The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

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

She will spend eternity in either one of two places. Heaven or hell.

 

[Davian]

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.

Analogy fail. Geographic North is simply a consensus of opinion. Earth's rotational axis and magnetic poles don't even line up, and the alignment with the "pole star" is only temporary. Is this news to you?

 

[Davian]

You said you are ignostic.

True?

No backpedaling. Substantiate or retract.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

She will spend eternity in either one of two places. Heaven or hell.

Given that she died not believing in Christ, which one of those will she spend eternity in, according to your theology?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes.
Jesus Christ is the way.

How does this work, exactly?
What would the serial killing rapist have to do?

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

Yes and I'm leading you down the path that shows how your objection to Archaeopteryx's statement of "The fact that it simply doesn't matter whether one behaves morally or not; all that matters is that one believes" is not appropriate...

I'll just go ahead and spew it out...

It doesn't matter if someone is a serial killing rapist or if that someone is a goody-goody charity worker.

What matters is what these people believe.

Serial killing rapist who "believes in christ's gift" is in line for eternal bliss, while the goody-goody charity worker who happens to be an atheist is in line for eternal torment.

Please explain how exactly that that is wrong, if you disagree.


EDIT: i'ld also like to point out that at this point, you have already demonstrated yourself to be wrong. If a serial killing rapist can avoid punishment and instead enjoy eternal bliss, it allready demonstrates that "justice" in your theology has nothing to do with moral behaviour and / or moral accountability.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Analogy fail. Geographic North is simply a consensus of opinion. Earth's rotational axis and magnetic poles don't even line up, and the alignment with the "pole star" is only temporary. Is this news to you?

Well then.... perhaps you should enlighten me which direction is up while floating aimlessly in the vacuum of space. Smarty pants. [emoji1]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How does this work, exactly?
What would the serial killing rapist have to do?



Yes and I'm leading you down the path that shows how your objection to Archaeopteryx's statement of "The fact that it simply doesn't matter whether one behaves morally or not; all that matters is that one believes" is not appropriate...

I'll just go ahead and spew it out...

It doesn't matter if someone is a serial killing rapist or if that someone is a goody-goody charity worker.

What matters is what these people believe.

Serial killing rapist who "believes in christ's gift" is in line for eternal bliss, while the goody-goody charity worker who happens to be an atheist is in line for eternal torment.

Please explain how exactly that that is wrong, if you disagree.


EDIT: i'ld also like to point out that at this point, you have already demonstrated yourself to be wrong. If a serial killing rapist can avoid punishment and instead enjoy eternal bliss, it allready demonstrates that "justice" in your theology has nothing to do with moral behaviour and / or moral accountability.

I already difined justice in christian theology previously in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I already difined justice in christian theology previously in this thread.

What's the post number?

Having asked that... I was replying to anonymous person.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well then.... perhaps you should enlighten me which direction is up while floating aimlessly in the vacuum of space. Smarty pants. [emoji1]

The direction of the ceiling of the space craft?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

I think I am starting to understand this position... If God "is" morality itself, then you should be able to compare your own morality to His to see if you are being moral or not? But how do you do that? Is it moral to do anything that God has done? Is it moral to not do anything that God has chosen not to do?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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?

Sure. That is a gargantuan IF. You have no means of determining whether that is actually the case.

You could remedy that, of course, by overcoming a few basic epistemological hurdles,

-How is a 'revelation' gleaned?
-How do you discern 'revelation' from something you may merely be imagining?
-How does an observer discern your 'revelation' from something you may be imagining, or making up?
-How do you determine that the informational content of your 'revelation' is true?
-How do you determine the source of the 'revelation'?
-How are mutually contradictory 'revelations' resolved?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Precisely.

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

No there isn't.

If one person can spend their entire life as a serial raping child murderer, have a last second deathbed conversion and go to heaven and another person spend their entire life as a philanthropic atheist and go to hell, that is not 'balance'. You have a massive lead brick labeled either BELIEF or DISBELIEF on one end of the scale, and nothing on the other.

What premises led you to that conclusion?

See above. Belief is the only pertinent moral act in this system. Actual moral behavior is utterly irrelevant.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think I am starting to understand this position... If God "is" morality itself, then you should be able to compare your own morality to His to see if you are being moral or not? But how do you do that? Is it moral to do anything that God has done? Is it moral to not do anything that God has chosen not to do?

Not entirely. It is not about what He has done, but what He calls us to do?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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

What if monkeys fly out of my butt?

I can imagine any number of fanciful scenarios right along with you. It doesn't get you any closer to a substantiation of your moral philosophy.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not entirely. It is not about what He has done, but what He calls us to do?

But then how is He a reference point? If it is just what He says we should do, then it is just an opinion. Maybe it's the best opinion, but how is it more than that? How is He morality, yet we cannot act in the same way?

 

[anonymous person]

No backpedaling. Substantiate or retract.

You said you are ignostic right?

 

[anonymous person]

What if monkeys fly out of my butt?

I can imagine any number of fanciful scenarios right along with you. It doesn't get you any closer to a substantiation of your moral philosophy.

You didn't answer the question he asked.

The bible is either divinely inspired or not. If it is then we have God communicating to us, which would render your view false.

So really the issue is whether or not there is evidence of the bible being divinely inspired.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure. That is a gargantuan IF. You have no means of determining whether that is actually the case.

You could remedy that, of course, by overcoming a few basic epistemological hurdles,

-How is a 'revelation' gleaned?
-How do you discern 'revelation' from something you may merely be imagining?
-How does an observer discern your 'revelation' from something you may be imagining, or making up?
-How do you determine that the informational content of your 'revelation' is true?
-How do you determine the source of the 'revelation'?
-How are mutually contradictory 'revelations' resolved?

Good luck on getting a response. I'm still waiting for him to address this. I've posed similar questions to him on multiple other occasions.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You didn't answer the question he asked.

The bible is either divinely inspired or not. If it is then we have God communicating to us, which would render your view false.

So really the issue is whether or not there is evidence of the bible being divinely inspired.

You will not ever get there without first overcoming your numerous and basic epistemological hurdles.

 

[Davian]

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.

What's subtle about being a serial killer?

We need to morally perfect

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.

to be innocent, that's how God's justice works.

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