist, I would say that we have morality because we are mammals. Reptiles, for example, reproduce in mass, and it is not even feasible that all offspring survive. So it is not considered a bad thing when a baby turtle dies on its way to the ocean. Mammals, on the other hand, reproduce in small amounts and heavily invest in the offspring. We don't want any of our young to die. So it's obvious why we would develop morality.

You cannot demonstrate moral claims scientifically. You said it's obvious that eating meat is wrong. You make a truth claim. Demonstrate how that truth claim can be arrived at by the scientific method. Or any other moral claim for that matter such as "murder is wrong" or "stealing is wrong". If morality could be determined using the scientific method then morality would be objective.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Interesting. Doesnt most people who Know God Speak in the same manner?

I'm not sure what you are asking me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Arguments are thrown both ways at the highest points of philosophical debate, free-will is a valid opinion. Quantum mechanics reveals that not every action has a cause. If actions do not always have a cause, then free-will remains on the table. I am not saying quantum mechanics prove free-will is true, I am saying quantum mechanics leave free will on the table as viable. What exactly do you want me to address that I haven't?

Again, "free will" would be nothing more than us being "free" to act upon primitive desires which are entirely beyond our control. You left that totally unaddressed.

If we were to be truly free willed, we would have neutral primitive desires. But clearly that is not the case. Further, it's not clear that we would ever take any action at all if our primitive desires were neutral (whatever neutral even is). Instead of neutrality, God has created us with primitive desires that are in direct opposition to the arbitrary rules that he has laid out for us, and of course he then says we're evil for having been created the way we are.

If I created a blood-sucking vampire who must suck blood to survive, and is also overwhelmingly compelled to suck blood, does the creature have free will?

If we are created with such strong desire to do evil that no one out of billions has ever succeeded in rejecting evil, then we have unreasonable expectations thrown upon us. Since no man has ever rejected sin his whole life, you have no basis for saying that we have the free will to not sin. Lacking that, the discussion on free will doesn't even get off the ground.

I have, but I think you've missed it. You've pointed out the moral problems in the law and assume God agrees whole-heartedly with what is written -- and I completely understand that this is a problem. To defend I have questioned the inspiration of the bible and God's relational position towards Israel i.e. How was the bible inspired? Why did God condone immoral laws? First, Moses had a say in what was written even if he was inspired by God in a general sense. Second, God agreed to the law because He had an obligation to the promises He made to Israel's forefathers -- He agreed to a law that the people would be able to keep, that wasn't too hard for them to understand, so that they wouldn't be constantly breaking it. But even the law he agreed to was too hard for them. If he had added extra stipulations such as "no slaves" it would have been even more difficult for them. Because slavery was normal back in the day, to abolish such a practise would have caused an uproar that was too much to deal with for the people at that time. I've only come upon this view recently, but I think it makes more sense than any other response.

God had to approve of the law, even the absurd parts. Remember, they caught a man working on the Sabbath, and they asked God what to do. God said to put the man to death. That was God's chance to clarify everything. Perhaps you should consider his clarification on the matter.

It was not wrath that birthed the flood. God was grieved in Genesis 6:6-8 and said to Himself, "This is not turning out how I thought it would, these people are only every hurting each other and doing evil". It saddened God, He was deeply grieved, and realised He needed to put a stop to it. Then He offered an escape with the ark and the 120 years of preaching by Noah. Not wrath, not anger, but sadness and grief. There is a difference and the difference is important. The Mosaic Covenant called for wrath. It was an ingredient of the covenant system back then.

So the flood was earth drowning in God's tears? What's your explanation for Sodom and Gomorrah? That was another judgement long before there was a law.

Sorry, I'm confused? What is pulled out of thin air? I can't find or remember what you are saying this in reference to...

You said that the Hebrew slaves were treated much worse than what would have been allowed under Mosaic slavery laws, and I ripped that blind assertion to shreds.

There are two reasons the future is unsettled, free-will and quantum mechanics.

At best, those would make the future unpredictable by humans. But you still have not explained away the obvious problems with free will that I have brought up.

Because God is wholly good and the only source of life. Sin is that which is not good and causes disconnection from the source of life -- disconnection then leads to death.

So let me get this straight.

1) God is good.

2) Good is without sin.

3) Sin is separation from God.

Combining 1) and 2) yields

God is without sin.

Combining 2) and 3) yields

God is without separation from God.

Circular reasoning at its finest.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No I'm not saying any of that. I'm giving you a definition which presumably you are looking for, since the thread is titled the definition of sin. Do you accept my definition or do you prefer some of the others presented here or do you have a better one?

As I said in the OP, I don't think there is a clear definition of sin, I don't think there can be one, and I don't think the church has any motivation to provide one even if it could. As for your definition, I don't find it to be well-defined.

That's the dictionary definition.

It just means there would be some way of determining what is moral apart from our subjective emotional experiences.

Except there isn't any way to determine what is moral apart from our subjective emotional experiences. If you've found one, you will shock the world.

Are you just pulling random cards out of your arguments against Christianity box? I think I've made a pretty good case of why I think morality is more than just rules (rules are only one element of morality). If you want to argue this point then present a positive argument for a rules only version of morality.

I don't need to make my own argument. I presented a counter-example to your definition. That's your problem to deal with. Don't put anything on my plate.

Obvious to whom?

To anyone who has empathy.

Any creature on earth that has empathy also has a consciousness and a central nervous system. Such a creature understands what it would not want to endure. Having empathy, it would not want bad things to happen to others. Thus, it would be obvious to such a creature that it is bad for one to be chopped to pieces and eaten.

So humans were vegetarian and then at some point in history we decided to eat meat? What determines what we are supposed to do.

Ultimately, nothing makes such a determination. There is no objective morality. We rely upon others to have empathy. Why don't you tell me which of the two worlds you'd prefer to live in:

1.) Objective morality exists, but everyone is a psychopath and empathy does not exist.
2.) Morality is subjective, but everyone has empathy.

We are omnivores. Presumably you believe in evolution. Our primate ancestors ate meat, our closest primate relatives eat meat. We discovered cooking as a means to reduce the amount of energy required to digest food and our digestive systems have evolved accordingly since. So why is it wrong for us to eat meat. Is it wrong for chimps or pigs?

I don't know what chimps or pigs are capable of understanding. They have their versions of right and wrong, they have societies, but their ability to think abstractly and hypothetically is not there. So to hold such a creature accountable to right and wrong is silly. Humans, on the other hand, can think hypothetically and abstractly, so we should know what is right or wrong.

Why do I have to explain all of this to you? This is for a 4-year old.

I find the statement that eating meat is wrong strange coming from an atheist. Animals have evolved to eat other animals and we are just part of that continuum.

We're not *just* part of that continuum. We are animals that can do things which no other animal can do. Again, I don't know why I have to explain this.

I personally don't think it's morally wrong to eat meat so I'm not sure why you are so certain that it's obviously wrong.

It's obviously wrong to me because I have empathy. You, presumably, have shut off your empathy for animals as you view them as soulless creatures who exist to serve us with their flesh.

Is evolution immoral?

Evolution is amoral just like every inanimate thing.

Divine inspiration doesn't mean free from any personal opinions or errors. Paul was divinely inspired in his teachings but he is human so his culture and opinions also come through in what he says.

OK. Just don't pretend that every Christian holds this view. While you're at it, don't pretend that the majority of Christians hold this view.

Then it doesn't say much about the Christians that resisted it either. It just seems like human nature to resist social change regardless of faith.

No. Atheists are obviously far more open to the LGBT movement than Christians, and Christians are far more open to it than Muslims. To dispute this would be moronic.

That lack of control over our motives is what we Christians call the sinful nature.

Right. So God created us with a certain set of primitive desires and then set the rules in direct opposition to those desires for no apparent reason other than his good pleasure.

The gospel presents us a path that we can be renewed in our motives through the power of the Holy Spirit. Even so I think we can change some of our motives through discipline and psychology. We would say a man who is not attracted to young boys is better than one who is, even if he doesn't act on it. This is why I think a system of morality that addresses motives is superior.

I think that your view of morality is severely perverse.

Was it a vision of things in the actual world or was it a vision of symbols that represent things in the world. If it's symbols representing things then it's by definition metaphoric whether or not you understand them.

If you're asking me, I think it's just a bunch of made up nonsense. You can decide whatever you want for yourself.

I don't even know where you get the idea that Christians are forbidden from thinking, that statement is so daft I don't even know where to begin.

I said that you have thoughts that you are forbidden from thinking. I didn't say you're forbidden from thinking. There are just some thoughts that you are forbidden to think.

Let's start trying to understand each other or else end the conversation. I'll admit that I have been glossing over some of the things you've said, but we need to end this or end the conversation. I doubt you'll admit culpability since I just showed you that you had called me dishonest and you did not even address it, but I hold myself to a higher standard of intellectual honesty than apologists.

There simply is no consensus on interpretation of scripture among Christians. It's impossible to understand scripture without using your own understanding.

Unless, of course, you read what the words say. Take it literally unless it cannot be taken literally. That is the most honest approach, and you apparently find that to be the most dishonest approach.

Again, tell me why you think Jesus actually existed. Tell me why the gospels aren't parables themselves.

Every religion has meaning to those who follow it. Religions are systems to explore meaning and every one does it in a different way so no they are not on equal ground.

OK. And do you think Christianity is on the highest ground?

You cannot demonstrate moral claims scientifically.

No one can demonstrate a single moral claim by any means whatsoever.

You said it's obvious that eating meat is wrong. You make a truth claim.

It's not a truth claim. Ultimately, morality does not exist. To one with empathy, it is wrong to eat meat. I'm not going off on a "true for me but not true for you" tangent here. I'm not saying there is any truth to morality. When I say, "X is morally wrong" that is shorthand for "I would prefer that X does not happen to me, and I am grieved if it happens to someone else because I have empathy."

If you do not have empathy, I cannot communicate to you about morality any more than I could communicate a sunset to a blind person.

Demonstrate how that truth claim can be arrived at by the scientific method. Or any other moral claim for that matter such as "murder is wrong" or "stealing is wrong". If morality could be determined using the scientific method then morality would be objective.

Right. Morality would be objective in that case - objective in the sense that you mean. But like I said, this can never be done. There is no empathy in science, and so there is no morality in science. All I'm saying is that there is a scientific explanation for how empathy came about, and I gave you the abridged version.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Again, "free will" would be nothing more than us being "free" to act upon primitive desires which are entirely beyond our control. You left that totally unaddressed.

Why is this a problem?

If we were to be truly free willed, we would have neutral primitive desires.

Huh? Are you asking if God is fair in judging a person who's inclination to choose something is biased? Why does it matter there are biases?

Further, it's not clear that we would ever take any action at all if our primitive desires were neutral (whatever neutral even is).

You seem to be assuming that free-will must be based entirely on desire. Can it not be an interaction between desire and mind? If it is entirely based on desire, isn't that deterministic rather than free?

Instead of neutrality, God has created us with primitive desires that are in direct opposition to the arbitrary rules that he has laid out for us, and of course he then says we're evil for having been created the way we are.

Why do you believe God created us with desires in opposition to Him?

If I created a blood-sucking vampire who must suck blood to survive, and is also overwhelmingly compelled to suck blood, does the creature have free will?

I don't understand, you may need to explain a bit clearer. I don't see how a base desire undermines free-will. Let's say the vampire is choosing between a red and blue hat, does the need to suck blood undermine the free-choice?

If we are created with such strong desire to do evil that no one out of billions has ever succeeded in rejecting evil, then we have unreasonable expectations thrown upon us.

Good point, I agree with you. But why do you believe we are created with a strong desire to do evil?

since no man has ever rejected sin his whole life, you have no basis for saying that we have the free will to not sin. Lacking that, the discussion on free will doesn't even get off the ground.

Jesus did not sin.

God had to approve of the law, even the absurd parts. Remember, they caught a man working on the Sabbath, and they asked God what to do. God said to put the man to death. That was God's chance to clarify everything. Perhaps you should consider his clarification on the matter.

God was bound by the covenantal system of the day that the people had requested. That system said "If we fail in our agreement, may our God punish us". God was bound by covenant to bring death for breaking the law.

So the flood was earth drowning in God's tears?

In a sense, yes. But it wasn't the whole earth, just the localised region. In the eyes of Noah it would have looked like the whole earth hence why the story was passed on as worldwide.

What's your explanation for Sodom and Gomorrah? That was another judgement long before there was a law.

The pain caused by the evil was crying out to God. He responded in justice to the horrific reports coming to Him. There is no mention of wrath.

You said that the Hebrew slaves were treated much worse than what would have been allowed under Mosaic slavery laws, and I ripped that blind assertion to shreds.

Haha! This made me laugh, "I ripped that blind assertion to shreds"! It's not a blind assertion, I simply trusted the research of someone far superior to either of us on the matter -- that the slavery laws in the Bible are morally superior to the surrounding nations. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'm simply trusting the work of the PhD's. That is my only argument. I don't have the resources or the time to look into if they are right or not.

At best, those would make the future unpredictable by humans.

To some degree, the world is unpredictable.

So let me get this straight.

1) God is good.

2) Good is without sin.

3) Sin is separation from God.

Combining 1) and 2) yields

God is without sin.

Combining 2) and 3) yields

God is without separation from God.

Circular reasoning at its finest.

I actually said disconnection from God leads to death. These three points above simply define God as being without sin. There is no deductive reasoning to unravel. Of course a definition is circular.

 

[Everybodyknows]

As I said in the OP, I don't think there is a clear definition of sin, I don't think there can be one, and I don't think the church has any motivation to provide one even if it could. As for your definition, I don't find it to be well-defined.

You say in the OP that Islam makes it absolutely clear what is right and wrong. In what way could Christianity achieve the same clarity?

Except there isn't any way to determine what is moral apart from our subjective emotional experiences. If you've found one, you will shock the world.

I agree.

I don't need to make my own argument. I presented a counter-example to your definition. That's your problem to deal with. Don't put anything on my plate.

I don't understand how your counter example relates to the point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any rules, simply that rules are only one element of a moral system. I've written allot about this already.

To anyone who has empathy.

Any creature on earth that has empathy also has a consciousness and a central nervous system. Such a creature understands what it would not want to endure. Having empathy, it would not want bad things to happen to others. Thus, it would be obvious to such a creature that it is bad for one to be chopped to pieces and eaten.



Ultimately, nothing makes such a determination. There is no objective morality. We rely upon others to have empathy. Why don't you tell me which of the two worlds you'd prefer to live in:

1.) Objective morality exists, but everyone is a psychopath and empathy does not exist.
2.) Morality is subjective, but everyone has empathy.



I don't know what chimps or pigs are capable of understanding. They have their versions of right and wrong, they have societies, but their ability to think abstractly and hypothetically is not there. So to hold such a creature accountable to right and wrong is silly. Humans, on the other hand, can think hypothetically and abstractly, so we should know what is right or wrong.

Why do I have to explain all of this to you? This is for a 4-year old.




We're not *just* part of that continuum. We are animals that can do things which no other animal can do. Again, I don't know why I have to explain this.



It's obviously wrong to me because I have empathy. You, presumably, have shut off your empathy for animals as you view them as soulless creatures who exist to serve us with their flesh.



Evolution is amoral just like every inanimate thing.

So right and wrong are obvious to anyone with empathy, and anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment of right and wrong lacks it? This is still exactly the same problematic attitude I pointed out before, do you seriously think you are morally superior to those who don't feel it's wrong to eat meat? The reality of the world is that people with empathy can disagree on what they think is right and wrong, as an atheist I thought you would understand that. But I find this whole line of argument strange coming from someone who still eats meat.

OK. Just don't pretend that every Christian holds this view. While you're at it, don't pretend that the majority of Christians hold this view.

Ok I've never pretended that. I know many Christians that hold this view, and see quite a few here on CF.

No. Atheists are obviously far more open to the LGBT movement than Christians, and Christians are far more open to it than Muslims. To dispute this would be moronic.

Ok atheists are morally superior. Except that I know many atheists and many Christians and some of other beliefs, and I must say that I don't find any particular group more moral than any other.

Right. So God created us with a certain set of primitive desires and then set the rules in direct opposition to those desires for no apparent reason other than his good pleasure.

No

I think that your view of morality is severely perverse.

Why? Because I say that having good qualities is as important as having rules to govern our behavior? Let me give you a practical example. You seem to understand the importance of empathy in relation to morality. Empathy can be learned and we can teach it to children, and children who have had a neglected upbringing often lack it. I raise my own children with a focus on teaching them empathy, helping them understand how their actions make others feel. I must say it doesn't always come naturally, but with some persistence they grasp the concept eventually. Child Psychologists will often use dolls and role play scenarios to teach children with behavioral problems to understand how ones actions make others feel. I feel that my children who are being taught empathy will be better adjusted adults than if I had not bothered with teaching them to understand how their actions make others feel and just stuck a list of rules on the fridge. Of course there is a place for rules and consequences but they are secondary to the development of qualities that will make them socially well adjusted adults.

What part of my view of morality do you find severely perverse? What alternate view of morality do you offer that is superior.

I said that you have thoughts that you are forbidden from thinking. I didn't say you're forbidden from thinking. There are just some thoughts that you are forbidden to think.

Huh what? Sorry I still have no idea what you are saying. I can think about anything I like.

Let's start trying to understand each other or else end the conversation. I'll admit that I have been glossing over some of the things you've said, but we need to end this or end the conversation. I doubt you'll admit culpability since I just showed you that you had called me dishonest and you did not even address it, but I hold myself to a higher standard of intellectual honesty than apologists.

Fundamentalists take the Bible literally, you said we should take the Bible as literally as possible. So your approach to scripture is the same (or similar). You said they are dishonest, I assume you didn't mean that it's dishonest to take the Bible literally but that they are dishonest when it comes to defending their literal interpretation in light of opposing evidence, right? Since you aren't defending the Bible you're not being dishonest. I apologise if what I said came across that way, it was certainly not my intent.

Unless, of course, you read what the words say. Take it literally unless it cannot be taken literally. That is the most honest approach, and you apparently find that to be the most dishonest approach.

Again, tell me why you think Jesus actually existed. Tell me why the gospels aren't parables themselves.

I look for the meaning that go beyond the literal words. How literally you can take it depends on what genre of literature you are reading. Generally literature tries to convey meanings and ideas that are greater than the literal words.

OK. And do you think Christianity is on the highest ground?

Morally no.

No one can demonstrate a single moral claim by any means whatsoever.

Ok

It's not a truth claim. Ultimately, morality does not exist. To one with empathy, it is wrong to eat meat. I'm not going off on a "true for me but not true for you" tangent here. I'm not saying there is any truth to morality. When I say, "X is morally wrong" that is shorthand for "I would prefer that X does not happen to me, and I am grieved if it happens to someone else because I have empathy."

Now you're trying to demonstrate a moral claim by means of empathy in contrast to your above statement. You are literally saying that anyone with empathy will necessarily accept that it is wrong to eat meat, and if they don't then they don't have empathy. Is empathy a means by which we can establish an absolute definition of right and wrong? I don't find this that different to the typical Christian argument that our sense of right and wrong comes from God and that anyone who disagrees with my version of right and wrong is ignoring their conscience.

Right. Morality would be objective in that case - objective in the sense that you mean. But like I said, this can never be done. There is no empathy in science, and so there is no morality in science. All I'm saying is that there is a scientific explanation for how empathy came about, and I gave you the abridged version.

If morality and empathy have no place in science then is the scientific method the only reliable pathway to truth?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why is this a problem?

Once again, our actions are consequences of our primitive desires, and we have no control over our primitive desires.

Huh? Are you asking if God is fair in judging a person who's inclination to choose something is biased? Why does it matter there are biases?

Justice is objective, not biased.

You seem to be assuming that free-will must be based entirely on desire. Can it not be an interaction between desire and mind? If it is entirely based on desire, isn't that deterministic rather than free?

That's my point. Free will cannot be coherently defined. There is no escaping determinism.

Why do you believe God created us with desires in opposition to Him?

I don't. Christians do.

I don't understand, you may need to explain a bit clearer. I don't see how a base desire undermines free-will. Let's say the vampire is choosing between a red and blue hat, does the need to suck blood undermine the free-choice?

Again, it's not up to us. We don't control how we perceive colors, and further, we don't control which colors we prefer. If the vampire intrinsically prefers blue, explain how exactly his choice is truly free.

I gave you a specific example, and instead of answering the question you changed the topic as if that solves your problem. But again I've shown you that the choice is not truly free.

Good point, I agree with you. But why do you believe we are created with a strong desire to do evil?

I believe that Christian theology asserts this. It seems to be fairly obvious. Are you playing games with me?

Jesus did not sin.

Not relevant to what I said.

God was bound by the covenantal system of the day that the people had requested. That system said "If we fail in our agreement, may our God punish us". God was bound by covenant to bring death for breaking the law.

Then why was God allowed to change the covenant without the permission of Israel? You said that God was bound. Clearly this is false.

In a sense, yes. But it wasn't the whole earth, just the localised region. In the eyes of Noah it would have looked like the whole earth hence why the story was passed on as worldwide.

So God flooded a local region. OK. So instead of telling Noah to leave the area - since he would have to do so after the flood anyway, given that the environment would be utterly obliterated - God told Noah to build a boat that physically cannot even exist, since it would twist apart even on relatively calm waters.

There's a reason big boats are always made of metal.

The pain caused by the evil was crying out to God. He responded in justice to the horrific reports coming to Him. There is no mention of wrath.

The OT God always "burns with hatred" or "burns with anger" and yet you want to tell me that he was filled with sorrow when he wiped out the planet. You need to make an extremely strong case to support that claim.

Haha! This made me laugh, "I ripped that blind assertion to shreds"! It's not a blind assertion, I simply trusted the research of someone far superior to either of us on the matter -- that the slavery laws in the Bible are morally superior to the surrounding nations. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'm simply trusting the work of the PhD's. That is my only argument. I don't have the resources or the time to look into if they are right or not.

Again, I already did prove you wrong.

Perhaps the slavery instituted by the Jews was progressive and better than what other systems had to offer. But to argue that case, you must admit that the Exodus never happened. Refer to the reasoning I gave above to understand why this is the case.

To some degree, the world is unpredictable.

Yes. Therefore free will?

I actually said disconnection from God leads to death. These three points above simply define God as being without sin. There is no deductive reasoning to unravel. Of course a definition is circular.

Hmm, so are you a nihilist also? I mean, if all definitions are circular, then language is inherently meaningless. Right?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

our actions are consequences of our primitive desires

And this is your definition of free will? Acting on primitive desires? I disagree with this definition.

Justice is objective, not biased.

Read it again: Are you asking if God is fair in judging a person who's inclination to choose something is biased? Why does it matter there are biases in a persons inclination? I'm not saying anything about judgement being biased.

That's my point. Free will cannot be coherently defined. There is no escaping determinism.

? Pretty ridiculous thing to say. Here is a small list of some of the worlds current brightest philosophical minds who are proponents of free-will: Daniel Dennet, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, Peter van Inwagen, John Martin Fischer, Galen Strawson, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Free will simply means that we could have acted otherwise. How is this incoherent?

I don't. Christians do.

Now you are being difficult. I am asking why you think Christians believe God created them with desires in opposition to them? Read between the lines please.

Again, it's not up to us. We don't control how we perceive colors, and further, we don't control which colors we prefer. If the vampire intrinsically prefers blue, explain how exactly his choice is truly free.

Ok so here is the problem. You don't comprehend free-will. So when free-will is discussed, you are still looking at it as deterministic. Let me give you an example of indeterminism: shut your eyes and point your finger at the wall nearest you. There are infinite points to choose from. You choose one of those points. Even if you are deterministically inclined to point your finger in a particular direction, it is impossible to point it at the exact spot you were pre-programmed to (by your past experiences and genetics). The exact point we are pointing at is randomly selected within the general direction of our finger-pointing. Therefore the world is indeterminately inclined. Next, apply this to our will. Our desires can point us in a particular direction, but the outcome at times is unknown. More importantly, we can choose to go against our desires because we have a mind. We are free to choose.

I believe that Christian theology asserts this. It seems to be fairly obvious. Are you playing games with me?

What I mean is, were Adam and Eve created with a strong desire to do evil? I do not believe they were. I believe they had a strong desire to do good but were deceived.

Then why was God allowed to change the covenant without the permission of Israel? You said that God was bound. Clearly this is false.

What are you referring to when you say "why was God allowed to change the covenant"? When did God change the covenant? And why is it false that God was bound by covenant?

So God flooded a local region. OK. So instead of telling Noah to leave the area - since he would have to do so after the flood anyway, given that the environment would be utterly obliterated - God told Noah to build a boat that physically cannot even exist, since it would twist apart even on relatively calm waters.

There's a reason big boats are always made of metal.

Noah stayed to save the others. But the details of the story are hearsay. It was most likely passed on by word of mouth and then written down in some textual form that is not available to us today. Maybe the writing was with pictures or something. Even so, you are wrong about the ark itself. A study was completed and published in a physics journal only 2 years ago showing how the ark was viable and would have floated. It doesn't make much difference to me either way but there is no evidence of a world-wide flood and there are other details about the "Noahs ark" story that are problematic anyway.

The OT God always "burns with hatred" or "burns with anger"

After the Mosaic Covenant, yes, God unleashed wrath. Before the Mosaic covenant, can you show me one place where He "burned with hatred" or "burned with anger"?

You need to make an extremely strong case to support that claim.

All we need to do is read over the passages you have suggested, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, and see if God was angry or merciful. Read these in Genesis 6:9-9:17 and Genesis 19.

I already did prove you wrong.

You mean when you said that the Israelites asked to go back to Egypt? Wow. This has zero to do with slavery conditions, and everything to do with living in a desert eating manna and quail alone.

Perhaps the slavery instituted by the Jews was progressive and better than what other systems had to offer. But to argue that case, you must admit that the Exodus never happened. Refer to the reasoning I gave above to understand why this is the case.

I don't find your argument regarding a desire to return to Egypt compelling.

Yes. Therefore free will?

Of course not.

Hmm, so are you a nihilist also? I mean, if all definitions are circular, then language is inherently meaningless. Right?

No. A definition is circular. But when we logically piece together a number of unique definitions we can show certain things to be true or false.

1. God is without sin.
2. Some free agents are with sin.
3. Therefore, some free agents are without God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You say in the OP that Islam makes it absolutely clear what is right and wrong. In what way could Christianity achieve the same clarity?

Quite easily. You could start with not having Jesus, the central figure of the NT, and Paul, the majority author of the NT, contradicting one another on this issue. Jesus said that the heavens and the earth would pass away before the law does; Paul said that the law is dead.

Furthermore, I see no reason why Jesus could not have communicated his position effectively. If for some reason he refused to write things down or dictate his thoughts, then perhaps he could have not talked in riddles every single time he opened his mouth.

I agree.

OK.

I don't understand how your counter example relates to the point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any rules, simply that rules are only one element of a moral system. I've written allot about this already.

Fair enough. Now can we please cover the distasteful parts of the rules God laid out for us, such as racism, sexism, and slavery?

So right and wrong are obvious to anyone with empathy, and anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment of right and wrong lacks it? This is still exactly the same problematic attitude I pointed out before, do you seriously think you are morally superior to those who don't feel it's wrong to eat meat?

Again, this isn't difficult. You know full well that you don't want your flesh ripped from your body and consumed by someone else. You know that the animals we do this to have a consciousness and a central nervous system that is capable of feeling pain and agony on more or less the same level of intensity as us. If you don't see how it's wrong to eat animal meat, then you lack empathy for animals. If you do have empathy for them, then it is obvious why it is wrong to eat flesh. I say it is obvious because I'm assuming that you would know you would not want your flesh to be ripped off your bones and that we wouldn't have to actually do it for you to understand that you wouldn't want it to happen.

The reality of the world is that people with empathy can disagree on what they think is right and wrong, as an atheist I thought you would understand that.

Yes... on less obvious issues. If we can't all agree that killing is wrong, then I don't even know what the word "obvious" means.

But I find this whole line of argument strange coming from someone who still eats meat.

Do you think that sin is wrong? Do you sin?

Your statement above is utterly nonsensical. To the extreme.

Ok I've never pretended that. I know many Christians that hold this view, and see quite a few here on CF.

OK.

Ok atheists are morally superior. Except that I know many atheists and many Christians and some of other beliefs, and I must say that I don't find any particular group more moral than any other.

I don't know why you're discussing beliefs when you were just on moral superiority. Morality is about actions.

Typically, beliefs are not an act of choice. I cannot choose to believe that Australia does not exist.

No

Actually, yes. Yet another obvious fact that you deny.

Why? Because I say that having good qualities is as important as having rules to govern our behavior? Let me give you a practical example. You seem to understand the importance of empathy in relation to morality. Empathy can be learned and we can teach it to children, and children who have had a neglected upbringing often lack it. I raise my own children with a focus on teaching them empathy, helping them understand how their actions make others feel. I must say it doesn't always come naturally, but with some persistence they grasp the concept eventually. Child Psychologists will often use dolls and role play scenarios to teach children with behavioral problems to understand how ones actions make others feel. I feel that my children who are being taught empathy will be better adjusted adults than if I had not bothered with teaching them to understand how their actions make others feel and just stuck a list of rules on the fridge. Of course there is a place for rules and consequences but they are secondary to the development of qualities that will make them socially well adjusted adults.

I don't see how this helps your argument in any way. Empathy helps encourage us to do the right thing, but without a set of rules there is no right thing.

What part of my view of morality do you find severely perverse? What alternate view of morality do you offer that is superior.

Empathy is an important factor in the actualization of moral behavior. But when we ask, "What is right?" and we want to draft a social contract, empathy is irrelevant.

What I find perverse is that if two people were both doing the right thing, but if one was resisting temptation because he wanted to do good while the other was not enduring temptation, then you would say that the person who is facing no temptation is morally superior.

Huh what? Sorry I still have no idea what you are saying. I can think about anything I like.

Are you allowed to think blasphemous thoughts for your own amusement? Can you offer a silent, blasphemous prayer to God telepathically? Or is that forbidden?

Fundamentalists take the Bible literally, you said we should take the Bible as literally as possible. So your approach to scripture is the same (or similar). You said they are dishonest, I assume you didn't mean that it's dishonest to take the Bible literally but that they are dishonest when it comes to defending their literal interpretation in light of opposing evidence, right? Since you aren't defending the Bible you're not being dishonest. I apologise if what I said came across that way, it was certainly not my intent.

You've got it 100% correct now.

I look for the meaning that go beyond the literal words. How literally you can take it depends on what genre of literature you are reading. Generally literature tries to convey meanings and ideas that are greater than the literal words.

Right... and there is a legitimate way to read Mark as a fictional story with a central figure. I suppose it would be both a comedy and a tragedy. I haven't seen your reasoning for dismissing this possibility. Off topic, I know, but it's my thread so I won't get mad.

Morally no.

Why not follow another religion, then?

Ok


Now you're trying to demonstrate a moral claim by means of empathy in contrast to your above statement. You are literally saying that anyone with empathy will necessarily accept that it is wrong to eat meat, and if they don't then they don't have empathy.

It's not as black and white as that. You can have empathy for one person and not for another. If one killed a Nazi, and even enjoyed it, it doesn't mean he lacked empathy. Indeed, this hypothetical person could have later jumped on a grenade to save his friends because of his empathy for them.

There is a lot of tribalism in humanity. If tribalism can negate empathy for another human being, it's quite easy for it to negate empathy for animals - particularly when you consider that we make use of their flesh.

Is empathy a means by which we can establish an absolute definition of right and wrong?

I'm a nihilist. I don't know what you mean by "absolute definition." If you mean what I think you do, then I would say that we can't make an absolute definition of anything. Definitions have utility, but ultimately they are meaningless; and worse, every word is defined in terms of other words which means that language itself is ultimately without meaning.

I don't find this that different to the typical Christian argument that our sense of right and wrong comes from God and that anyone who disagrees with my version of right and wrong is ignoring their conscience.

You fail to consider that God has ordered and participated in mass murder and genocide; that he has permitted rape, slavery, racism, and sexism. If this deity exists, I do not think he has empathy or that we get ours from him. Jehovah is a warlord deity, and it is silly to say that our conscience is tied to him.

If morality and empathy have no place in science then is the scientific method the only reliable pathway to truth?

Refer to what I already said in my previous response to you. There is ultimately no truth to any morality claim. Objective morality does not and cannot exist. If it did, the scientific method would probably find it.

To answer your question: yes, the scientific method is the only reliable pathway to truth. Mathematics, for instance, is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; nothing true can be derived from assumptions and definitions. We align our mathematical assumptions with principles of the reality that we observe, principles which were derived with the scientific method.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Quite easily. You could start with not having Jesus, the central figure of the NT, and Paul, the majority author of the NT, contradicting one another on this issue. Jesus said that the heavens and the earth would pass away before the law does; Paul said that the law is dead.

The old covenant law still applies to those Jewish people who choose to remain under it. The law is dead to those under the new covenant in the sense that we have no obligation towards it.

Furthermore, I see no reason why Jesus could not have communicated his position effectively. If for some reason he refused to write things down or dictate his thoughts, then perhaps he could have not talked in riddles every single time he opened his mouth.

Humans are storytellers by nature. Stories are the most effective way to convey complex ideas about the world. Look at all the novels that have been written in history. Why did the authors bother when they probably could have just given us a couple of pages of some moral ideals.

Fair enough. Now can we please cover the distasteful parts of the rules God laid out for us, such as racism, sexism, and slavery?

I've already said all I've got to say about that.

Again, this isn't difficult. You know full well that you don't want your flesh ripped from your body and consumed by someone else. You know that the animals we do this to have a consciousness and a central nervous system that is capable of feeling pain and agony on more or less the same level of intensity as us. If you don't see how it's wrong to eat animal meat, then you lack empathy for animals. If you do have empathy for them, then it is obvious why it is wrong to eat flesh. I say it is obvious because I'm assuming that you would know you would not want your flesh to be ripped off your bones and that we wouldn't have to actually do it for you to understand that you wouldn't want it to happen.

I grew up on a farm where we killed and ate our own animals. I do feel empathy towards animals. I feel more empathy for a cow than a chicken. I feel more empathy for a chicken than a fish. I feel more empathy for a fish than a snail. They all have central nervous systems and can experience pain, but I don't agree that they experience awareness, life, death and pain in the same way. I don't feel the same empathy towards any animal than I do towards a human. Furthermore, most of the animals we eat are domesticated and owe the their existence to the fact that we have been selectively breeding them for thousands of years. There are painless ways to kill animals. The issue is far from clear, and not nearly as obvious as you insist.

Yes... on less obvious issues. If we can't all agree that killing is wrong, then I don't even know what the word "obvious" means.

What do you mean by obvious? You seem to imply that the same things should be obvious to everyone, but then don't believe in objective morality. Do you believe in universal morality then? Is it obvious that killing a fly is wrong?

I don't see how this helps your argument in any way. Empathy helps encourage us to do the right thing, but without a set of rules there is no right thing.

Empathy is an important factor in the actualization of moral behavior. But when we ask, "What is right?" and we want to draft a social contract, empathy is irrelevant.

So we need a set of rules to tell us the right thing and then empathy encourages us to do the right thing according to those rules. I don't understand then why you find any rules in the bible immoral. By what means are you questioning the rules and calling them unjust? Aren't they just a social contract?

What I find perverse is that if two people were both doing the right thing, but if one was resisting temptation because he wanted to do good while the other was not enduring temptation, then you would say that the person who is facing no temptation is morally superior.

Imagine you had two babysitters to choose from, one who you know has pedophilic desires but resists them and another who has no such desires. Both are good as far as the law is concerned. Which would you choose?

Are you allowed to think blasphemous thoughts for your own amusement? Can you offer a silent, blasphemous prayer to God telepathically? Or is that forbidden?

There are no thought crimes. I'm allowed to, but I generally I don't. You probably don't think about committing genocide even though it's not a forbidden thought.

Right... and there is a legitimate way to read Mark as a fictional story with a central figure. I suppose it would be both a comedy and a tragedy. I haven't seen your reasoning for dismissing this possibility. Off topic, I know, but it's my thread so I won't get mad.

It's difficult to establish the historicity of the gospels from an evidential perspective for the lack of external evidence to corroborate the stories.

Why not follow another religion, then?

Each to their own.

It's not as black and white as that. You can have empathy for one person and not for another. If one killed a Nazi, and even enjoyed it, it doesn't mean he lacked empathy. Indeed, this hypothetical person could have later jumped on a grenade to save his friends because of his empathy for them.

There is a lot of tribalism in humanity. If tribalism can negate empathy for another human being, it's quite easy for it to negate empathy for animals - particularly when you consider that we make use of their flesh.

But if we rise above tribalism and no longer negate our empathy would everyone necessarily conclude that eating meat is wrong?

I'm a nihilist. I don't know what you mean by "absolute definition." If you mean what I think you do, then I would say that we can't make an absolute definition of anything. Definitions have utility, but ultimately they are meaningless; and worse, every word is defined in terms of other words which means that language itself is ultimately without meaning.

By absolute definition I mean one we can universally agree on. Like you seem to think it should be obvious to everyone that killing animals for meat is wrong.

You fail to consider that God has ordered and participated in mass murder and genocide; that he has permitted rape, slavery, racism, and sexism. If this deity exists, I do not think he has empathy or that we get ours from him. Jehovah is a warlord deity, and it is silly to say that our conscience is tied to him.

You miss the point. I'm saying that argument is as bad as yours.

Refer to what I already said in my previous response to you. There is ultimately no truth to any morality claim. Objective morality does not and cannot exist. If it did, the scientific method would probably find it.

You say that.
And then you say things like this

If you don't see how it's wrong to eat animal meat, then you lack empathy for animals. If you do have empathy for them, then it is obvious why it is wrong to eat flesh.

How can you make a moral claim and tell me something is obviously wrong and then say there is no truth to any moral claim. You can't have it both ways.

To answer your question: yes, the scientific method is the only reliable pathway to truth. Mathematics, for instance, is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; nothing true can be derived from assumptions and definitions. We align our mathematical assumptions with principles of the reality that we observe, principles which were derived with the scientific method.

Yet morality is foundational to our society and our success as a species. If only there were some system within which we could evaluate ethics...

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus said that the heavens and the earth would pass away before the law does; Paul said that the law is dead.

Where did Paul say the law is dead? If you are referring to Romans 7:6 in the KJV, "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter", that is an incorrect translation. Most translations have corrected that to, "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" or something similar. It is the believer that dies in the water of baptism and resurrects a new creature who is no longer bound by the death penalty of the law because the Savior of the world, Yeshua, died in our place. He died in your place as well NV, but if you choose to not accept his death on your behalf, then you will pay your debt to the law with your own life.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And this is your definition of free will? Acting on primitive desires? I disagree with this definition.

If we had no primitive desires, we would not do anything.

Read it again: Are you asking if God is fair in judging a person who's inclination to choose something is biased? Why does it matter there are biases in a persons inclination? I'm not saying anything about judgement being biased.

God created us with certain primitive desires, and then set the rules in direct opposition. I'm calling this unfair.

? Pretty ridiculous thing to say. Here is a small list of some of the worlds current brightest philosophical minds who are proponents of free-will: Daniel Dennet, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, Peter van Inwagen, John Martin Fischer, Galen Strawson, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Philolsophy is a failure.

Free will simply means that we could have acted otherwise.

I've never seen a demonstration of this. Also it goes against what we understand about physics. The past is determined because it happened. Winding time backwards would be deterministic. I've not seen you explain why winding time forwards is no less deterministic.

You might say, "The journey of a rock is deterministic in both directions of time. However, living beings can choose to do things. Since those choices are not yet known, the future is not yet determined."

I hope I'm representing you accurately there.

But our decisions are driven by brain chemistry, and I see nothing independent from the laws of physics here. A chain reaction of chemicals is more complex than the journey of a rock, but no less deterministic.

The future journey of a rock is something that I cannot predict, and yet it is determined. So there is no reason that choices, despite being unpredictable, cannot be determined.

You are experiencing all the wonders of consciousness, but until you show that there is some soul driving your consciousness you must concede that your choices are determined by chemistry.

How is this incoherent?

Even if I grant that you have a soul which is driving your decisions, I again ask why your soul has certain primitive desires over others. The answer would be that God made you that way. So you were made to have certain desires, which you then act upon. There's your "free will."

Now you are being difficult. I am asking why you think Christians believe God created them with desires in opposition to them? Read between the lines please.

Because we have desires to do sinful things, and we're not supposed to do sinful things. Why do you act like I'm being difficult when you're the one asking such a silly question?

Ok so here is the problem. You don't comprehend free-will.

I do. You don't.

So when free-will is discussed, you are still looking at it as deterministic. Let me give you an example of indeterminism: shut your eyes and point your finger at the wall nearest you. There are infinite points to choose from. You choose one of those points.

Already incoherent. There aren't infinitely many points in physical space. If there were, you could not choose one at random - the probability of any infinitesimal being chosen would be zero. Choosing one at non-random, however, is well defined.

Even if you are deterministically inclined to point your finger in a particular direction, it is impossible to point it at the exact spot you were pre-programmed to (by your past experiences and genetics).

No offense but this is a stupid point. If I make a robot with no free will, and give it no capability of flying, and then I tell it to fly, it will try and fail. So even if I fail to point at an infinitesimal, that doesn't mean my free will caused me to screw up. My lack of free will compelled me to make a decision, and I attempted to carry it out. That's as far as free will discussion goes. If two men try to shoot a basketball into a hoop, and one misses but the other makes it, we're not going to say that the man who made his shot had free will.

The exact point we are pointing at is randomly selected within the general direction of our finger-pointing. Therefore the world is indeterminately inclined.

Non sequitur.

Next, apply this to our will. Our desires can point us in a particular direction, but the outcome at times is unknown.

The outcome is utterly irrelevant. We're discussing the actual choice that was made, not how the choice plays out in the external world.

And you said I don't understand free will. This conversation is mind blowing.

More importantly, we can choose to go against our desires because we have a mind. We are free to choose.

We go against our desires because of other competing desires.

Suppose I strongly prefer blue to red. Suppose I strongly prefer Bugs Bunny to Daffy Duck. Do I choose a blue hat with Daffy Duck or a red hat with Bugs Bunny? A lot of factors go into this, most of which we aren't even aware of. There's a reason commercials and ads are successful. You do realize that companies make a profit for just showing us images and sounds, right? In a world of free will, advertisements would be worthless.

What I mean is, were Adam and Eve created with a strong desire to do evil? I do not believe they were. I believe they had a strong desire to do good but were deceived.

They had no awareness of good or evil (despite being punished for doing evil) so they obviously had no good or evil desires (at least none that they were aware of).

What are you referring to when you say "why was God allowed to change the covenant"? When did God change the covenant? And why is it false that God was bound by covenant?

You said that God was bound by the covenant. You said that's why the man who worked on the Sabbath was executed.

If God was bound by the covenant, why was he allowed to change it in the NT?

Noah stayed to save the others.

Where does it say that?

But the details of the story are hearsay. It was most likely passed on by word of mouth and then written down in some textual form that is not available to us today.

That's a polite way of saying that it was ripped off from Babylonian stories.

Maybe the writing was with pictures or something.

Back to pulling things out of thin air I see.

Even so, you are wrong about the ark itself. A study was completed and published in a physics journal only 2 years ago showing how the ark was viable and would have floated.

Wood is cheaper than metal. Huge boats are made of metal. Are boat makers stupid?

Water is not a solid surface, so a huge structure on water will sway back and forth. This swaying would twist a wooden boat like a towel being wrung, and the wooden material would eventually break. Metal would not.

Let's not forget that flooding the highest mountains in such a short time would mean that the ark is taking a lot of torrential abuse. The flood is obviously more plausible if local, but still absurdly impossible either way.

By the way your link didn't work.

It doesn't make much difference to me either way but there is no evidence of a world-wide flood and there are other details about the "Noahs ark" story that are problematic anyway.

Agreed.

After the Mosaic Covenant, yes, God unleashed wrath. Before the Mosaic covenant, can you show me one place where He "burned with hatred" or "burned with anger"?

I don't know. There were two authors of Genesis, then another for Exodus, and another for Deuteronomy, and probably a couple others. That would be my explanation. I'd like you to explain to me why God would burn with anger when the Jews violate a law that God does not even think is actually good.

All we need to do is read over the passages you have suggested, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, and see if God was angry or merciful. Read these in Genesis 6:9-9:17 and Genesis 19.

He certainly wasn't merciful. I don't know where you get that.

You mean when you said that the Israelites asked to go back to Egypt? Wow. This has zero to do with slavery conditions, and everything to do with living in a desert eating manna and quail alone.

OK, here are your choices. A form of slavery which is worse than a "progressive" one where you are allowed to be beaten for no reason as long as you don't die or lose an eyeball. Your other choice is to be watched over by your deity, but be destitute and have only two different things to eat.

By the way, if their reason for wanting to go back into slavery was that they were tired of eating the same thing, does that suggest that the Egyptians were feeding them well? If so, does it make sense that the Egyptians would feed them well but then also mistreat them?

I don't find your argument regarding a desire to return to Egypt compelling.

Well, that would mean you have to be reasonable and consider that your current position could be wrong.

Of course not.



No. A definition is circular. But when we logically piece together a number of unique definitions we can show certain things to be true or false.

1. God is without sin.
2. Some free agents are with sin.
3. Therefore, some free agents are without God.

What are you showing to be true with this?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The old covenant law still applies to those Jewish people who choose to remain under it. The law is dead to those under the new covenant in the sense that we have no obligation towards it.

And the old covenant law allows for rape and slavery. Would those things be good, to this day, for those who choose to remain under the law?

Humans are storytellers by nature. Stories are the most effective way to convey complex ideas about the world. Look at all the novels that have been written in history. Why did the authors bother when they probably could have just given us a couple of pages of some moral ideals.

Right... which is why the gospel of Mark is probably a fictional story.

I've already said all I've got to say about that.

I've had no problem repeating myself because it's clear we were both guilty of skimming. You should repeat yourself when requested, or else stop skimming me.

I grew up on a farm where we killed and ate our own animals. I do feel empathy towards animals. I feel more empathy for a cow than a chicken. I feel more empathy for a chicken than a fish. I feel more empathy for a fish than a snail. They all have central nervous systems and can experience pain, but I don't agree that they experience awareness, life, death and pain in the same way. I don't feel the same empathy towards any animal than I do towards a human. Furthermore, most of the animals we eat are domesticated and owe the their existence to the fact that we have been selectively breeding them for thousands of years. There are painless ways to kill animals. The issue is far from clear, and not nearly as obvious as you insist.

There's clearly a limit to how much empathy you feel for animals. That's why these things aren't obvious to you.

What do you mean by obvious? You seem to imply that the same things should be obvious to everyone, but then don't believe in objective morality. Do you believe in universal morality then? Is it obvious that killing a fly is wrong?

I don't know why this is not clear to you by now. Morality is subjective. One must experience empathy for anything about morality to be obvious. OK? Are we done yet?

So we need a set of rules to tell us the right thing and then empathy encourages us to do the right thing according to those rules. I don't understand then why you find any rules in the bible immoral. By what means are you questioning the rules and calling them unjust? Aren't they just a social contract?

Most laws in the Bible would violate my empathy if I were involved. I do not think it is right for a rape victim to be forced to choose between marrying her rapist or presumably being exiled from her father's house.

As far as the social contract goes, the ancients had no idea about the veil of ignorance model. Creating a social contract in which it is far better to be a Hebrew man than a woman, child, or foreigner is garbage as far as I'm concerned.

Imagine you had two babysitters to choose from, one who you know has pedophilic desires but resists them and another who has no such desires. Both are good as far as the law is concerned. Which would you choose?

I'd choose the one that does not need to resist urges, obviously.

But with whom would you more likely trust your life: with a person whom you know resists evil because he prefers to do good, or with someone about whom you know nothing?

There are no thought crimes. I'm allowed to, but I generally I don't. You probably don't think about committing genocide even though it's not a forbidden thought.

Hmm, you surprise me with this. I thought Jesus made it abundantly clear that thought crimes exist within Christianity.

Do you look upon women lustfully? Is your wife OK with this?

It's difficult to establish the historicity of the gospels from an evidential perspective for the lack of external evidence to corroborate the stories.

Agreed. So Mark could just be a story, and Jesus might've never existed. Right?

Each to their own.


But if we rise above tribalism and no longer negate our empathy would everyone necessarily conclude that eating meat is wrong?

Yes.

By absolute definition I mean one we can universally agree on. Like you seem to think it should be obvious to everyone that killing animals for meat is wrong.

Definition: killing is wrong.

How's that?

You miss the point. I'm saying that argument is as bad as yours.

OK... so was it morally wrong of God to kill people for no reason? All the firstborn in Egypt did nothing wrong, but God killed them as a vulgar demonstration of his power. Why was this OK?

You say that.
And then you say things like this

How can you make a moral claim and tell me something is obviously wrong and then say there is no truth to any moral claim. You can't have it both ways.

I absolutely can have it both ways because morality is subjective. That's what subjectivity entails. I couldn't have it both ways if morality was objective.

Yet morality is foundational to our society and our success as a species. If only there were some system within which we could evaluate ethics...

...?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Where did Paul say the law is dead? If you are referring to Romans 7:6 in the KJV, "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter", that is an incorrect translation. Most translations have corrected that to, "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" or something similar. It is the believer that dies in the water of baptism and resurrects a new creature who is no longer bound by the death penalty of the law because the Savior of the world, Yeshua, died in our place. He died in your place as well NV, but if you choose to not accept his death on your behalf, then you will pay your debt to the law with your own life.

Was Colossians 2:13-16 also mistranslated?

 

[gadar perets]

Was Colossians 2:13-16 also mistranslated?

Not those four verses. However, the "handwriting of ordinances" is misunderstood to be the Law whereas it is the certificate of debt resulting from breaking the Law. It is the list of sins that is imputed against people for breaking the Law.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If we had no primitive desires, we would not do anything.

How does this relate to free-will?

God created us with certain primitive desires, and then set the rules in direct opposition. I'm calling this unfair.

First, please show a biblical rule that is in direct opposition to a primitive desire. Second, God gave laws that were keepable. For example in Phillipians 3:6 Paul says of himself "as for righteousness based on the law, faultless." So God didn't say jump 10 metres high and then punish them for not being able to do it, He said to jump 1 metre high but they oftentimes didn't want to.

Philolsophy is a failure.

Ummm... free-will is a philosophical concept... so...

I've never seen a demonstration of this. Also it goes against what we understand about physics. The past is determined because it happened. Winding time backwards would be deterministic. I've not seen you explain why winding time forwards is no less deterministic.

Because I could have done otherwise. Just because there is one reality we experience, doesn't mean it is the only possible reality that could have eventuated. Here is a summarised article regarding free will: Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature -- not a deterministic nature. Even in classical physics, according to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. Professor Bruce Waller argues that animals evolved the capacities we associate with free will in order to survive—capacities like generating options for themselves, deliberating over which is the best option, and having the will to then stick to their choice. We humans, with our massive brains, have all of these capacities in abundance. We already have tests that assess people’s reasoning skills, creativity, self-control and the likes, all of which are essential components of psychological free will. It is possible there are quantum interactions in the brain relating to free-will. (By the way, I disagree with this article, but I think it makes a reasonable case for free-will).

You might say, "The journey of a rock is deterministic in both directions of time. However, living beings can choose to do things. Since those choices are not yet known, the future is not yet determined."

I hope I'm representing you accurately there.

Yes, a good analysis.

But our decisions are driven by brain chemistry, and I see nothing independent from the laws of physics here. A chain reaction of chemicals is more complex than the journey of a rock, but no less deterministic.

The future journey of a rock is something that I cannot predict, and yet it is determined. So there is no reason that choices, despite being unpredictable, cannot be determined.

You are experiencing all the wonders of consciousness, but until you show that there is some soul driving your consciousness you must concede that your choices are determined by chemistry.

A good argument. But if we have evolved into quantum-thinking, that is probabilistic and not inanimate, then is there not still scope for free-will? Also, from a theistic perspective, spirit is the launch-pad of free-will.

Even if I grant that you have a soul which is driving your decisions, I again ask why your soul has certain primitive desires over others. The answer would be that God made you that way. So you were made to have certain desires, which you then act upon. There's your "free will."

I'll try and re-phrase your argument:

1. Anything created can not have free-will
2. Mankind was created
3. Therefore mankind can not have free-will

My contention is with (1). Why can't something be created with free-will?

Because we have desires to do sinful things, and we're not supposed to do sinful things.

But my question is, were Adam and Eve created with desires to do sinful things? Because I don't believe they were. But I see you have replied "They had no awareness of good or evil (despite being punished for doing evil) so they obviously had no good or evil desires (at least none that they were aware of)." So then, you can't accuse God of creating with bias, because here you argue against yourself. Second, if they were neutral, then why did they choose evil?

Already incoherent. There aren't infinitely many points in physical space.

Debatable, but I would say there are infinite points, because I don't see the universe as digital, but analog.

No offense but this is a stupid point. If I make a robot with no free will, and give it no capability of flying, and then I tell it to fly, it will try and fail. So even if I fail to point at an infinitesimal, that doesn't mean my free will caused me to screw up. My lack of free will compelled me to make a decision, and I attempted to carry it out. That's as far as free will discussion goes. If two men try to shoot a basketball into a hoop, and one misses but the other makes it, we're not going to say that the man who made his shot had free will.

With this argument, I'm not trying to show free will is true, I'm trying to show that the universe is indeterminate. But to show an indeterminate universe all we need is QM.

The outcome is utterly irrelevant. We're discussing the actual choice that was made, not how the choice plays out in the external world.

The outcome of a choice is irrelevant? How else do we know a choice was even made?

We go against our desires because of other competing desires.

Is it a "desire-competition" or do we dictate which desire wins the competition with reason and will? Are will and desire equivalent ideas? I would think we can will a desire to win the "desire-competition" rather than the other way around. It seems to me like a which came first the chicken or the egg kind of thing.

Suppose I strongly prefer blue to red. Suppose I strongly prefer Bugs Bunny to Daffy Duck. Do I choose a blue hat with Daffy Duck or a red hat with Bugs Bunny? A lot of factors go into this, most of which we aren't even aware of. There's a reason commercials and ads are successful. You do realize that companies make a profit for just showing us images and sounds, right? In a world of free will, advertisements would be worthless.

Again, it seems we have different conceptual understandings of free-will. For a being to have free-will, all they need is the ability to choose in such a way that they could have chosen otherwise. Just because advertising nudges someone in a particular direction, it in no way negates free-will.

You said that God was bound by the covenant. You said that's why the man who worked on the Sabbath was executed.

If God was bound by the covenant, why was he allowed to change it in the NT?

The Old Covenant wasn't changed. It was rendered obsolete because a New Covenant was made between the two parties. Jesus, as King and High Priest of Israel, created a New Covenant. This is one reason why He had to come as a man on to the earth, to end the tragic system the people had requested back in Moses' day.

Where does it say that?

2 Peter 2:5 "...Noah, a preacher of righteousness...", I would think to preach is to warn of the impending flood. But you are right, the Bible isn't clear on the matter -- I thought it was clearer than it actually is.

That's a polite way of saying that it was ripped off from Babylonian stories.

It's unclear.

Back to pulling things out of thin air I see.

Yes. It's called speculation.

Wood is cheaper than metal. Huge boats are made of metal. Are boat makers stupid?

Water is not a solid surface, so a huge structure on water will sway back and forth. This swaying would twist a wooden boat like a towel being wrung, and the wooden material would eventually break. Metal would not.

Let's not forget that flooding the highest mountains in such a short time would mean that the ark is taking a lot of torrential abuse. The flood is obviously more plausible if local, but still absurdly impossible either way.

By the way your link didn't work.

Are you really arguing that there can not be a wooden boat/ship/ark? Maybe you haven't thought it through, or I am misunderstanding you? Metal ships began in the 1830's. Before that, every ship was wooden. So what exactly is the problem? Ok well rather than the paper itself, here's another link.

I'd like you to explain to me why God would burn with anger when the Jews violate a law that God does not even think is actually good.

Romans 4:15 says the law brings wrath. On agreeing to the covenant the people would have said "May our God punish us if we don't keep this covenant" because this was part of the tradition of the day. Whether the law was good or not, the people wanted it and God agreed to it. But then He was bound to punish them if they broke it. This is why it is called the "law of sin and death" in Romans 8:2 and a curse in Galatians 3:13. God is angry because He has to punish them.

He certainly wasn't merciful. I don't know where you get that.

God's mercy is seen in Genesis 18:16-33.

OK, here are your choices. A form of slavery which is worse than a "progressive" one where you are allowed to be beaten for no reason as long as you don't die or lose an eyeball. Your other choice is to be watched over by your deity, but be destitute and have only two different things to eat.

By the way, if their reason for wanting to go back into slavery was that they were tired of eating the same thing, does that suggest that the Egyptians were feeding them well? If so, does it make sense that the Egyptians would feed them well but then also mistreat them?

I've always imagined their wanting to return to Egypt to be for a combination of reasons: manna and quail as the only food (Exodus 16:3; Numbers 11:4-6), living in a desert, heat and thirst (Exodus 17:3), walking around in circles, fear of the Caananites (Numbers 14:1-3). But you bring up an interesting point that argues in the favour of slavery; the people wanted to return to Egypt so they could eat all they wanted and be full including meat and bread. If the slavery offered by Moses was even better, then that is in favour of Moses and not the other way around.

What are you showing to be true with this?

My point is to show how initially I was giving a definition, but now I am giving a deductive proof using definitions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not those four verses. However, the "handwriting of ordinances" is misunderstood to be the Law whereas it is the certificate of debt resulting from breaking the Law. It is the list of sins that is imputed against people for breaking the Law.

To be clear, do you defend the OT law and its stance on rape, slavery, racism, and sexism?