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.
That seems a bit silly. Why judge whole nations? I notice you avoided my questions regarding the children. Why is that?
As I said before, we are all sinners and under condemnation in the absence of Christ's atoning death on the cross for our sins.
Are you passing judgement on God, your creator?
I am so delighted you asked!
PhilPapers survey, 2009, under the heading 'Meta-ethics'
One study found that most philosophers today accept or lean towards moral realism, as do most meta-ethicists, and twice as many philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism as accept or lean towards moral anti-realism.[2] Some examples of robust moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton,[3] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[4] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[5] Russ Shafer-Landau,[6] G.E. Moore,[7] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[8] Thomas Nagel, and Plato. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[9]*wikipedia*
You still haven't answered my questions. Why would a just God judge nations and not individuals? Why would God use one nation to destroy another? And what could possibly justify the killing of children?
No, I am exploring the perplexing character of the God you believe in. A God who apparently has no qualms about commanding the killing of children.
I responded to your question, you just refuse to accept it.
Again, what is your moral basis for judging your creator? Unless you can establish the existence of an objective, absolute moral standard by which you can judge God, this discussion is pointless.
Well no, you just waved my question away by saying that we are all sinners. Even if that is true, why would it justify the killing of children? Or the judgment of nations?
By what "objective, absolute moral standard" is it ever good to slaughter innocent children?
1. I do not know of any Christians who are killing Amalekites
2. I do not know of any Christians who are killing mediums, and psychics, and idol worshippers.
3. I do not know of any Christians who are killing pagan priests.
Do you know of any? If so, call the local police and report them. These people are obviously sociopathic.
By your last statement it is apparent that you accept that there are absolute moral laws. Absolute moral laws require absolute moral law givers. The absolute moral law giver laid out the law that the penalty for sin is death. The Bible teaches that there is none righteous and that all have sinned. God would be justified in judging the entire world without exception. It is fortunate for us that God is not only a righteous and just God, but also a loving and merciful God who gave His only begotten son on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. How will you respond?
God also judged Israel, so yes he does judge nations. I believe the USA is in the warning stages of God's judgement right now. If we don't repent as a nation and return to God, we are not any more immune to His judgement than the nation of Israel was.
As I said before, we are all sinners and under condemnation in the absence of Christ's atoning death on the cross for our sins. Are you passing judgement on God, your creator? If so, on what absolute, objective moral standard or law do you base your judgement?
By your last statement it is apparent that you accept that there are absolute moral laws. Absolute moral laws require absolute moral law givers. The absolute moral law giver laid out the law that the penalty for sin is death. The Bible teaches that there is none righteous and that all have sinned. God would be justified in judging the entire world without exception. It is fortunate for us that God is not only a righteous and just God, but also a loving and merciful God who gave His only begotten son on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. How will you respond?
Of course we can. I agree with every bit of what you say.
Ahh, this is where the confusion lies Dave. And I have seen others make this same error.
You are taking the terms objective and subjective and and using them in an epistemological sense instead of an ontological sense. This is the confusion and conflation and it is an accidental confusion due to a lack of understanding between the fundamental differences between moral ontology and moral epistemology.
Moral ontology deals with whether or not values and duties EXIST.
Moral epistemology deals with how we come to KNOW or APPREHEND moral values.
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
So Dave, when you say: "There's nothing objective at all with that, that conclusion is reached through purely subjective means." You are speaking of how you KNOW what is right and what is wrong and I definitely agree with everything you said. We use our moral intuition or conscience, reason, logic and rational capacities to know or apprehend that genocide is wrong. This is something we agree on. In fact, that is how everyone knows anything! We use our own minds to rationally produce thoughts about this or that. In this sense our apprehension or understanding of (X) or (y) is owed to our reasoning process. They are our own in that we produce them.
But Dave, when I say that objective moral values and duties EXIST, I am talking about their existence, NOT how we come to KNOW them. Here the issue is ONTOLOGY.
What you have done is spoken epistemologically and sought to argue against ontology.
I will give you an example of why you cannot do this:
Lets say you are given a sheet of paper and are told to solve the math equation 2+2=? which is written on the paper. How do you do this? You use your mind, and reasoning processes to mentally calculate and come to the conclusion that the answer is 4. This conclusion of yours was reached through purely subjective means i.e. your brain, but the answer "4" is true objectively. Just because your subjective reasoning process leads you to the conclusion that "4" is the right answer, does not mean that the answer to the equation is NOT OBJECTIVE. The answer to the equation is true INDEPENDENTLY of your reasoning process or how you come to know 2+2=4. You subjectively (epistemologically) come to the conclustion that objectively (ontologically) the answer is 4.
I can see a baby being tortured and my subjective reasoning processes tell me (epistemologically) that the torture of that baby is wrong (objectively) because it is a moral fact (ontologically speaking) that torturing babies is wrong.
All opinions are reached through subjective means. This is indisputable. How else would we reach conclusions and form opinions if not with our own minds?
I also agree that just because a belief is shared by many, that does not make it objective. In fact, for something to be objective means that it is true independently of people's beliefs. For example, just because a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, does not mean it was really flat. The shape of the earth ( a fact ) is independent of people's beliefs.
In the same way, moral objectivists say that rape is wrong (a moral fact) independent of people's beliefs.
I do not think you actually believe this.
For example, in order to know that rape is wrong independently of people's opinions, you do not have to be shown that or have that proven to you. Our moral intuition or conscience tells us that rape is wrong independent of people's opinions.
If not, then a person is morally impaired, not unlike a blind person is visually impaired.
I'd have no problems passing judgement on God... if he exists, and he's clearly done an immoral act, he ought to be called out on it.
How moral is it creating people sick, then commanding them to be well? How moral is it to order genocide on an entire nation, including innocent children? The whole doctrine is morally bankrupt.
What do you mean "return" to God? The USA was founded constitutionally secular. It rejected the national worship of one particular god right from it's founding.
In fact, every attempt to include God in the constitution was defeated by vote.
You have every right to your opinion. Unfortunately, as an atheist, you have no basis for making moral judgements of anyone or any act.
In the absence of an absolute moral law giver there can be no absolute moral law, and morality is reduced to nothing more than personal opinion. What is good for you may not be good for me. It all becomes relative, a matter of personal preference.
His last statement says nothing of the sort, he was asking you a question in regards to an absolute moral law.
Asking a question about something you propose, does not mean he accepts that your proposal is true, or valid.
And how merciful is a God who would send his son as a human blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people he created to be sinful? Do you not see how utterly sick and perverted that notion is?
You have every right to your opinion. Unfortunately, as an atheist, you have no basis for making moral judgements of anyone or any act.
In the absence of an absolute moral law giver there can be no absolute moral law, and morality is reduced to nothing more than personal opinion. What is good for you may not be good for me. It all becomes relative, a matter of personal preference.
Where do your inalienable rights come from?
What year was the constitution signed?
The statement "when is it ever" makes it clear that he accepts that there are moral absolutes.
He did not create people to be sinful. We chose the sin.
The statement "when is it ever" makes it clear that he accepts that there are moral absolutes.
He did not create people to be sinful. We chose the sin.
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?