The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

You're guilty of being very inconsistent. Does that not bother you?

How is he being inconsistent?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the bible contains God's self disclosure of Himself to us, then we have God Himself telling us about Himself using language we can understand.

Do you agree?

A big "if" for you to substantiate.

 

[anonymous person]

Meanwhile, the lifelong atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

Precisely.

Philanthropy does not get you into heaven and faith without works is dead. In scripture there is a balance.

Thanks for illustrating yet another immense flaw in your convoluted mess of a moral philosophy - it's not actually pertinent to moral behavior at all.

What premises led you to that conclusion?

 

[anonymous person]

A big "if" for you to substantiate.

But you agree right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Precisely.

Philanthropy does not get you into heaven and faith without works is dead. In scripture there is a balance.



What premises led you to that conclusion?

The fact that it simply doesn't matter whether one behaves morally or not; all that matters is that one believes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you agree right?

Sure, I guess.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whoa. What do you mean, "belief is not a counscious choice"?

Could you simply choose here and now to start believing Santa Claus is real?
And really believe it?

Once you've taken awareness of your beliefs and know others, you can change them.

But not at a whim, but true actual convincing. Which is the result of lots of things that you have no consious control over.

I can't "choose" that I won't burn my hand if I place it in a fire.
Everything I know about fire and pain compells me to believe that it will hurt to put my hand in it. I don't have a choice in this matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, serial killers don't get freepasses, unless they repent, asks God for forgiveness and trust in the name of Jesus.

I love how you first state that serial killers don't get a free pass and then in the next breath literally mention the procedure by which they get a free pass.

 

[Sapiens]

I didn't say 'free-pass'; but still, a pass is a pass.

I just want to know how you feel that you can use the words 'morality' and 'justice', when it appears that your theology is morally bankrupt.

You are the one that started this "moral argument" thread, as if it were in favour of your theology.

That has yet to be established.

But you believe it, and I have to presume you think you can make sense of it.

Who is this "we", Kemosabe? I'm no serial killer. I am simply not convinced of the existence of gods.

I think it's all been said already. Though, I'd like to bring to your attention that "doing wrong" is much more subtle than being a serial killer. We need to morally perfect to be innocent, that's how God's justice works.

 

[Sapiens]

You concede that belief is not a conscious choice?

Assuming this god exists, and is going to remain - by every objective measure to date - indistinguishable from fiction, why should I be held accountable for thinking just that?

Or does justice and morality go out the window at this point?

It's indistinguishable from fiction to you. God is not a deistic god, he does show his power and the name of Jesus is a powerful name.

You're accountable because you are a sinner and the only thing you'll be able to call to in the day of judgment to save you is Jesus and what he did for you. As Christians, we are trying to show you that.

 

[Sapiens]

This is a loaded question, with two unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, that 'objective meaning' is a thing. It isn't. Meaning derives from minds and their relation to concepts and language. It is necessarily subjective.

Secondly, that Yahweh is somehow relevant to meaning. As I have said numerous times before, and will continue to point out, your assertions about Yahweh exist in an epistemological deadzone. You have no means and no methodology of deriving any information either from or about Yahweh. All you have are vacuous naked assertions as to his purported nature, character, actions, desires etc. - predicated on thin air. That is ultimately why your argument, and all theological arguments, fail.

What if God revealed himself and these revelations were written down in a book?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What does this mean? Why is God objective and not subjective? Why is what He wants us to do more than an opinion and somehow a fact of what we ought to do? It sounds like your definition of morality itself requires a God, and that makes this whole argument null and void and circular logic. I've stated a few times in a few posts how we came up with morality to begin with and what we base it on in the most simplistic terms, it's a lot more complicated than I am really qualified to explain in great detail.

Let me try to explain it this way. If you were on earth. Which way is north and how do you know? If you were drifting aimlessly in the middle of space, which way is north. Is there a north? We all can objectively (universally agree to be true) what north is based on fixed reference such as the north star, the magnetic poles, ect. However, if you were drifting aimlessly in the middle of space, there is no known standard to determine which way is north. North would be simply an opinion.

 

[anonymous person]

The fact that it simply doesn't matter whether one behaves morally or not; all that matters is that one believes.

You say you have read the bible. It is statements like the one you just made that indicate otherwise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You say you have read the bible. It is statements like the one you just made that indicate otherwise.

Oh, do tell...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's indistinguishable from fiction to you. God is not a deistic god, he does show his power and the name of Jesus is a powerful name.

You're accountable because you are a sinner and the only thing you'll be able to call to in the day of judgment to save you is Jesus and what he did for you. As Christians, we are trying to show you that.

Then your religion isn't about moral accountability at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You say you have read the bible. It is statements like the one you just made that indicate otherwise.

Is there a way for a serial killing rapist get to heaven? If yes, please explain how exactly.

 

[Davian]

Here.

On what exactly do you base your judgement? As you have made this personal, substantiate with links and quotes, or retract.

 

[anonymous person]

Is there a way for a serial killing rapist get to heaven? If yes, please explain how exactly.

Yes.

Jesus Christ is the way.

If you have read the bible, you would know this.

Have you read the bible?

 

[anonymous person]

On what exactly do you base your judgement? As you have made this personal, substantiate with links and quotes, or retract.

You said you are ignostic.

True?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes.

Jesus Christ is the way.

If you have read the bible, you would know this.

Have you read the bible?

And if one of his victims died a nonbeliever? What will happen to her?