The Moral Argument

anonymous person said:

Naturalism is not my view.

Click to expand...

I know. You described in detail how meaningless human life is to a God.

So meaningless that Jesus laid down His life so that all those who trust in Him might live through Him.

Click to expand...

So meaningless that, as you described, God can and will destroy it as he wishes. Thus, from the divine perspective human life doesn´t have greater meaning than from the human perspective but lesser meaning.

Nicholas Deka said:

What?!? Then ISIS aren't terrorists because the USA is not a non-combatant target!

Click to expand...

Who struck first, Japan or the US? Japan was a combatant target.

quatona said:

I know. You described in detail how meaningless human life is to a God.

Click to expand...

Where did I do this?

quatona said:

So meaningless that, as you described, God can and will destroy it as he wishes.

Click to expand...

The soul that sins shall die. This does not mean that that soul is meaningless to God. God sending His prophets to warn wayward souls of impending judgment and ruin testify that God is love and longsuffering, but will by no means acquit the guilty.

quatona said:

Thus, from the divine perspective human life doesn´t have greater meaning than from the human perspective but lesser meaning.

Click to expand...

From your perspective you mean. And you certainly are not divine, by any stretch of the imagination.

anonymous person said:

God does not need our approval before He takes life.

Click to expand...

Might makes right.

anonymous person said:

The soul that sins shall die. This does not mean that that soul is meaningless to God. God sending His prophets to warn wayward souls of impending judgment and ruin testify that God is love and longsuffering, but will by no means acquit the guilty.

Click to expand...

The operational term wasn´t "soul", it was "life". You said God can take it as he wishes, without any justification.

From your perspective you mean. And you certainly are not divine, by any stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

Well, from my perspective life of another person has enormous value, from your God´s perspective it´s just something he can destroy as he pleases, according to you.[/QUOTE]

Nicholas Deka said:

Then we need a new word for God's morality. Nothing I can morally do applies to God, and nothing God can morally do applies to me, then "good" cannot be used in both situations.

Click to expand...

amoral.

Davian said:

Might makes right.

Click to expand...

A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he, amid the flood
of mortal ills prevailing.
For still our ancient foe
does seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

2 Did we in our own strength confide,
our striving would be losing,
were not the right Man on our side,
the Man of God's own choosing.
You ask who that may be?
Christ Jesus, it is he;
Lord Sabaoth his name,
from age to age the same;
and he must win the battle.

3 And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God has willed
his truth to triumph through us.
The prince of darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
his rage we can endure,
for lo! his doom is sure;
one little word shall fell him.

4 That Word above all earthly powers
no thanks to them abideth;
the Spirit and the gifts are ours
through him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill:
God's truth abideth still;
his kingdom is forever! - Martin Luther

anonymous person said:

A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he, amid the flood
of mortal ills prevailing.
For still our ancient foe
does seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

2 Did we in our own strength confide,
our striving would be losing,
were not the right Man on our side,
the Man of God's own choosing.
You ask who that may be?
Christ Jesus, it is he;
Lord Sabaoth his name,
from age to age the same;
and he must win the battle.

3 And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God has willed
his truth to triumph through us.
The prince of darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
his rage we can endure,
for lo! his doom is sure;
one little word shall fell him.

4 That Word above all earthly powers
no thanks to them abideth;
the Spirit and the gifts are ours
through him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill:
God's truth abideth still;
his kingdom is forever! - Martin Luther

Click to expand...

When all else fails, preach.

Holy, Holy, Holy.

There are three words for God's morality.

Holy, Holy, Holy.

Davian said:

When all else fails, preach.

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 4

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

One such myth is that myth that morality is whatever humans feel like it is.

Such a myth is in accordance with the desires of the inhabitants of the earth that take their stand
and counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!”

Oncedeceived said:

Who struck first, Japan or the US? Japan was a combatant target.

Click to expand...

You are really bad with word definitions. Here's another one.

Non-Combatant
a person (such as a military chaplain or doctor) who is in the army, navy, etc., but does not fight
a person who is not in the army, navy, etc.

It's a person. A country can't be a non-combatant or combatant. Gee-whiz.

Nicholas Deka said:

You are really bad with word definitions. Here's another one.

Non-Combatant
a person (such as a military chaplain or doctor) who is in the army, navy, etc., but does not fight
a person who is not in the army, navy, etc.

It's a person. A country can't be a non-combatant or combatant. Gee-whiz.

Click to expand...

Do you have a point in all of this?

Nicholas Deka said:

You are really bad with word definitions. Here's another one.

Non-Combatant
a person (such as a military chaplain or doctor) who is in the army, navy, etc., but does not fight
a person who is not in the army, navy, etc.

It's a person. A country can't be a non-combatant or combatant. Gee-whiz.

Click to expand...

While you are correct and it might have been more accurate to use aggressor and non-aggressor, the fact remains that even military men and women can be innocent targets...their lives are no less important than civilians. IF Japan had declared war, and had not used a sneak attack against a peace time military but that military being involved in hostilities then the act would not have been terrorist attack. Japan was an aggressor in peace time (US was not at war with them nor had we planned any military action against them) it was a terrorist attack.

anonymous person said:

But if naturalism is true,

Click to expand...

Naturalism is not a truth statement.

then the killing of a bunch of people is really no different than destroying an ant hill.

Click to expand...

Naturalism is not nihilism.

Are you struggling with nihilism again? I thought you were confident in your beliefs.

anonymous person said:

...
Would you be free? Then surrender to God, be cleansed, and conform to His will for your life.

Click to expand...

How, exactly? Did you not concede that belief is not a conscious choice? How can I surrender to what, by every means available to me, appears to be fictitious?

Davian said:

How, exactly? Did you not concede that belief is not a conscious choice? How can I surrender to what, by every means available to me, appears to be fictitious?

Click to expand...

There was a man once. He had a beloved son. Ever since the son's childhood, an unclean spirit would torment the son, causing him pain and bodily injury. The father took his son to some of Jesus' disciples to cast the unclean spirit out but they were not able. Then Jesus showed up and things changed. The man said to Jesus, "if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus replied, "'If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"

It is when what we love most is in danger of being taken from us that we then move to seek out help to prevent the loss of this treasure which is most precious to us. If we ever reach this point in life, it is due to a work of providence, a work of the grace of God. Once reached, we look for consolation in others first. The man went to the disciples. Only when the arm of flesh had failed him, did he turn to Jesus. Arriving at a place of total disillusionment in the abilities of man to save is another work of grace. A most blessed and pure gift. Jesus asks the man how long his son had been under the influence of the unclean spirit. "From childhood", came the reply. The man has borne the threat of losing his son for so long, that he is compelled to shamelessly ask Jesus for help all the while knowing that he still harbors unbelief in his heart. He wants so bad for his son to be set free that he lays it all on the table before Jesus and asks Jesus to help him where he needs it most. He needs help with his unbelief and has finally come to the place where he no longer has his reputation, or his pride, or the opinions of man foremost in his mind. He just wants his son to be well. He wants that which he treasures most in life to be saved. He comes to Jesus with nothing to offer but weakness, fear, and trembling and a confession of unbelief, but does not stop there. He wants to change. He wants to believe. He wants no longer to live in fear of the future. He wants to be changed, he wants to be helped, and has finally come to the place where he can truly be helped.

Jesus heals his son that very day.

We hear nothing more about the man. The encounter took all of maybe a couple of minutes. But his life was changed forever because of that encounter he had with Jesus.

You ask me how do you surrender.

It is not something you can do on your own. Surrender is the fruit of a work that God works in a man's heart. Without that prevenient grace, that prevenient drawing, without that anguish of soul and that utter desolation and despair present in the heart, one's heart can never despair of ever being fulfilled and satisfied by anything the world has to offer. It will always look to "the disciples". It will always look to created things, whether they be people, substances, possessions, etc.

So actually what you are asking me is, "How do I become desolate, how do I become so despairing of all that the world has to offer, how do I become debased and shamelessly honest about my utter helplessness and hopelessness that I run to Jesus and ask Him for help?"

Me personally, it took me sitting alone in a prison cell late one night and early into the morning. It took me taking an inventory of my life, my choices, my actions, the people I had hurt. It took me owning up to all of it. Laying it all out on the table. It took me coming to a place where I could no longer run, or put it off, or file it away in the back of my mind. I wanted to think about it. I wanted to atone for my sins. But they were so great. I knew I could never make it all right. And then I thought of all the people that were in similar situations as mine that met Jesus in the gospels. I had no hope in myself any longer. So I asked Jesus to have mercy on me, a sinner.

That moment, I was born again.

Oncedeceived said:

it was a terrorist attack.

Click to expand...

Right, us nuking two major metropolitan centers and blowing up hundreds of thousands of non-combatants was a terrorist attack. That's who you're talking about right? Because I didn't see anything in the definition of terrorism that you gave that mentioned sneak attacks or being the aggressor in a war.

anonymous person said:

Do you have a point in all of this?

Click to expand...

Yep. Did it go over your head?

Nicholas Deka said:

I think I get your confusion. You think "based on" means "because". That isn't so either. It means that you identify members of the group based on their race, political affiliations, or culture.

Click to expand...

They identified members by the attacks that they leveled against them. It had nothing to do with their race, political affiliations (obviously) nor culture but that they had attacked them.