The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[quatona]

As always relativists dodge the questions they cannot answer.

The discussion is not relative vs. absolute, it´s objective vs. subjective.

You have the cart in front of the horse in hiding behind law which is pure sophistry on your part.

Well, laws have been changing all the time and still are changing. Thus, unless you are suggesting that "objective morality" changes, you refencing laws in support of your idea of "objective morality" mean shooting your own foot.

The idea of systematic euthanasia of unproductive disabled, old and infirm, or eating children or using them as sexslaves is apriori abhorrent to almost everyone.

So "objective morality" is actually a matter of majority vote?

That is not a subjective choice or the result of arbitrary democracy.
It is the law mirroring apriori abhorrence.
The law is not arbitrary. It followed it did not lead.

I´m German. It´s not that long ago that the law here allowed for and suggested systemic euthanasia. So no - the idea that laws reflect "objective morality" isn´t helping your case.

The question you cannot answer:
Where did the apriori abhorrence come from?

Even if I couldn´t answer the question, a majority of subjective feelings don´t make a case for "objective morality". But of course there are plenty of possible explanations for common feelings of the majority of humans. I´m sure you´ve heard about them.

And why is it (almost) universally shared - including by you - if you and others are free to take a subjective view in which there is no objective standard.

Because a lot of people are subjectively against it.

Any pragmatic view would treat euthanasia as an exercise in cost benefits.

But "pragmatism" isn´t what we are discussing. Apart from the fact that pragmatism doesn´t necessarily mean mere short sighted purely financial considerations.

Anyway, it always strikes me as funny when I read something to the effect "But without objective morality...", followed by a quite accurate description of reality. The world looks pretty much exactly like we would expect it with morality being subjective: People agree or disagree, and (in the interest of having a functioning community) they negotiate, make compromises and create rules and laws that almost everyone can live with.

 

[Ken-1122]

As always relativists dodge the questions they cannot answer.

I responded to each point you made; line by line. Now you say I dodged all your questions? Absurd!

You have the cart in front of the horse in hiding behind law which is pure sophistry on your part.

I’m not hiding behind law, I pointed out that everything is enforced by law; not morality which is the truth. If you disagree, show me where I’ve gone wrong

The idea of systematic euthanasia of unproductive disabled, old and infirm, or eating children or using them as sexslaves is apriori abhorrent to almost everyone.

Or are you one of the few exceptions? State clearly if you agree or disagree with any of the above

I will wager you are against all of those, just like everyone else.

If you are unaware I would be against all of those things, you haven't been paying attention to what I've said.

That is not a subjective choice or the result of arbitrary democracy.
It is the law mirroring apriori abhorrence.
The law is not arbitrary. It followed it did not lead.

You are making my point! did you miss the part when I said laws come from moral beliefs?

The question you cannot answer:
Where did the apriori abhorrence come from?

Go back, read my response to that question and tell me why that response was not sufficient for you.

And why is it (almost) universally shared - including by you - if you and others are free to take a subjective view in which there is no objective standard.

Any pragmatic view would treat euthanasia as an exercise in cost benefits.
And that is abhorrent to almost everyone including you. That is why law followed. It did not lead. And you cannot hide behind it.

I was very clear; laws come from morality; how did you miss that?

I will leave you to keep convincing yourself black is white.

If you disagree with anything I've said; point out where I went wrong line by line as I did for you. Accusing me of claiming black is white is a cop-out when you refuse to give examples

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, read about Winston Churchill, he convinced Roosevelt to get into the war in Europe because he understood Hitler and the Nazis better than anybody at the time.

ken: Churchill was trying to get Roosevelt in the war, but Roosevelt never entered the war till Japan bombed us and Hitler declared war on us.

No, we started sending help to Britain before Hitler officially declared war on us.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the Bible teaches that ALL races of humans descended from one pair of humans and ALL humans are created in the image of God and deserving of freedom and respect.

ken: Not quite; the Bible does teach all humans defended from one pair of humans, but it does not teach that ALL humans are deserving of freedom and respect.

Yes it does, it even teaches that we should love our ENEMIES and do good for them.

ken: Remember Christianity and the Bible was used to justify slavery in the USA.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it actually taught that slavery is ok. Careful analysis and interpretation of the bible says that involuntary slavery is wrong except for criminals and POWs.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Read Genesis 1. No other religion except Judaism teaches these things. Those laws went against Christian teaching irrespective if so-called Christians enacted them. Christians and Christianity produced almost everything good about Western Civilization.

ken: Not quite; Christian people acting outside of Christianity produced almost everything good and everything bad about western civilization. Remember; those Christians went out of their way to make sure the Government was secular (separation of church and state). They could have made it a Christian nation, but they knew the problems that would have resulted had they done that.

No, read the Declaration of Independence which is the philosophical foundation of the US, while not Christian it is based on Biblical theism. It says that our rights come from the "laws of nature and (laws of) Nature's God". These are two sets of laws, the first is self explanatory and the second is the moral laws of the bible. And in fact, the principle of separation of church and state is a Christian principle, but not separation of God and state.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Modern Science, modern hospitals, modern universities, modern orphanages, and etc. So yes Christianity actually has cornered the market on high morality. That does not mean individual Christians have not done bad things but that confirms Christian teaching that all humans are sinners even Christians.

ken: Again; Christianity has no part in Modern Science, Universities, etc. because the people behind those things (even though some may be Christian) purposely kept their religious beliefs out.

No, read bios of Newton, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and many other founders of modern science, the reason they got into science and believed that science was possible was because of their Christian faith. They knew that if there was a rational and intelligent creator then the universe must be intelligible and able to be studied systematically. They knew that if there was no creator then it would be chaos and not able to be studied logically and unintelligible.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, we started sending help to Britain before Hitler officially declared war on us.

Yeah we were helping our ally by sending them war materials and machines, but we didn't enter the war till Hitler declared war on us.

Yes it does, it even teaches that we should love our ENEMIES and do good for them.

Okay; which scripture says "all humans are deserving of freedom and respect?"

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it actually taught that slavery is ok. Careful analysis and interpretation of the bible says that involuntary slavery is wrong except for criminals and POWs.

Careful analysis and interpretation of the Bible also says slavery is okay as long as it leads souls destined for hellfire to Christ! At least that's the careful analysis and interpretation the Christian slave holders of that day had. It all depends on who is doing the analysis and interpretation.

No, read the Declaration of Independence which is the philosophical foundation of the US, while not Christian it is based on Biblical theism. It says that our rights come from the "laws of nature and (laws of) Nature's God". These are two sets of laws, the first is self explanatory and the second is the moral laws of the bible. And in fact, the principle of separation of church and state is a Christian principle, but not separation of God and state.

The Declaration of Independence is not a law. We're talking about laws here!

No, read bios of Newton, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and many other founders of modern science, the reason they got into science and believed that science was possible was because of their Christian faith. They knew that if there was a rational and intelligent creator then the universe must be intelligible and able to be studied systematically. They knew that if there was no creator then it would be chaos and not able to be studied logically and unintelligible.

I said MODERN science and MODERN Universities. Not science from a thousand years ago! Again; MODERN science and Universities keep religious beliefs out of the lab and class.

 

[Ed1wolf]

But there is not.

You have no evidence of the sort. All you have are a bunch of empty claims backed up by nothing outside of your word. And you have no proof that there is any merit to the claims of the Bible,

You have no proof that this Christian God that you speak of is anything more than a figment of some very wild imaginations. If you want to believe all that stuff; that’s cool but don’t expect everyone else to.

No, I have provided evidence throughout this thread multiple times for all these things. So I am not going to rehash them again.

 

[Ed1wolf]

1. Ed1wolf said: ↑
   No, we started sending help to Britain before Hitler officially declared war on us.
   
   
2. ken: Yeah we were helping our ally by sending them war materials and machines, but we didn't enter the war till Hitler declared war on us.

Helping fight evil is just as important as actually fighting evil.

1. Ed1wolf said: ↑
   Yes it does, it even teaches that we should love our ENEMIES and do good for them.
   
   
   [*]ken: Okay; which scripture says "all humans are deserving of freedom and respect?"

   Loving people IS treating them as deserving freedom and respect. In addition, since humans are images of God then they deserve to be treated with freedom and respect.
   
2. 
   
   

3. Ed1wolf said: ↑
   Yes, but that doesn't mean that it actually taught that slavery is ok. Careful analysis and interpretation of the bible says that involuntary slavery is wrong except for criminals and POWs.
   
   
   [*]ken: Careful analysis and interpretation of the Bible also says slavery is okay as long as it leads souls destined for hellfire to Christ! At least that's the careful analysis and interpretation the Christian slave holders of that day had. It all depends on who is doing the analysis and interpretation.

   No it can be proven that the Bible says no such thing.

1. Ed1wolf said: ↑
   No, read the Declaration of Independence which is the philosophical foundation of the US, while not Christian it is based on Biblical theism. It says that our rights come from the "laws of nature and (laws of) Nature's God". These are two sets of laws, the first is self explanatory and the second is the moral laws of the bible. And in fact, the principle of separation of church and state is a Christian principle, but not separation of God and state.
   
   [*]ken: The Declaration of Independence is not a law. We're talking about laws here!

   Actually it is listed in the American legal code of laws and all of our laws are based on it.
   

2. Ed1wolf said: ↑
   No, read bios of Newton, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and many other founders of modern science, the reason they got into science and believed that science was possible was because of their Christian faith. They knew that if there was a rational and intelligent creator then the universe must be intelligible and able to be studied systematically. They knew that if there was no creator then it would be chaos and not able to be studied logically and unintelligible.
   [*]
   ken: I said MODERN science and MODERN Universities. Not science from a thousand years ago! Again; MODERN science and Universities keep religious beliefs out of the lab and class.

3. Uhh these Christian men and many others founded modern science and universities 400 years ago, not thousands of years ago. Only very recently about 75-100 years ago did they start excluding God from science. Which in fact makes rational science impossible as I explained above.

 

[Ken-1122]

Helping fight evil is just as important as actually fighting evil.

The US didn’t fight evil, they fought the Germany and Japan. Though a case can be made that some of the behaviors of the Germans and Japanese were evil, they weren’t the only evil going on; there was lots of other evil going on (many evil acts committed by the US) that we chose to overlook.

Loving people IS treating them as deserving freedom and respect. In addition, since humans are images of God then they deserve to be treated with freedom and respect.

No its not. Loving people means one thing; that you love them. It doesn’t mean you respect them, it doesn’t mean you treat the as your equal, it doesn’t mean you believe they deserve freedom and respect or anything else; it just means you love them.

No it can be proven that the Bible says no such thing.

The bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong either.

Actually it is listed in the American legal code of laws and all of our laws are based on it.

Absurd! The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal; then they pass laws enforcing slavery because they felt all men were not created equal.

Uhh these Christian men and many others founded modern science and universities 400 years ago, not thousands of years ago.

Science of 400 years ago is not modern science; thats more like ancient science.

Only very recently about 75-100 years ago did they start excluding God from science. Which in fact makes rational science impossible as I explained above.

Are you kidding me? Galileo received backlash even to the point of being excommunicated because his scientific discovery conflicted with religious doctrine. He had the audacity to claim the Earth circles the Sun rather than the other way around which is what religion wanted to believe.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia

Eventually Galileo was forced to lie and recant his discovery due to religious pressure and claim that the Sun rotated around the Earth just to appease religious ignorance. Eventually the truth became too apparent and religion was forced to admit the truth that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but originally they did not.
Do you think it is a coincidence that right about the time religion got out of the way, science advanced by leaps and bounds?
We are much better off today with religion out of the way allowing scientists to do what they do best with no interference by religious ignorance.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, you are confusing scientific THEORIES and scientific FACTS. The scientific theories generally deal with events in the past that can not be empirically observed, the law of gravity is a scientific fact whose effects can be empirically observed and real time experiments can be conducted to test it. This cannot be done with theories of science such as evolution. It cannot be empirically observed. A theory that cannot be falsified is a sign that the theory is not a scientific one.

ken: Scientific theories explain scientific laws. Gravity is both a scientific law, and a scientific theory.

Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

Yes, sometimes that is true, the law of gravity is a law of physics. The law of gravity can be repeatedly experimented over and over again because it is still occurring that is why it is a law. The theory aspect only applies to what gravity IS, because it has not been discovered exactly what it is. Most theories try to explain things that have only occurred in the past and cannot be experimentally repeated. This is what evolution and the Big Bang theories are. They are not facts or laws just theories. But the evidence for the BB is much stronger because we can see it occurring in real time due to the ability of seeing into the past in real time because of the long delay of ancient light. Evolution is much more theoretical because it cannot be empirically observed in real time. And the BB theory can be falsified such as if it is discovered that space and time existed before the BB, that would disprove it as being the beginning of everything. And would show that the universe may be eternal. But the theory of evolution can not be falsified making it unscientific.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You are kidding me! He is probably the most famous atheist in the world and you have never heard of him?

ken: The most famous atheist in the world? I doubt it. One of my favorite comedians George Carlin is an atheist; I’ll bet cha he is more famous than Richard Dawkins.

Umm I am referring to most people living today. Carlin was a comedian from the 60's thru 80's. Very few people under age 40 knows who he is. I guarantee many more college educated people under 40 have heard of Dawkins especially people with science degrees. I have a hunch you must be over 40.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It has to be for the Pope to believe in it, because he believes in the uniqueness of humans and in order to ensure evolution produced humans it would have to be directed otherwise there was a chance that humans would not have been produced.

ken: My point is; to believe in Evolution does not mean you can’t believe in God.

I never said that. But Dawkins and many other atheists have said that.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nothing resides in nothing. Matter and energy resides in Space.

ken: Okay; just for the record; I use nothing and space interchangeably. IOW nothing/space is what exists between object (A) and object (B)

But scientifically and philosophically they cannot be used interchangeably, they are two very different things, in fact they are polar opposites. Nothing is nothing, space is something. Nothing is not something.

 

[Ken-1122]

Evolution is much more theoretical because it cannot be empirically observed in real time.

Actually much of evolution can be observed in real time, especially with germs, bacteria, and insects.

And the BB theory can be falsified such as if it is discovered that space and time existed before the BB, that would disprove it as being the beginning of everything.

The Big Bang was never seen as the beginning of everything; the Singularity was before the Big Bang.

And would show that the universe may be eternal.

No; it just shows there was something before the Big Bang

But the theory of evolution can not be falsified making it unscientific.

What do you mean by that? Can the theory of Gravity be falsified?

Umm I am referring to most people living today. Carlin was a comedian from the 60's thru 80's. Very few people under age 40 knows who he is. I guarantee many more college educated people under 40 have heard of Dawkins especially people with science degrees. I have a hunch you must be over 40.

I just used Carlin as an example; there are countless celebrities who are Atheist who are far more known than this Dawkins guy, a simple google search proves my point.

I never said that. But Dawkins and many other atheists have said that.

Oh so because he says it, that makes it so?

But scientifically and philosophically they cannot be used interchangeably, they are two very different things, in fact they are polar opposites. Nothing is nothing, space is something. Nothing is not something.

So what ingredients are necessary in order for there to be “space”?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But Dawkins and many other atheists have said that.

Please provide a citation that Dawkins has said this or retract.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Morality can not be discovered using logic, because we are morally flawed beings and in many cases wouldn't recognize it if we saw it. It had to be revealed by an objectively moral perfect being. But the objective existence of God can be discovered by logic.

ken: If you are flawed, how do you recognize perfection when you see it?

While we cant achieve it, we are designed to recognize moral perfection. That is why we are always striving for a better world.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I said if God doesn't exist then no one's life has real objective meaning. You can have made up pretend meaning but not real meaning if He doesn't exist.

ken: Meaning is subjective; IOW something could be worthless to you but meaningful and valuable to me. So if something is valuable and meaningful to me, it doesn’t matter if you find it worthless, it doesn’t matter if your God finds it worthless; because I value it; by definition it has value.

Only made up fictional value. But God has created real objective value of certain things such as human beings.

 

[Ken-1122]

While we cant achieve it, we are designed to recognize moral perfection. That is why we are always striving for a better world.

If perfection were objective, and we were designed to recognize this objective perfection, we would agree on perfection when we see it. This isn't the case thus your argument fails

Only made up fictional value. But God has created real objective value of certain things such as human beings.

There is no such thing as fictional value; it either has value or it doesnt. Again; your argument fails.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Exactly our moral conscience has us behaving as if there really IS a morality, not a made up subjective one. Yes, the behavior MAY be the same though if it is subjective then many people will eventually ignore it since it is not real. Just like a child that learns there is no Santa stops talking about him and worrying about him.

ken: You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that something is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong,” or that it is somehow less wrong because it's not objective.

Most people want to live according to what is real/objective, so if they learn or are taught that something that they are living by is made up/subjective, they generally reject it. That is why subjective morality is a slippery slope toward moral anarchy.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No there is no verse that can be understood that rape is good. And there are multiple verses that can be interpreted that rape is very wrong. There is a verse that says that men should treat women as their sister, would you rape your sister?

ken: Both Numbers 31:18 and Deuteronomy 20:14 can both be interpreted that rape is good

No, read Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The man is not allowed to have sex with a captive woman until after a month test of compatibility, then if they are not compatible she is freed. No rape there.

 

[quatona]

Only made up fictional value. But God has created real objective value of certain things such as human beings.

I take a value created/by real humans (and especially by me) over a value allgedely "made up" by a God whose existence hasn´t even been established, any day.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most people want to live according to what is real/objective, so if they learn or are taught that something that they are living by is made up/subjective, they generally reject it. That is why subjective morality is a slippery slope toward moral anarchy.

No; people want to live their lives according to what is right. Whether it is subjective or objective doesn’t even come into the picture. The only time the objective/subjective issue is discussed is on discussion boards like this one where some people try to insert morals of a higher authority into the conversation and call it objective. In the real world, nobody decides if “x” is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong before deciding whether they should do it or not.

No, read Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The man is not allowed to have sex with a captive woman until after a month test of compatibility, then if they are not compatible she is freed. No rape there.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives evil men permission to kidnap women, take them to his house, but instructs the kidnapper to wait a full month before raping her. If he decides he doesn’t want her anymore, he can get rid of her, but if he still wants her, he can force her to be his wife.
This is rape, this is evil, and this is wrong! Only a monster would call this good.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I probably should have included verse 26. Read it again, He says that only if His "ordinances of heaven and earth" IOW, the laws of nature or physics, stopped working or He ended His covenant with them, only then would He abandon Israel. And of course, He would never break His covenant with HIs own laws or ordinances so that they will never be ended until heaven and earth, ie the universe, is destroyed in the last days.

ken: Still; nowhere in the Bible does it speak of the “Natural law of the Universe”. Admit it; that’s just some stuff you made up!

I just proved it! The term "ordinances" means laws and the Hebrew translated "Heaven and earth" means Universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We were talking about if they had not fallen into sin. They would have had to wear clothes when they left the climate controlled garden, but would remove them when they came back. But since they did rebel there were never let back into the garden and it was probably later destroyed by the flood.

ken: Again; just more stuff you makin’ up. None of this stuff is supported buy your bible is it!

Yes, it is by implication.

 

[Ken-1122]

I just proved it! The term "ordinances" means laws and the Hebrew translated "Heaven and earth" means Universe.

Okay; on post #1271 you said God had to make the Universe hostile to human life in order for it to be a natural law Universe that could support human life. The problem is, this (as you call it) Natural law Universe does not support human life. So let me ask you again; if God intended us to colonize other planets, (which is what you are claiming) why did he make the Universe a natural law Universe that is hostile to human life

Yes, it is by implication.

Does the bible also imply they eventually would have left the Garden had they never sinned?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, we started sending help to Britain before Hitler officially declared war on us.

ken: Yeah we were helping our ally by sending them war materials and machines, but we didn't enter the war till Hitler declared war on us.

As I said, helping fight evil is just as good as fighting it directly.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes it does, it even teaches that we should love our ENEMIES and do good for them.

ken: Okay; which scripture says "all humans are deserving of freedom and respect?"

Besides the teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore should be treated as His representative by treating them with freedom and respect. There is also the teaching of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Wouldn't you want to be treated with freedom and respect?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it actually taught that slavery is ok. Careful analysis and interpretation of the bible says that involuntary slavery is wrong except for criminals and POWs.

ken: Careful analysis and interpretation of the Bible also says slavery is okay as long as it leads souls destined for hellfire to Christ! At least that's the careful analysis and interpretation the Christian slave holders of that day had. It all depends on who is doing the analysis and interpretation.

Not if they can be proven wrong, and they have been. Nowhere in the bible does it teach the ends justifies the means.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, read the Declaration of Independence which is the philosophical foundation of the US, while not Christian it is based on Biblical theism. It says that our rights come from the "laws of nature and (laws of) Nature's God". These are two sets of laws, the first is self explanatory and the second is the moral laws of the bible. And in fact, the principle of separation of church and state is a Christian principle, but not separation of God and state.

ken: The Declaration of Independence is not a law. We're talking about laws here!

Actually it is listed in the Federal Code of Laws (look it up), but it is definitely the philosophical foundation of our laws and provides the origin of our rights. Without it, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution have no justification.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, read bios of Newton, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and many other founders of modern science, the reason they got into science and believed that science was possible was because of their Christian faith. They knew that if there was a rational and intelligent creator then the universe must be intelligible and able to be studied systematically. They knew that if there was no creator then it would be chaos and not able to be studied logically and unintelligible.

ken: I said MODERN science and MODERN Universities. Not science from a thousand years ago! Again; MODERN science and Universities keep religious beliefs out of the lab and class.

Read any good history of science, those men and others like them INVENTED modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries. That is when it became a systematic ongoing and self correcting study of nature, IOW MODERN SCIENCE.

 

[Ken-1122]

As I said, helping fight evil is just as good as fighting it directly.

No it was not. It wasn’t till the US entered the war sending troops to fight right along with the British (along with sending them weapons) did they start to win. When Britain was fighting alone, they were losing; proving sending troops along with weapons was far more effective than just sending weapons.

Besides the teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore should be treated as His representative by treating them with freedom and respect. There is also the teaching of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When the Christians were taking black people from Africa to be used as slaves, they weren’t teaching that. Again; which scripture says all humans are deserving of freedom and respect?

Not if they can be proven wrong, and they have been. Nowhere in the bible does it teach the ends justifies the means.

They were never proven wrong to their satisfaction. And slavery was never about the ends justifies the means.

Actually it is listed in the Federal Code of Laws (look it up), but it is definitely the philosophical foundation of our laws and provides the origin of our rights. Without it, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution have no justification.

Just because it’s listed in the Federal Code of Laws doesn’t mean it is a law! The Declaration of Independence was a declaration to a King in a foreign land; not to the people in the yet to be formed United States!

Read any good history of science, those men and others like them INVENTED modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries. That is when it became a systematic ongoing and self correcting study of nature, IOW MODERN SCIENCE.

Yeah; but when scientific research contradicted religious agenda, (as Galileo found out when he had the audacity to claim the Earth circled the Sun) scientific research was forced to concede, because religious agenda was far more important than the truth in those days. Today with religion on the back burner, the truth is more important than religious agenda; and we are much better off for it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Helping fight evil is just as important as actually fighting evil.

ken: The US didn’t fight evil, they fought the Germany and Japan. Though a case can be made that some of the behaviors of the Germans and Japanese were evil, they weren’t the only evil going on; there was lots of other evil going on (many evil acts committed by the US) that we chose to overlook.

What behaviors by the Nazis and the Japanese were not evil? Yes, there is always some evil going on the earth. What are the many evil acts committed by the US during WWII?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Loving people IS treating them as deserving freedom and respect. In addition, since humans are images of God then they deserve to be treated with freedom and respect.

ken: No its not. Loving people means one thing; that you love them. It doesn’t mean you respect them, it doesn’t mean you treat the as your equal, it doesn’t mean you believe they deserve freedom and respect or anything else; it just means you love them.

So if you locked your wife in the basement and fed her dog food and raped her every night, you think she would still think you loved her?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No it can be proven that the Bible says no such thing.

ken: The bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong either.

Yes, it does, read Jeremiah 22:13 among others.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually it is listed in the American legal code of laws and all of our laws are based on it.

ken: Absurd! The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal; then they pass laws enforcing slavery because they felt all men were not created equal.

I didn't say that all Americans have always followed our ideals, but they are Christian principles and we have been striving to follow them ever since. Remember we are all sinners so we dont always follow God's laws. But this principle is what later motivated Christian abolitionists to end slavery.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Uhh these Christian men and many others founded modern science and universities 400 years ago, not thousands of years ago.

ken: Science of 400 years ago is not modern science; thats more like ancient science.

No, it was modern science, ie the ongoing systematic self correcting study of nature. This is what these Christian men started.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only very recently about 75-100 years ago did they start excluding God from science. Which in fact makes rational science impossible as I explained above.

ken: Are you kidding me? Galileo received backlash even to the point of being excommunicated because his scientific discovery conflicted with religious doctrine. He had the audacity to claim the Earth circles the Sun rather than the other way around which is what religion wanted to believe.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia

Eventually Galileo was forced to lie and recant his discovery due to religious pressure and claim that the Sun rotated around the Earth just to appease religious ignorance. Eventually the truth became too apparent and religion was forced to admit the truth that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but originally they did not.

No, the church leadership at the time had started placing the teachings of Aristotle above the Bible, Aristotle taught that the earth is the center of the universe, the Bible does not teach this. So nothing Galileo discovered conflicted with Christian teaching. Galileo was in fact a devout Christian who believed the bible was without error.

ken: Do you think it is a coincidence that right about the time religion got out of the way, science advanced by leaps and bounds?
We are much better off today with religion out of the way allowing scientists to do what they do best with no interference by religious ignorance.

No, modern science was invented right after the Reformation because all people began to have access to the bible and God's Word inspired men to study nature to learn more about God, as the Bible says "the heavens declare the Glory of God." And no we are not better off, leaving God out of science because without Him we dont have a rational basis for science as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.