The Moral Argument

[Davian]

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.

The only "sin" of note here is "disbelief", and to the best of my knowledge neither of us lives in a theocracy.

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.

Believe, or else. I am glad that society, overall, has much higher standards than your god.

 

[anonymous person]

Because that's exactly what 'there is no moral unbeliever' entails. It doesn't matter if I spend an entire life in service to the wellbeing of humanity, or spend that same time as a serial rapist torture-murderer. The only relevant factor is what I believe at the moment of death.

The demons believe and tremble. For all their believing they still are condemned. From this it is clear that saving faith is of a different sort than a mere intellectual assent to some propositions.

Your confusion lies in your conception of what it means to believe. The bible always associates the act of believing with the fruit it produces.

You act like we are telling you people can live any old way and the on their deathbed say a sinners prayer and be saved. That is not what we are saying at all nor does the bible say that.

God knows people hearts.

When the bible says that "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved", it is stating a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition of salvation.

Do you understand?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I disagree, I'm still waiting for the answer to which quality, or combination of God's qualities, make him the objective judge of morality...

Reread my "painbot" comments. I answered. It is just not the answer you want to hear so you keep asking the same question.

Just imagine if the "painbot" told his inventor, "It is wrong for you to inflict pain and suffering on me". The inventor would probably say "Where were you as I was drawing out your schematics and designs? When I wired you and installed your computer what purpose was it for? Surly you would know because you wrote the software algorithms...right? Did you sweat from your brow as you fabricated and formed your structure and limbs? If not, who are you to tell me that my purpose and ways are wrong! Stand up like the "painbot" that I created you to be! Know that this was your purpose for existence!"

So because it is an undeniable fact that the created purpose of the "painbot" to suffer, "painbot's" pain and suffering is objectively good because that was it's designed purpose. So to is God who is the creator of all and is the only being capable of bestowing man with a designed purpose, that is his quality that makes him the supreme judge of morality.

 

[Davian]

Easy believism is a somewhat derogatory term used by opponents of the view that one needs only to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. From this they conclude that those who hold to sola fide (“faith alone”) teach that no corresponding need exists for a committed life of Christian discipleship as proof of salvation; however, that is not what sola fide means. True faith in Christ will always lead to a changed life. Another common usage of the term easy believism is in regards to those who believe they’re saved because they prayed a prayer—with no real conviction of sin and no real faith in Christ. Praying a prayer is easy—thus the term easy believism—but there is more to salvation than mouthing words.

Much of the debate over easy believism is unnecessary and is based on a misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The essence of this doctrine is found in Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” So we see that faith, given as a gift by God, is what saves us. But the next verse tells of the results of that salvation: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Rather than being saved by some easy act of our own wills, we are saved by the hand of God Almighty, by His will and for His use. We are His servants, and from the moment of salvation by faith, we embark on a journey of pre-ordained good works that are the evidence of that salvation. If there is no evidence of growth and good works, we have reason to doubt that salvation ever truly took place. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20), and a dead faith is not a saving faith.

“Faith alone” does not mean that some believers follow Christ in a life of discipleship, while others do not. The concept of the “carnal Christian,” as a separate category of non-spiritual believer, is completely unscriptural. The idea of the carnal Christian says that a person may receive Christ as Savior during a religious experience but never manifest evidence of a changed life. This is a false and dangerous teaching in that it excuses various ungodly lifestyles: a man may be an unrepentant adulterer, liar, or thief, but he’s “saved” because he prayed a prayer as a child; he’s just a “carnal Christian.” The Bible nowhere supports the idea that a true Christian can remain carnal for an entire lifetime. Rather, God’s Word presents only two categories of people: Christians and non-Christians, believers and unbelievers, those who have bowed to the Lordship of Christ and those who have not (see John 3:36; Romans 6:17–18; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:18–24; Ephesians 2:1–5; 1 John 1:5–7; 2:3–4).

While the security of salvation is a biblical fact based upon the finished work of salvation by Christ, it is certainly true that some of those who seemed to have “made a decision” or “accepted Christ” may not genuinely be saved. As noted before, true salvation is not so much our accepting Christ as it is His accepting us. We are saved by the power of God for the purpose of God, and that purpose includes the works that give evidence of our conversion. Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers (Romans 8:5–8). This is why Paul exhorts us to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The “carnal” Christian who examines himself will soon see that he/she is not in the faith.

James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” The type of “belief” demons have can be compared to the intellectual assent made by those who “believe” in Jesus in the fact that He exists or that He was a good person. Many unbelievers say, “I believe in God” or “I believe in Jesus”; others say, “I prayed a prayer, and the preacher said I was saved.” But such prayers and such belief do not necessarily signal a change of heart. The problem is a misunderstanding of the word believe. With true salvation comes genuine repentance and real life change. Second Corinthians 5:17 says that those who are in Christ are a “new creation.” Is it possible that the new person Christ creates is one who continues to walk in the carnality of the flesh? No.

I am not not using this "easy believism" approach. When I say "believe" I assume you believe, in whatever manner your theology dictates.

Salvation is certainly free, but, at the same time, it costs us everything.

It would certainly cost me my intellectual integrity.

We are to die to ourselves as we change into the likeness of Christ. Where easy believism fails is its lack of recognition that a person with faith in Jesus will lead a progressively changed life. Salvation is a free gift from God to those who believe, but discipleship and obedience are the response that will no doubt occur when one truly comes to Christ in faith

I do not see how this supports the OP, when belief is not a conscious action, yet in your theology we are held accountable for it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Reread my "painbot" comments. I answered. It is just not the answer you want to hear so you keep asking the same question.

Just imagine if the "painbot" told his inventor, "It is wrong for you to inflict pain and suffering on me". The inventor would probably say "Where were you as I was drawing out your schematics and designs? When I wired you and installed your computer what purpose was it for? Surly you would know because you wrote the software algorithms...right? Did you sweat from your brow as you fabricated and formed your structure and limbs? If not, who are you to tell me that my purpose and ways are wrong! Stand up like the "painbot" that I created you to be! Know that this was your purpose for existence!"

So because it is an undeniable fact that the created purpose of the "painbot" to suffer, "painbot's" pain and suffering is objectively good because that was it's designed purpose. So to is God who is the creator of all and is the only being capable of bestowing man with a designed purpose, that is his quality that makes him the supreme judge of morality.

That's what I thought at first, but then you responded with extra emphasis on the "no equal person to disagree" part. And that is what is confusing me. If you are saying being the creator is what justifies any treatment to the creation and the only justification necessary, then yes, you have answered, and I'll accept that as your view. But is it just that? What if someone else, another human, says, "Hey, don't make robots for the sake of torture, that's wrong"? Does that matter? Are they an equal to disagree with you? Is the whole "equal disagreeing" part just about the relationship between the creator and the created? Because if that is the case, then my line of questions that followed all stemmed from a misunderstanding.

So here is what I understand the answer to be, as to why God is the objective source of morality:

Morality is fulfilling purpose.

Purpose is designed by God.

Being the creator makes you the objective determiner of purpose and therefore the one and exactly one correct opinion on what that purpose is.

Is this correct?

 

[Davian]

Were they not appeals to consequences those objections to Christianity's Justice?

Not at all. These are objections to moral argument, and how it fails to support your theology.

Justice and morality imply consequences for one's actions.

Agreed, but 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 (disbelief, and the "sins" of their [hypothetical] ancestors).

This is not "justice" and "morality" as the terms are used in the common vernacular.

The fact that you do not like or agree with God's justice and how he condemns or restores people doesn't make it wrong.

It is not about what I like or agree with, but how the moral argument fails when applied to a theology that - by the same standard of morality being appealed to - is morally bankrupt.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's what I thought at first, but then you responded with extra emphasis on the "no equal person to disagree" part. And that is what is confusing me. If you are saying being the creator is what justifies any treatment to the creation and the only justification necessary, then yes, you have answered, and I'll accept that as your view. But is it just that? What if someone else, another human, says, "Hey, don't make robots for the sake of torture, that's wrong"? Does that matter? Are they an equal to disagree with you? Is the whole "equal disagreeing" part just about the relationship between the creator and the created? Because if that is the case, then my line of questions that followed all stemmed from a misunderstanding.

So here is what I understand the answer to be, as to why God is the objective source of morality:

Morality is fulfilling purpose.

Purpose is designed by God.

Being the creator makes you the objective determiner of purpose and therefore the one and exactly one correct opinion on what that purpose is.

Is this correct?

Yes. To to make myself clear, the reference in Job is not about "might is right" but more so I am the creator and you are my creation.

 

[Davian]

There is no moral unbeliever. All are guilty. Some are just worse than others.

Guilty of actions beyond their control.

Let's check your own moral compass: do you feel it to be moral to hold others for the actions of others, for for actions beyond their control?

 

[Davian]

... We ought to approach the bible with the faith of a child just like a child has unquestionable faith and trust in their parents.

This sounds like an argument for gullibility.

I recommend that before you read scripture, pray for God

It this not circular reasoning? Would you not have to already believe that gods were not fictional prior to praying to one?

to remove the callous from your heart and remove any doubt and scepticism you have.

If scepticism is "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity", asking me to put it aside in evaluating your beliefs would be [fallacious] special pleading.

 

[Davian]

I don't know if you are aware or not, but we know you think our worldview is morally bankrupt.

I don't think that. In your worldview, you may think it wrong to slaughter all of your neighbours (and hopefully have avoided doing so), or to hold others responsible for actions beyond their control, but the subject here is the theology that has been described in this thread. That theology is morally bankrupt, when held to the standards appealed to in the moral argument in the OP.

 

[Davian]

I think the topic has been thoroughly explained and proven.

Proven? Do you still think the "moral argument" is supportive of a theology that can allow for serial killers to get a pass, while others [hypothetically] burn for eternity for reasons beyond their control?

In real life, do you hold others responsible for things beyond their control?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This sounds like an argument for gullibility.

It this not circular reasoning? Would you not have to already believe that gods were not fictional prior to praying to one?

If scepticism is "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity", asking me to put it aside in evaluating your beliefs would be [fallacious] special pleading.

It was a devotional that I created to help christians to understand scripture. Because "the letter brings death and the spirit gives life". The first step to understanding scripture is not to pick it apart and look for errors and flaws. If you do not approach the word of God with faith, it won't make sense. It will be confusing like a parable or riddle. The first step is having faith, not belief. Faith is not rooted in gullibility. Faith is a product of trust despite a lack of knowledge or understanding. Children can have faith in their parents because they trust that their parents love them and want what is best for them eventhough they do not understand. Belief is not a product of trust. Belief is a product of knowledge and understanding.

You may not believe in God, but just a small step of faith is all you need to get the ball rolling. Next time you read a bible, remove all of your bias and be open. Pray to God. Even if you do not believe, it is an act of faith. You can ask God "God, I don't believe you exist. But for the rare chance that you do exist...I need you to show me. I am asking you to reveal yourself to me through your word. If you are real, I trust that you would want to save me. So I am going to humbly ask that you soften my heart and open my mind so that your word will be revealed so that I will believe. I am asking you in the name of Jesus Christ with the power of your Holy Spirit. Amen"

After praying, take a moment to meditate and clear your mind. Then start with the gospel of Matthew. Many people make the mistake of starting at Genesis. Just remember that the bible is about Jesus. You can never understand the OT if you do not have a clear understanding of the NT.

This is only a suggestion. I cannot make you believe. "I can plant the seed but God is the one who makes the seed grow". But you need a little faith to water it.

 

[Davian]

Well... I guess it is time for me to answer question 2. Can an good atheist be saved? In response to this question you have to ask, moral under who's standard? God's objective moral standard or the subjective standard that you gave yourself?

I brought up Romans 3 for a reason. The key take away is "those who live under the law will be judged under the law and those who live apart from the law will be judged apart from the law". I will then ask, "How did the saints of the old testament achieve salvation? (Moses, Aaron, Daniel, David, Samuel, ect...) They followed the law. When they broke the law, they had to perform a "sin offering" as atonement. Being that Jesus is the "way the truth and the life and no man can get to the Father except through Jesus", OT saints were still saved through Jesus because they followed the law to clear the path for the Massiah.

But what about those saints who were saved before the law? (Able, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Enoch, Noah, ect...) Being that the Law was not yet revealed, Romans 3 and many other examples in scripture say that those individuals were not held accountable for the law.

It is written in Romans 2:15 "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." But what law is Paul talking about? I believe it is not the +620 laws in the old testament but rather the 2 greatest commandments that Jesus gave.

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So I am inclined to believe that if God is omniscient and Just, an unbeliever who, without any fault of their own, was never given the opportunity to know Jesus that person would be punished for it. Rather, God "knew you before he created you" and "he can count the hairs on your head" so I have to believe that at the moment of death God would know the nature of your heart and know that if given an opportunity to choose, He would know what decision you would make. That is how you would be judged.

Furthermore, because God is just and omniscient, I have to believe that after God gives you His final judgement there will be no call for appeals. There will be no mistrial. Because God would explain his judgement to you perfectly in such a way that is unarguable. You would have been shown all the times God showed you the truth and yet you refused....So that before you are thrown into the lake of fire....your final thoughts would be, "God is just and I absolutely deserve this judgement and there is nobody to blame but myself."

So yes, I believe that an atheist who lived a moral life (based on God's standard of morality ) who was never given the opportunity to know the truth, can be saved. However, if that atheist were given that opportunity and rejected it, they would go to hell. It may seem unfair but you have to remember that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God " so everyone deserves to go to hell. If everyone deserves to go to hell how is it unjust that anyone goes to hell?

What do you mean "given the opportunity to know the truth"? How is one to tell truth from fiction? Opinion from fraud?

You want to hold me accountable for not accepting your particular truth claim, while undermining your own credibility by asking me to set aside [the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity] in evaluating this "truth"?

In this context, I can say that I have not been given an opportunity to know the truth. The truth should appeal to reason and critical thinking.

 

[Davian]

It was a devotional that I created to help christians to understand scripture.

I do not see of what value it might be here.

Because "the letter brings death and the spirit gives life". The first step to understanding scripture is not to pick it apart and look for errors and flaws. If you do not approach the word of God with faith, it won't make sense.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

It will be confusing like a parable or riddle. The first step is having faith, not belief. Faith is not rooted in gullibility. Faith is a product of trust despite a lack of knowledge or understanding. Children can have faith in their parents because they trust that their parents love them and want what is best for them eventhough they do not understand. Belief is not a product of trust. Belief is a product of knowledge and understanding.

You may not believe in God, but just a small step of faith is all you need to get the ball rolling. Next time you read a bible, remove all of your bias and be open. Pray to God. Even if you do not believe, it is an act of faith. You can ask God "God, I don't believe you exist. But for the rare chance that you do exist...I need you to show me. I am asking you to reveal yourself to me through your word. If you are real, I trust that you would want to save me. So I am going to humbly ask that you soften my heart and open my mind so that your word will be revealed so that I will believe. I am asking you in the name of Jesus Christ with the power of your Holy Spirit. Amen"

After praying, take a moment to meditate and clear your mind. Then start with the gospel of Matthew. Many people make the mistake of starting at Genesis. Just remember that the bible is about Jesus. You can never understand the OT if you do not have a clear understanding of the NT.

This is only a suggestion. I cannot make you believe. "I can plant the seed but God is the one who makes the seed grow". But you need a little faith to water it.

You are quite unclear on my position on your theology. While quite off-topic for this thread, your first step would be for you to demonstrate how virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, so as to allow for the stories in the Bible to be an accurate description of reality.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What do you mean "given the opportunity to know the truth"? How is one to tell truth from fiction? Opinion from fraud?

That point was directed to people who was never given an opportunity to decide. Perhaps it was poorly worded.

In this context, I can say that I have not been given an opportunity to know the truth. The truth should appeal to reason and critical thinking.

Perhaps you are correct in this statement. I do not know for sure. Perhaps God will show mercy to those who genuinely want to know the truth but could never get the knowledge or understanding to believe the truth.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are quite unclear on my position on your theology. While quite off-topic for this thread, your first step would be for you to demonstrate how virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, so as to allow for the stories in the Bible to be an accurate description of reality.

No, the first step is not rejecting what you believe to be true. It is taking a leap of faith by putting a little trust in a God that you do not believe in. Like in the movie "The Matrix" where Morpheus gave Neo choice between the red pill and the blue pill. Neo had to have some level of trust in Morpheus that the pills wouldn't kill him. The fact that he took the pill alone was a leap of faith. So go on...take the pill. What's there to loose?

 

[Davian]

That point was directed to people who was never given an opportunity to decide. Perhaps it was poorly worded.

Perhaps you are correct in this statement. I do not know for sure. Perhaps God will show mercy to those who genuinely want to know the truth but could never get the knowledge or understanding to believe the truth.

Do you concede that your asking of me to set aside [the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity] undermines your claim of truth?

 

[Davian]

No, the first step is not rejecting what you believe to be true.

No, cognitive dissonance does not sit well with me. I do not like to hold conflicting beliefs.

It is taking a leap of faith by putting a little trust in a God that you do not believe in.

Your asking that I put little trust in a God that I do not believe in sounds like this to me:

Do you write letters to Santa? Why not? Do you not want free stuff?​

Like in the movie "The Matrix" where Morpheus gave Neo choice between the red pill and the blue pill. Neo had to have some level of trust in Morpheus that the pills wouldn't kill him. The fact that he took the pill alone was a leap of faith.

Not at all. At that point in the movie Neo already had the experience of the 'bug' in the interrogation room, and its subsequent removal in the car. He had already been presented with compelling evidence that something was afoot far greater than his current understanding of the world.

So go on...take the pill. What's there to loose?

Other than my intellectual integrity? There is the problem that belief in not a conscious choice. I cannot just flip a switch in my head and say "today, I will believe in gods...".

How about you? Can you just change your beliefs without compelling reasons?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, cognitive dissonance does not sit well with me. I do not like to hold conflicting beliefs.

Your asking that I put little trust in a God that I do not believe in sounds like this to me:

Do you write letters to Santa? Why not? Do you not want free stuff?​

Not at all. At that point in the movie Neo already had the experience of the 'bug' in the interrogation room, and its subsequent removal in the car. He had already been presented with compelling evidence that something was afoot far greater than his current understanding of the world.

Other than my intellectual integrity? There is the problem that belief in not a conscious choice. I cannot just flip a switch in my head and say "today, I will believe in gods...".

How about you? Can you just change your beliefs without compelling reasons?

Are you sure you don't want to come over? We got cookies.

 

[Davian]

Are you sure you don't want to come over? We got cookies.

No thanks. I haven't finished off the chocolates Santa brought me for Christmas.