Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But that doesn't go for every action. I do not believe there exists, or has ever existed, any circumstance in which the owning of another person is morally justifiable. Same for rape. Same for genocide. Same for child abuse. It would take an awful lot to convince me otherwise.
Feel free to bring it to the table.Actually there is evidence that it IS designed for human life among other things.
Just because a moral standard is proposed to come from God does not make it objective. That proposed derivation does not make it demonstrable to me.....Without an objective moral standard.....
No, it can be proven using the grammatico-historical hermeneutic that they were taking them out of context. The word "race" does not even exist in the bible so there is absolutely no basis for treating people differently by race in the bible.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only by taking verses out of context. But studying it in context confirms its teaching of human equality.
ken: Perhaps you are the one taking it out of context in order to get it to say treat people equally
So what? The Nazis used evolution to justify their behavior does that prove evolution false? So it is with the bible, just because some Christians use it to justify bad behavior does not prove the bible is false or that it actually contains teachings they claim it does.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, if you read the writings of the Christians involved in these things, they confirm that they were spurred to do the right thing by the teachings of the Bible.
ken: Christians have always used the bible to justify their good behavior, as well as their bad behavior. It goes both ways
Non sequitur. Again, all the churches based on the original historic understanding of biblical authority do.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes because liberal churches do not believe in the infallible authority of the bible, the divisions on these issues are based on the churches view of the bible.
ken: Again; not all churches agree on moral teachings.
I and most creationists don't dispute microevolution.Ed1wolf said: ↑
From dictionary.com: Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
ken: Is Macroevolution the only type of evolution that exists? No.
That doesn't prove that they are objective realities, it could just be a consistent hallucination or consistent dream.Ed1wolf said: ↑
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know these are objective realities?
ken: Because they can be consistently demonstrated
You just contradicted yourself again. You said that they can be consistently demonstrated, something can only be consistently demonstrated if it is orderly and intelligible. You do know the difference btw intelligent and intelligible dont you?Ed1wolf said: ↑
You just mentioned forces above that are orderly and intelligible. So you are now contradicting yourself. The only way the universe could not be orderly and intelligible is if there were no laws of physics, are you denying the existence of the laws of physics. Without those laws, science is impossible.
ken: I said those forces were objective. I never said they were orderly or in any way intelligent
Exactly! You don’t know what they are talking about. The reason you don’t know, is because different people will have different views on what is best for society, and it won’t always include your idea of equality for everybody. Why the different views? Because what is deemed best for society is subjective; not objective.
Can you then show us how murder is objectively wrong and not merely the subjective opinion of the majority? Why would someone be objectively wrong if they thought it was okay to murder a white guy in the same way they would be objectively wrong for thinking the earth was flat?I think you missed the part where I said "for all humans", not just the ones you like.
Any morality that as a principle excludes a bunch of humans and /or grants more priviliges to one group over the other, is immoral by definition.
Murder is wrong, no matter if the victim is a white guy, a black guy, an indian or a jew.
Sure, some people won't agree with that.
And those people would be wrong.
Some people also don't agree that the earth is a sphere and believe it's flat instead.
But that doesn't make the shape of the earth a subjective matter....
Wheter something is subjective or not, is not determined by how many people agree on it.
Unsurprisingly, I have not found a single reference to this study - if it even is a study - in any primary scientific material I am aware of, nor in anything popular-level.
If the claim of Evolution was about morality, it would prove evolution false. But that's not the claim of evolution so your argument fails.So what? The Nazis used evolution to justify their behavior does that prove evolution false? So it is with the bible, just because some Christians use it to justify bad behavior does not prove the bible is false or that it actually contains teachings they claim it does.
Hallucinations and dreams work only on an individual level; not a world wide level.That doesn't prove that they are objective realities, it could just be a consistent hallucination or consistent dream.
Obviously I misunderstood what you said.You just contradicted yourself again. You said that they can be consistently demonstrated, something can only be consistently demonstrated if it is orderly and intelligible. You do know the difference btw intelligent and intelligible dont you?
By definition? Then you should have no problem providing a definition of morality that supports your claim.I think you missed the part where I said "for all humans", not just the ones you like.
Any morality that as a principle excludes a bunch of humans and /or grants more priviliges to one group over the other, is immoral by definition.
Murder is a legal term. there have been cases when immoral laws have defined what could be called a justified killing as murder.Murder is wrong, no matter if the victim is a white guy, a black guy, an indian or a jew.
Sure, some people won't agree with that.
And those people would be wrong.
anyway, what make you think that evolution has enough time to evolve even a single complex biolotical system?
I dont know any Christians that "support" the killing of infants. But we ALL deserve to die at birth because of our sin. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." Even infants are sinners though not intentional sinners, though because they have not reached the age of accountability, if they die they go to heaven rather than hell. So any time we live past birth, God is being gracious to us, because we dont deserve it. The ancient Hebrews were God's arm of meting out justice on these evil nations for only this time period in history. After the coming of Christ, we are living in the age of Grace and of course, are not allowed to kill non-combatants in war. As far as animals, we are allowed to kill them for food or in war time to help win a just war it may be necessary. But they should never be tortured or treated inhumanely. And no, God's moral laws are not subjective because they are based on His objectively existing moral character.I hate to admit. Morality can be subjective, especially towards religious people
I don't want to throw 'my kind' under the bus but I made a thread in regards to the violence in the OT and the responses I got where very disturbing to me.
The violence in the OT
There are people here who actually support the slaughtering of infants and animals. The argument was "since God is the high authority, then anything he does is now good..". So if we kill babies, it's evil but if he does it is good because he is god. One guy even replied to me saying "why are you upset with animals getting killed.. they are not made in the image of God".
This has seriously blown my mind. What was worse, is that anybody, such as myself who couldn't logically approve with the "God said so" as a reason to support the baby slaughtering in the OT was like following Satan or something.
I believe that there are morals that are subjective but everything depends on the circumstances/situation. Everything.
I dont know any Christians that "support" the killing of infants. But we ALL deserve to die at birth because of our sin. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." Even infants are sinners though not intentional sinners, though because they have not reached the age of accountability, if they die they go to heaven rather than hell. So any time we live past birth, God is being gracious to us, because we dont deserve it. The ancient Hebrews were God's arm of meting out justice on these evil nations for only this time period in history. After the coming of Christ, we are living in the age of Grace and of course, are not allowed to kill non-combatants in war. As far as animals, we are allowed to kill them for food or in war time to help win a just war it may be necessary. But they should never be tortured or treated inhumanely. And no, God's moral laws are not subjective because they are based on His objectively existing moral character.
Generally a good honest scientist properly following the scientific method will not discover anything in nature that is opposed to God or His word.True Wisdom starts with fear of God.
Anything opposed to God then is not acceptable.
This is true, (not that there is anyone good but God, as Jesus stated),Generally a good honest scientist properly following the scientific method will not discover anything in nature that is opposed to God or His word.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Who says? Not who or what the creator is, but whether there is one is certainly not outside the domain of science.
ken: The systematic enterprise of science does not lead to a creator, so why should a creator be mentioned in science classes?
No, nothing discovered by good honest scientists that correctly use the scientific method and strive not to cling to any scientific dogmatic theories will ever discover anything against God's word.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads.
ken: When they do that, you guys complain because the data doesn't lead them to your religious beliefs
I didn't say that, but schools in colonial days and even up until the 1960's that did teach the ten commandments produced 95% literacy and no mass killings, very different from schools today which dont, do you think there could be a connection?Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not in America, we can not even post the Ten Commandments on the walls in many schools, even though Ben Franklin thought it was a good idea.
ken: Ben Franklin also thought slavery was a good idea. Just because some of his ideas were good doesn’t mean they all were.
Can you then show us how murder is objectively wrong and not merely the subjective opinion of the majority?
Why would someone be objectively wrong if they thought it was okay to murder a white guy in the same way they would be objectively wrong for thinking the earth was flat?
By definition? Then you should have no problem providing a definition of morality that supports your claim.
Murder is a legal term. there have been cases when immoral laws have defined what could be called a justified killing as murder.
IIRC Hitler had a very distorted view of evolution and creationism (he believed that 'Aryans' were divinely created by God and 'lesser races' evolved from other animals).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?