The Moral Argument

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, if that person:
1. Confessed that Jesus is God.
2. Confessed their sins (accepted the fact that it was wrong to rape and murder)
3. Repented of their sin. (Had sincere regret in doing those things).
4. Asked God to forgive the sin of rape and murder.
5. Submitted them self to the will of God and allowed the Holy Spirit to dwell within them. (Basically doing away with their personal will and desires to obey and follow the will and desires of God by not wilfully raping and murdering again).

At that point, in the eyes of God, the serial killer will have a clean slate and would go to heaven.

Right. So point 1 is acknowledged: there is no moral accountability for the raping and the killing. Instead, there is "forgiveness", and this forgiveness is ultimately based in the beliefs of the serial killing rapist.

This is a more difficult question to answer. The bottom line up font is I do not know for sure. Some may say absolutely not but I am not so sure it is a cut and dry. In order to understand this we need to look at Romans 3. It has a lot of meat in the chapter so I recommend reading it slow to fully understand every piece of it before moving on.

Romans 3 New International Version (NIV)

God’s Faithfulness
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Let me know when you are finished reading this scripture and I will provide you my answer to question 2.

So, yes or no?

 

[Moral Orel]

Please highlight where I used the word "morally good".

So then you disagree with the statement that something is morally good if it fulfills it's purpose? And that in a thread about morality, when you say "goodness" like here:

A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose.

You don't mean moral goodness?

And when you speak in the contrary, about not good, and use the word "evil", somehow you do not mean "evil" in a moral sense like when you explain what is bad about rape here:

Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be.

And again, when you use the word "good" here:

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes.

You still aren't talking about morality? And I have it all wrong that when I ask if you "have the moral authority" to do such a thing, and you reply:

it's pain and suffering would be good

You somehow aren't talking about "morally good"?

And all of this is quite to the point. If we are having a discussion of "objective morality" and you define morality as this, then I clearly have a problem with your definition of "objective morality" as well and this whole argument fails. I am stating that morality and purpose are linked in absolutely zero ways. Someone could choose to have the purpose of being as morally good as possible, and yet another person could choose to have the purpose of being as morally wrong as possible. And in neither of those cases does morality = purpose.

Now you do say this:

there was nobody who was your equal to oppose you

And that is an important distinction to make, but I have to ask for the sake of argument, what is the specific difference between us and God that makes us not equal for us to be able to say that something God does is immoral? I'm not saying we would be equals, if He were real, I'm just asking what about Him being better than us qualifies Him to make the decision of what is moral if I were to disagree.

Does his omnipotence weigh in on the matter? A sort of "might makes right"? We don't get to say what He does is immoral because He could kill us, but we can't kill Him?

Or is it His omniscience that is the factor? In that He knows more than us, so He has better knowledge of the implications of what He does and what we do. And again, if this is the case, then God is unnecessary for the existence of objective morals because the facts that He has knowledge of would still exist whether He did or not, and we would eventually be able to come across them on our own.

And saying that He is morality simply doesn't make sense, and no one has tried to answer the questions I have posed about that. Morality is a set of rules as to what should and should not be done. So how is a social construct also God? It is like saying that, in math, an angle is a real thing unto itself in the same way that a person is real thing. An angle is a mathematical construct used to show the relation between two lines, it isn't a real thing unto itself, and it isn't real without the existence of lines. Morality isn't real without humans to have rules to follow, so it isn't real when there is only God, such as before He created us.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So then you disagree with the statement that something is morally good if it fulfills it's purpose? And that in a thread about morality, when you say "goodness" like here:

You don't mean moral goodness?

And when you speak in the contrary, about not good, and use the word "evil", somehow you do not mean "evil" in a moral sense like when you explain what is bad about rape here:


And again, when you use the word "good" here:

You still aren't talking about morality? And I have it all wrong that when I ask if you "have the moral authority" to do such a thing, and you reply:

You somehow aren't talking about "morally good"?

And all of this is quite to the point. If we are having a discussion of "objective morality" and you define morality as this, then I clearly have a problem with your definition of "objective morality" as well and this whole argument fails. I am stating that morality and purpose are linked in absolutely zero ways. Someone could choose to have the purpose of being as morally good as possible, and yet another person could choose to have the purpose of being as morally wrong as possible. And in neither of those cases does morality = purpose.

Now you do say this:

And that is an important distinction to make, but I have to ask for the sake of argument, what is the specific difference between us and God that makes us not equal for us to be able to say that something God does is immoral? I'm not saying we would be equals, if He were real, I'm just asking what about Him being better than us qualifies Him to make the decision of what is moral if I were to disagree.

Does his omnipotence weigh in on the matter? A sort of "might makes right"? We don't get to say what He does is immoral because He could kill us, but we can't kill Him?

Or is it His omniscience that is the factor? In that He knows more than us, so He has better knowledge of the implications of what He does and what we do. And again, if this is the case, then God is unnecessary for the existence of objective morals because the facts that He has knowledge of would still exist whether He did or not, and we would eventually be able to come across them on our own.

And saying that He is morality simply doesn't make sense, and no one has tried to answer the questions I have posed about that. Morality is a set of rules as to what should and should not be done. So how is a social construct also God? It is like saying that, in math, an angle is a real thing unto itself in the same way that a person is real thing. An angle is a mathematical construct used to show the relation between two lines, it isn't a real thing unto itself, and it isn't real without the existence of lines. Morality isn't real without humans to have rules to follow, so it isn't real when there is only God, such as before He created us.

Wow, you really are a tough nut to crack. So I will be more blunt so you can understand. In your "painbot" example, YES....it would be morally right for the creator of the "painbot" to inflict pain and suffering onto his creation. Without any equal to oppose him, he is the only standard for morality by default. If he created a trillion "painbots" with the exact same purpose and everyone of them thought their creator was insane, it still would not matter. In the end, the creator who bestowed the purpose on his creation is objectively morally right/just and all the "painbots" who disagree are objectively wrong. Because the "painbots" are calling the creator wrong because the can opener cannot drive nails.

Edit: I will even go as far to say that even if this "painbot creator" told all his "painbots" that they we forbidden to inflict pain and suffering on another "painbot", it still would be morally right. Because the creator who is without equal would be the standard for morality. That creator then, by his authority as that standard, gave himself the sole authority to inflict pain and suffering thus making it objectively evil for anyone to inflict pain and suffering other than he.

If you want to direct this toward God, fine...go right on ahead. Believe He is an insane "painbot" creator. You would be wrong because that is not who He is. But regardless... it does not matter. Job felt that way. Job was probably the closest thing to a "painbot" and when Job accused God of being "morally wrong, unjust and unfair", this is what God said to him and this is what He would say to you right now:


Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?
“Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
“Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

“Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.”

 

[anonymous person]

Either put up or shut up.

I shall do neither, but rather just continue to pray for you and be here for you when you need me. And I will continue to minister here to those whom God has placed in my life. ☺

 

[Moral Orel]

If you want to direct this toward God, fine...go right on ahead. Believe He is an insane "painbot" creator.

That isn't what I was doing at all. I never once said that God created us for the purpose of inflicting pain on us, please don't put words in my mouth. I created a hypothetical with the only pertinent parts to the argument (being a creator and creating a purpose) that went to the extreme end of the spectrum of morality (torture) and asked you if, even at that extent, something reprehensible would still be morally good based on the only criteria you have stated for determining if something is morally good or not. It could always be argued (not proven, but argued) that even the God of the OT would be morally good under my definition of morality as we have no way of knowing all of the suffering and pleasure that would result from his action or inaction, coupled with what cooperation and fairness would result as well. I am not making accusations of God by asking of you this hypothetical.

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said...

I did read this entire thing. I've read it a lot of times before our discussion as well as I find it to be one of the worst parts of the Bible, honestly (plus the dinosaurs, hahaha). And correct me if I'm wrong and I missed it, but basically this says "might makes right". Everything that God says is an example of His omnipotence. And you feel that because, for instance, God can make thunder and lightning and hail, and other similar feats, these things in some way justify someone determining what is moral? Or that because God is capable of creating light and dark, and was the one to do it in the first place, this also justifies the determining of what is moral?

How is power connected to morality in any other way than the ability to enforce whatever morality you choose? And why does being able to enforce your choice of morality make your morality the correct one?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How is power connected to morality in any other way than the ability to enforce whatever morality you choose? And why does being able to enforce your choice of morality make your morality the correct one?

Remember my explanation about if you were a "creator without equal to oppose or question your morality"? The chapters quoted in Job is not about "might is right". It is about knowing your place and recognize God as the standard.

 

[Davian]

Remember my explanation about if you were a "creator without equal to oppose or question your morality"? The chapters quoted in Job is not about "might is right". It is about knowing your place and recognize God as the standard.

...or you will burn for eternity? How is that not "might makes right"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wow, you really are a tough nut to crack. So I will be more blunt so you can understand. In your "painbot" example, YES....it would be morally right for the creator of the "painbot" to inflict pain and suffering onto his creation. Without any equal to oppose him, he is the only standard for morality by default. If he created a trillion "painbots" with the exact same purpose and everyone of them thought their creator was insane, it still would not matter. In the end, the creator who bestowed the purpose on his creation is objectively morally right/just and all the "painbots" who disagree are objectively wrong. Because the "painbots" are calling the creator wrong because the can opener cannot drive nails.

Edit: I will even go as far to say that even if this "painbot creator" told all his "painbots" that they we forbidden to inflict pain and suffering on another "painbot", it still would be morally right. Because the creator who is without equal would be the standard for morality. That creator then, by his authority as that standard, gave himself the sole authority to inflict pain and suffering thus making it objectively evil for anyone to inflict pain and suffering other than he.

If you want to direct this toward God, fine...go right on ahead. Believe He is an insane "painbot" creator. You would be wrong because that is not who He is. But regardless... it does not matter. Job felt that way. Job was probably the closest thing to a "painbot" and when Job accused God of being "morally wrong, unjust and unfair", this is what God said to him and this is what He would say to you right now:


Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?
“Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
“Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

“Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.”

Jason I had the feeling the other day that God wanted this brought up in a thread I was posting in and I didn't get a chance to before being pulled away for a bit due to life being crazy around here. I love when I know I should do something as a spur from God and if I don't do it, He still gets it done by someone else.

 

[Sapiens]

What's subtle about being a serial killer?

You will need to define what you mean by "morality", in a manner that allows for it to be described as "perfect".

As you defined it in post #27, you have not allowed for this.

So this is not "justice" as used in the common vernacular, but more: believe, or else. Might makes right.

I meant that in God's perspective, we're all guilty of having done evil, by God's standards.

A morally perfect person would be entirely pure and good, having not desired nor done any evil, ever.

I'm not sure how you perceive justice but here's an analogy my pastor used to describe our situation before God:

Please assume that murder is wrong; it is illegal here, in Canada. "A man is brought to the tribunal and in front of the judge. He has murdered someone. The judge tells him he's guilty because we have all the proof he did it and the guy admitted it himself when put in front of the evidence. The judge then asks the man if he has anything to say for his defence. The man says 'I have paid all my bills and all my taxes my entire life; have I not been a good citizen for this society?' Yes, answers the judge. However, you are not being judged here today according to all the good deeds you did for this society but for the law you have violated, that being murder of one of your fellow citizen. You will now be condemned for that act alone."

You're not seeing this right; why are you so rebelled? It's like you people her don't want to see the truth. You interpret whatever we say in a negative way that suits you negative and corrupted view of Christianity. How are you going to learn anything good from us?

"Believe or else" is not a menace, it's a warning to attempt to save you. Accept that Jesus has taken your place and has been punished, willingly, instead of you. Or else face the rightful judgment of God towards evildoer. Or do you think the judge's judgment was injust? Should he have overlooked the transgression? In this case, you don't even have to pay the penalty!

Belief/faith=accepting Jesus as your savior from a rightful judgment against you

 

[anonymous person]

Right. So point 1 is acknowledged: there is no moral accountability for the raping and the killing. Instead, there is "forgiveness", and this forgiveness is ultimately based in the beliefs of the serial killing rapist.




So, yes or no?

You rape and kill, there is accountability. Always had been always will whether you believe in Christ or not.

The difference for the born again one who perseveres and walks upright before the Lord is that he is not condemned. He still will be subject to the governing authorities which means God will expect him to subject himself to their authority and pay their debt to society.

Too many stories have been told of men and women turning themselves in for crimes they committed after becoming persuaded that God would have them do so.

 

[Davian]

I meant that in God's perspective, we're all guilty of having done evil, by God's standards.

A morally perfect person would be entirely pure and good, having not desired nor done any evil, ever.

The impossible person. I get this, as I understand how religion works, historically.

If a theology is designed by intent as a means for controlling a society, then you do not want any exceptions to the rule. By the rules of your theology, it being the only cure for the "disease" (sin) it purports to address, individuals cannot be allowed to be sidestep those rules by simply not raping and killing their fellow citizens. I am sure that you can point to bits of your Bible that show that those that haven't even heard of your theology are still in [hypothetical] trouble.

I'm not sure how you perceive justice but here's an analogy my pastor used to describe our situation before God:

Please assume that murder is wrong; it is illegal here, in Canada. "A man is brought to the tribunal and in front of the judge. He has murdered someone. The judge tells him he's guilty because we have all the proof he did it and the guy admitted it himself when put in front of the evidence. The judge then asks the man if he has anything to say for his defence. The man says 'I have paid all my bills and all my taxes my entire life; have I not been a good citizen for this society?' Yes, answers the judge. However, you are not being judged here today according to all the good deeds you did for this society but for the law you have violated, that being murder of one of your fellow citizen. You will now be condemned for that act alone."

Analogy fail. I am not disputing being held responsible for my own concious actions, as in your analogy.

As you conceded in post #202, disbelief is not a conscious action.

You're not seeing this right;

I'm not the one redefining words in an attempt to make my theology work.

why are you so rebelled?

I am not rebelling, I am simply not convinced.

It's like you people her don't want to see the truth.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

You interpret whatever we say in a negative way that suits you negative and corrupted view of Christianity.

In this thread it has been conceded that your theology allows for serial killers to get a pass, and that those that disbelieve will be held accountable for things beyond their control. Is this not accurate?

How are you going to learn anything good from us?

I am not looking for good or bad, but accurate.

"Believe or else" is not a menace, it's a warning to attempt to save you. Accept that Jesus has taken your place and has been punished, willingly, instead of you.

And who is Jesus allegedly saving me from? Himself?

Or else face the rightful judgment of God towards evildoer.

"Evil", in this case, being "disbelief".

Or do you think the judge's judgment was injust?

I am not trying to tell you your own theology. If you want "might makes right" then it's all yours, but don't try at the same time to use "justice" and "morality" as they are used in the common vernacular. This is where the moral argument, as used in your OP, fails.

Should he have overlooked the transgression? In this case, you don't even have to pay the penalty!

Your murder analogy failed.

Should your theology overlook the transgression of disbelief? Not if it is expected to work as intended, as a means of controlling a populace.

Belief/faith=accepting Jesus as your savior

As you conceded in #202, belief is not a conscious action, and I cannot simply make such a choice. How can I even consider looking to someone that , even if he existed, has been dead for 2000 years?

from a rightful judgment against you

Rightful, only if might makes right, and you consider it "just" to be held accountable for the actions of others.

 

[Moral Orel]

The chapters quoted in Job is not about "might is right". It is about knowing your place and recognize God as the standard.

Well, what does God describe about himself to make Job understand that his place is lower than God's? Why does God describe two extremely powerful creatures as another example of how men aren't able to stand up to them either? Everything described in what you quoted is about power.

So if it isn't "might makes right" then what is God describing about Himself that sets Him above Job that Job isn't allowed to question Him? It certainly isn't knowledge or wisdom (I'm not saying God wouldn't be intelligent or wise). But He doesn't describe Himself as "knowing things men don't" or "understanding the world in ways men can't" or anything like that. It's all about "I can do this" and "I did that". Again, not that I'm accusing Him of being a braggart, just that if He is explaining why Job shouldn't question Him, the only reasons He gives are about God being more powerful.

So, direct question, why should we recognize God as the standard for morality?

This isn't the snotty rhetorical question that it usually is. I'm not saying, "aww geez, who put him in charge?" I really want to understand the reasoning behind it. For instance, police are in charge of me because they have the power to punish me, my college professors were in charge of me because they knew their stuff better than I do.

You have said that it isn't because He created us, because then no one would be able to question a person's motives for creating a "pain bot", as you put it.

You say it isn't about His omnipotence, because you say it isn't about "might makes right".

You say it isn't about His omniscience, because you say it isn't about the logic and reasoning I say it is.

You keep telling me what it isn't about, but you won't directly say what it is about.

So again, why should we recognize God as the standard for morality?

 

[Davian]

...

So again, why should we recognize God as the standard for morality?

From what I gather, we are supposed to be afraid of him.

Proverbs 9:10, and all that. Not a sound basis for wisdom, knowledge, or understanding, if you ask me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I shall do neither, but rather just continue to pray for you and be here for you when you need me. And I will continue to minister here to those whom God has placed in my life. ☺

As I said before, the fact that you take such a lax and careless approach to answering questions about your position, despite ostensibly "being ready" to answer them and to defend your claims, tells us all we need to know about whether we should take you seriously.

 

[Davian]

You rape and kill, there is accountability. Always had been always will whether you believe in Christ or not.

The topic of this thread is not about societal laws and punishments. It was supposed to be in support of a Christian theology.

The difference for the born again one who perseveres and walks upright before the Lord is that he is not condemned. He still will be subject to the governing authorities which means God will expect him to subject himself to their authority and pay their debt to society.

Too many stories have been told of men and women turning themselves in for crimes they committed after becoming persuaded that God would have them do so.

But, hypothetically, these individuals can still go to Heaven, regardless of the crimes committed.

What was your point here?

 

[Davian]

I shall do neither, but rather just continue to pray for you and be here for you when you need me.

Rather than answer the questions put to you, you go off topic, and pass judgements of [alleged] inconsistency, and even make comparisons of individuals here to the mentally ill. Was that intended to be hurtful? Did you not recently ask that I forgive you for such behaviour?

And I will continue to minister here to those whom God has placed in my life. ☺

Maybe you can go minister in a forum where such activity is appropriate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You rape and kill, there is accountability.

The difference for the born again one who perseveres and walks upright before the Lord is that he is not condemned.

These two sentences contradict eachother.

He still will be subject to the governing authorities

Yes, while alive on earth.

which means God will expect him to subject himself to their authority and pay their debt to society.

Unless they don't get caught, off course. Or die before they are.

Too many stories have been told of men and women turning themselves in for crimes they committed after becoming persuaded that God would have them do so.

Funny how you just changed the conversation from "divine judgement in the afterlife" to "going to jail while alive".

I think you just made our point for us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wow, you really are a tough nut to crack. So I will be more blunt so you can understand. In your "painbot" example, YES....it would be morally right for the creator of the "painbot" to inflict pain and suffering onto his creation. Without any equal to oppose him, he is the only standard for morality by default.

Also known as might makes right.

Thanks for playing.

 

[quatona]

NOTE: I edited this OP in light of the discusion and added relevant clarifications. The argument did not change, however.
NOTE 2: It may seem confusing because I'm still writting it, and that with my cell.

Then use a computer.

Hello all, this is probably my favourite argument in apologetics and I'd like it to be discussed here.

It goes like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

Doesn´t follow.

2. Objective moral values exist.

Where and how did you establish this?

Objective moral values: moral values (right or wrong) about actions that exist independently of us and our judgment, independently of us being able to discern them or agreeing with them. God is the objective judge of these values and the only viable and consistent explanation for their existence.

So, IOW, you just defined God as being the objective source of values?

If God doesn't exist and Christianity is wrong, and if we take the naturalistic perspective as it's competing explanation,

A non-Christian isn´t necessarily a naturalist.

then objective moral values can't exist.

Since above you have defined "objective morality" as the morality of the Christian God, this isn´t even a conclusion. It´s still just your premise that,on top, you have merely defined into existence.

Ok now, how can we know moral values objectively exist? Well, how can we know anything exists?

It´s always entertaining to see how when an objectivist theist´s beliefs are questioned, he immediately resorts to epistemological nihilism as the only other option.

It is true, the outside world could be just an illusion, depending on our background beliefs and worldview, and so could moral values but we intuitively know they're real.

That´s what your argument boils down to? You and the mouse in your pocket "intuitively know" it? Ah, come on.
Why do you even make it so complicated. You could just as well have stated that you "intuitively know" that God exists.

 

[anonymous person]

The topic of this thread is not about societal laws and punishments. It was supposed to be in support of a Christian theology.

But, hypothetically, these individuals can still go to Heaven, regardless of the crimes committed.

What was your point here?

My point was that being born again does not make one exempt from being held accountable for the sins they commit. Actions have consequences regardless of one's relationship with God.

In fact, to whom much is given, much will be required. He who has been born again is held to a far greater and higher standard than he who is not.