The definition of sin

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, thanks for the song and dance. But a simple yes or no would suffice. Is morality objective?

Well, it seems to me that it is a bit two-dimensional, in the context of Creation Ethics, to determine whether morality is either objective or subjective. Rather, Creation Ethics is going to look at the warp and woof of the social order in which God placed humanity for the creation of relationships with Him and with each other.

So, it would probably be MORE cogent to ask if the morality we each choose while living before the face of God is conducive to beneficial outcomes within the structure of the world God has given us. We should be asking whether our morality is Holy and Functional rather than objective or subjective.

...when a simple yes or no won't actually do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not the exact same terms. 2+2=4 is true no matter who or what says it. A human. A gorilla. Artificial intelligence. Alien life forms. This is what is meant by "objective truth." Infanticide cannot be described in those terms. Right?

You again are trying to equate God the Creator of life to the life He created, that is what you are talking about and not gorillas or alien life forms. In Christian theology humans are the focus of God's creation and so other animals are not created with a soul.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You again are trying to equate God the Creator of life to the life He created, that is what you are talking about and not gorillas or alien life forms. In Christian theology humans are the focus of God's creation and so other animals are not created with a soul.

What I'm trying to do is get a straight answer out of you. It would probably be easier to drink the ocean.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, it seems to me that it is a bit two-dimensional in the context of Creation Ethics to determine whether morality is either objective or subjective. Rather, Creation Ethics is going to look at the warp and woof of the social order in which God placed humanity for the creation of relationships with Him and with each other.

So, it would probably be MORE cogent to ask if the morality we each choose while living before the face of God is conducive to beneficial outcomes within the structure of the world God has given us. We should be asking whether our morality is Holy and Functional rather than objective or subjective.

...when a simple yes or no won't actually do.

@Oncedeceived isn't giving me a straight answer. You pretty much never do. Not much a surprise here.

So basically it took half a forum page of short posts and I already have two Christians who are stumped.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What I'm trying to do is get a straight answer out of you. It would probably be easier to drink the ocean.

I've been very clear. Torturing an infant is a sin for all human beings, no matter the circumstance, no matter where or when.

 

[Oncedeceived]

@Oncedeceived isn't giving me a straight answer. You pretty much never do. So not much a surprise here.

So basically it took half a forum page of short posts and I already have two Christians who are stumped.

The only one who seems to be stumped is you. We are in agreement according to Christian Theology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What I'm trying to do is get a straight answer out of you. It would probably be easier to drink the ocean.

Also, you said it was a yes or no question and I said yes.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've been very clear. Torturing an infant is a sin for all human beings, no matter the circumstance, no matter where or when.

Not what I asked. Perhaps scroll back up and try again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The only one who seems to be stumped is you. We are in agreement according to Christian Theology.

Umm... you're trying to say that morality is objective and absolute, but also that there is a different set of rules for God than there is for us. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You keep saying that I'm trying to make God equal with us. In reality I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you. If morality is objective and absolute then all moral agents are accountable to it in the same way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not what I asked. Perhaps scroll back up and try again.

It was what you asked and then without asking what you really wanted to ask...why is God allowed to torture infants? We've been down that path and you then don't want the Christian answer, you want to demand that you are right and we are wrong when in fact, you don't even believe there is such a thing in your own belief system.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Umm... you're trying to say that morality is objective and absolute, but also that there is a different set of rules for God than there is for us. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You keep saying that I'm trying to make God equal with us. In reality I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you. If morality is objective and absolute then all moral agents are accountable to it in the same way.

I am not trying to say there is a different set of rules for God at all. What the problem is for you is that you don't understand that God really exists and knows all things, created all things, has the ability to do all things. So God can provide the means to give unawareness of pain and suffering if He wills to do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Oncedeceived isn't giving me a straight answer. You pretty much never do. Not much a surprise here.

So basically it took half a forum page of short posts and I already have two Christians who are stumped.

...stumped on what? That God didn't torture David's infant son, but rather caused him to die prematurely and took him to heaven early? There is a full biblical context to consider, but "you pretty much never do." I'm not sure why. Maybe it's not even your fault as to why you never engage in a fuller application of hermeneutical considerations, and I can only guess that your fundamentalist church upbringing had something to do with short-circuiting your willingness to see that the Bible needs to be considered on a more complex scale. Because it is complex......................not simple, especially not simple in some symmetrical, binary way.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It was what you asked and then without asking what you really wanted to ask...why is God allowed to torture infants? We've been down that path and you then don't want the Christian answer, you want to demand that you are right and we are wrong when in fact, you don't even believe there is such a thing in your own belief system.

All I want is a straight answer. And obviously I'm expecting the Christian answer because I'm asking a Christian. I don't know why you are saying I don't want the Christian answer. That's silly.

I am not trying to say there is a different set of rules for God at all.

You absolutely have said this on multiple occasions. Now you're denying it.

You've said repeatedly that God is allowed to kill infants, and that humans are not. Do I need to go dig up the quotes? Why are you being so dishonest?

What the problem is for you is that you don't understand that God really exists and knows all things, created all things, has the ability to do all things.

You think I'm stupid? You think this is an issue of intelligence? You think that if only I were smart enough I'd understand that God exists? I can grant you God's hypothetical existence. All I want is a straight answer.

So God can provide the means to give unawareness of pain and suffering if He wills to do so.

Sure, he can. But there's nothing to indicate that he is inclined to do so.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

...stumped on what?

Stumped on the notion that an objective, absolute morality exists despite the fact that God is allowed to torture and kill babies while we are not.

That God didn't torture David's infant son, but rather caused him to die prematurely and took him to heaven early?

If that is your assessment of the passage, then you're indeed quite stumped.

There is a full biblical context to consider, but "you pretty much never do." I'm not sure why. Maybe it's not even your fault as to why you never engage in a fuller application of hermeneutical considerations, and I can only guess that your fundamentalist church upbringing had something to do with short-circuiting your willingness to see that the Bible needs to be considered on a more complex scale. Because it is complex......................not simple, especially not simple in some symmetrical, binary way.

Your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

All I want is a straight answer. And obviously I'm expecting the Christian answer because I'm asking a Christian. I don't know why you are saying I don't want the Christian answer. That's silly.

I gave you a straight answer you just disagree with it.

You absolutely have said this on multiple occasions. Now you're denying it.

You've said repeatedly that God is allowed to kill infants, and that humans are not. Do I need to go dig up the quotes? Why are you being so dishonest?

No, you said God has a completely different set of rules and I did not say that. I said, God is not immoral when He takes a life that He has created. Everyone that dies is actually dying according to God's timeline. Some go earlier than others and some die for purposes God has ordained in relation to another's life. It is immoral for humans because we are not privy to all the information we need to make those moral decisions.

You think I'm stupid?

Absolutely not.

You think this is an issue of intelligence?

No, it is a spiritual issue.

You think that if only I were smart enough I'd understand that God exists? I can grant you God's hypothetical existence. All I want is a straight answer.

Honestly, what I think is that you think you are smarter and more intelligent than Christians as a whole.

Sure, he can. But there's nothing to indicate that he is inclined to do so.

What would indicate that He is inclined to do so?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I gave you a straight answer you just disagree with it.

I didn't just disagree with it. It's plain wrong. It cannot be the case that morality is absolute and objective, while at the same time God can do something and we cannot do the same thing.

No, you said God has a completely different set of rules and I did not say that.

Why would I say that? And if I was saying that, why would you repeatedly accuse me of trying to make God equal with man?

I said, God is not immoral when He takes a life that He has created.

Yet you or I would be if we did the same thing. And morality is absolute and objective.

Now, please square that circle.

Everyone that dies is actually dying according to God's timeline. Some go earlier than others and some die for purposes God has ordained in relation to another's life. It is immoral for humans because we are not privy to all the information we need to make those moral decisions.

OK... but if, somehow, Bob knew that it was "best" for Jill to die at exactly a certain time in exactly a certain way, would Bob be right in carrying out his perfect plan?

And the moment you deny me this "if", then I see no reason I should hypothetically accept the existence of your deity.

Absolutely not.

No, it is a spiritual issue.

Spiritual issue? What is this, new age stuff?

Honestly, what I think is that you think you are smarter and more intelligent than Christians as a whole.

I am definitely lacking the blind spot inherent to all Christians.

What would indicate that He is inclined to do so?

Evidence that he had actually done it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't just disagree with it. It's plain wrong. It cannot be the case that morality is absolute and objective, while at the same time God can do something and we cannot do the same thing.

You are doing two things here, you are ignoring the fact that God created life and is outside of our known universe which includes time; the other is that you are asking the Christian viewpoint on the actions of God. It doesn't matter if you agree that God has determined how long one's life lasts on this planet, and it makes no difference if you don't agree that life once gone here goes on afterwards in another location. God is not limited to gravity for instance but that doesn't mean that the laws that He created for this planet are not absolute and objective. If I jump from a 12 story building, it is absolute and can be shown completely objectively that I will fall down and not up. The same with God's rules of morality. God has the ability and motivation to make sure His decisions to take a life from this location to His can be done in a merciful way. For you, life here is all there is and so you don't understand that life from here to there is like walking through a door to the other side. We as humans, didn't create life, have not determined (or are even able) to determine how long a person's life is to be. We don't have the authority, the pertinent information needed to determine how long a person lives and have no right to take life from another, unless we have pertinent information as in the case of murder.

Why would I say that? And if I was saying that, why would you repeatedly accuse me of trying to make God equal with man?

Here is exactly what you said: You've said repeatedly that God is allowed to kill infants, and that humans are not. Do I need to go dig up the quotes? Why are you being so dishonest?

That is saying that God is equal to man. If not explain.

Yet you or I would be if we did the same thing. And morality is absolute and objective.

Now, please square that circle.

Why would it be immoral for God to determine how long a person will live? He created life, controls the timeline of the universe including each life on earth, so why would it be immoral?

OK... but if, somehow, Bob knew that it was "best" for Jill to die at exactly a certain time in exactly a certain way, would Bob be right in carrying out his perfect plan?

And the moment you deny me this "if", then I see no reason I should hypothetically accept the existence of your deity.

Bob is a human being and has no way of knowing what is "best" or how or when another person's life should be taken. God has the entire timeline from the beginning of time until the end of time to know what each person will do and has determined the length of time one is on earth, obviously we don't have that information.

Spiritual issue? What is this, new age stuff?

Seriously?

I am definitely lacking the blind spot inherent to all Christians.

That is interesting:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing. Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

Evidence that he had actually done it.

How would you know?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are doing two things here, you are ignoring the fact that God created life and is outside of our known universe which includes time; the other is that you are asking the Christian viewpoint on the actions of God. It doesn't matter if you agree that God has determined how long one's life lasts on this planet, and it makes no difference if you don't agree that life once gone here goes on afterwards in another location. God is not limited to gravity for instance but that doesn't mean that the laws that He created for this planet are not absolute and objective. If I jump from a 12 story building, it is absolute and can be shown completely objectively that I will fall down and not up. The same with God's rules of morality. God has the ability and motivation to make sure His decisions to take a life from this location to His can be done in a merciful way. For you, life here is all there is and so you don't understand that life from here to there is like walking through a door to the other side. We as humans, didn't create life, have not determined (or are even able) to determine how long a person's life is to be. We don't have the authority, the pertinent information needed to determine how long a person lives and have no right to take life from another, unless we have pertinent information as in the case of murder.


Here is exactly what you said: You've said repeatedly that God is allowed to kill infants, and that humans are not. Do I need to go dig up the quotes? Why are you being so dishonest?

That is saying that God is equal to man. If not explain.



Why would it be immoral for God to determine how long a person will live? He created life, controls the timeline of the universe including each life on earth, so why would it be immoral?



Bob is a human being and has no way of knowing what is "best" or how or when another person's life should be taken. God has the entire timeline from the beginning of time until the end of time to know what each person will do and has determined the length of time one is on earth, obviously we don't have that information.





Seriously?



That is interesting:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing. Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.



How would you know?

You're still not paying attention to the conversation, and further, you seem to think that there can be exceptions to something that is objective and absolute. Your position has already been nuked, anyway. Continuing to engage you would just be bouncing the rubble.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're still not paying attention to the conversation, and further, you seem to think that there can be exceptions to something that is objective and absolute. Your position has already been nuked, anyway. Continuing to engage you would just be bouncing the rubble.

This seems to be a frequent tactic of yours, claim the other person is not paying attention (without giving one example to why you would think that) and then claim our position is wrong. To claim it is wrong you must give reasons that position is wrong within the Christian Bible. Can you do that? Can you show we are wrong using Christian doctrine? If you can't, then you are sadly mistaken that you have proven your case.

Until you have shown that God is immoral for giving a life and then taking it back, you have not proven your case.

But you go ahead and keep running away from conversations that you begin by the way, when you don't like the answers.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This seems to be a frequent tactic of yours, claim the other person is not paying attention (without giving one example to why you would think that)

I gave multiple examples in the other thread. Go look for yourself.

and then claim our position is wrong. To claim it is wrong you must give reasons that position is wrong within the Christian Bible. Can you do that? Can you show we are wrong using Christian doctrine? If you can't, then you are sadly mistaken that you have proven your case.

I don't know why you're bringing the Bible into this now, lol. I was addressing your misuse of the words "absolute" and "objective."

Until you have shown that God is immoral for giving a life and then taking it back, you have not proven your case.

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

But you go ahead and keep running away from conversations that you begin by the way, when you don't like the answers.

I didn't begin this conversation. But if you're so eager to continue, I'll need you to explain what you mean when you say "absolute" and "objective." You'll need to explain why 2+2=4 is "absolute and objective" and always true no matter who is doing the figuring, while at the same time morality is "absolute and objective" and yet certain things are or aren't OK *depending upon* who is doing what.

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

Morality is absolute and objective, and the fact of morality is that if you are the creator of a universe then you can do whatever you want with it and you can set the rules for the inhabitants however you like.

However, I find that to be self-contradictory and also poorly applied to Christian theology. So I don't understand your position at all, and I don't think you do either.