Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians, how do you know right from wrong?

bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:07:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2016 5:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:10:02 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:18:42 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
It is true that, at times in the past, God called for total war against specific cities, groups, and states as judgement for the evils they had perpetrated
Provide evidence of these alleged evils, the bible isn't evidence it's the claim.

No the Bible is the evidence. It's accuracy is the proof, deny it as you do, ti is accurate and it is true.

I asked for evidence of the claims, not your waffle.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:29:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2016 4:07:46 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/31/2016 5:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:10:02 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:18:42 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
It is true that, at times in the past, God called for total war against specific cities, groups, and states as judgement for the evils they had perpetrated
Provide evidence of these alleged evils, the bible isn't evidence it's the claim.

No the Bible is the evidence. It's accuracy is the proof, deny it as you do, ti is accurate and it is true.

I asked for evidence of the claims, not your waffle.

And you got the evidence.

I think I am going to start ignoring you, again, you are getting pathetic again.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2016 4:04:26 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/31/2016 7:03:11 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 6:45:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:24:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/26/2016 10:39:21 PM, janesix wrote:
Do you consult your Bible when you need to make a moral decision?

What if the Bible conflicts with your conscience?

Then you train your conscience to fit what the Bible says.

Man, these are the kinds of responses that scare the sh!t out of me.

Evidently, but they shouldn't because mankind was created with the capacity to, ad responsibility for doing just that.

Are you really that afraid of taking responsibility for your own thoughts and actions?

Says the guy who relies on a bronze age book to get his Morales from.......

The age of the book is irrelevant, true morality has never changed, only people's acceptance of it has.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:05:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2016 11:35:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:37 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/31/2016 7:03:11 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 6:45:44 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:24:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/26/2016 10:39:21 PM, janesix wrote:
Do you consult your Bible when you need to make a moral decision?

What if the Bible conflicts with your conscience?

Then you train your conscience to fit what the Bible says.

Man, these are the kinds of responses that scare the sh!t out of me.

Evidently, but they shouldn't because mankind was created with the capacity to, ad responsibility for doing just that.

Are you really that afraid of taking responsibility for your own thoughts and actions?

I'm afraid of people like you who will cede their ability to reason about morality to an ancient book. I have no problem taking responsibility for my thoughts and actions. What you're talking about is the opposite. You're forfeiting your ability to determine right from wrong, so you can just blame the book if someone has a problem with what you do.

No I am not, because I accept that Jehovah knows more about what s right and wrong and am happy to take responsibility for how well I follow that.

And if your interpretation of Jehovah's morality is at odds with how the rest of humanity sees things, you can take the easy route and point to the book rather than having to do the hard work of really thinking about your actions.

How did you determine that Jehovah is a moral being?

Satan tempted Eve with exactly what you claim for yourselves and look at the mess that got us into when she went for it like you.

This means about as much to me as if you cited Star Wars to support your argument. Do you want to try referencing something that we can both agree happened?
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 10:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2016 2:33:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 8:59:46 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 5/29/2016 7:29:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:18:42 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
It is true that, at times in the past, God called for total war against specific cities, groups, and states as judgement for the evils they had perpetrated. But these calls to war had a set limit; they were enacted only against specific targets, and the call ended when the target was destroyed. As such, the Bible does not call those of us alive today to engage in any such actions. All such wars ended more than two thousand years ago. God alone would be able to call us to such action again, and Christ, who is God, has made it clear that he will not; and no such call to action is given in the teachings of Christ or the writings of the Apostles.

As to your accusation that rape is condoned by Scripture, I challenge you to find an instance where that is true. Forcing oneself upon another sexually is never an action approved of in any form that I have found in over 12 years of study in the Scripture, and I am constantly baffled by people who think it is. Perhaps, if you could find such an instance, I'd gladly take a critical look at it.

Fair enough.

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Clarification: Is this a supposed example of rape, or are you trying to challenge something else, unrelated to how Christians know what is right and wrong? Because, of the examples you've given, neither is substantive in the former case. Capture is, after all, not rape; not even implicitly. And in the latter case, I have quite succinctly answered the question posed by this thread already, and I don't see how this changes the answer I gave.

I never used the word rape. It is interesting that you assumed a story of men kidnapping virgins would contain rape yet you felt it necessary to mention they might not have been raped. There is a reason that we assume when men only spare the women and kidnap them they also rape them.

Can you name one prominent historian that says a civilization kidnapped women in war and didn't rape them as a practice?

What makes you think they would be morally opposed to rape when they killed all the small boys, the elderly and the sick?

Can you finish the following sentence?:

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap the virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.

Except when God Almighty is using your nation as His tool of Divine Justice, which I will reiterate, as it's a point so often lost in these conversations, that God has not used such direct means in over two-thousand years, over three thousand by some counts. And as many times as God commanded his people to wage war, he also permitted them to be defeated in war for their own sin and hubris. The entire book of Judges is a record of the cycle of God choosing a leader who leads God's people to victory against their oppressors, the people then screwing it all up, and God allowing them to be defeated and subjugated again as punishment.

The core thing to keep in mind about God's morality and justice, as far as we can understand it, is that all sins, no matter how minor in our eyes, merit death as a penalty. The Bible is explicitly clear in both testaments on this point. Any other punishment is a mercy He extends. With that in mind, total war is an unsurprising method of punishment. It brings the death His justice demands. Further delving into this matter would require exhaustive explanation of the theological underpinnings of what sin is and why death is the required punishment, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

For now, it is sufficient to understand that God views all sins as transgressions meriting death. In this light, it should be more strange to you that Christians are explicitly commanded not to wage holy war on others, rather than be surprised at the deaths God demanded in the past. Our last command from God was "Go, therefore, and teach all nations", not "conquer all nations" or "convert all nations". The Apostle Paul echoes this when he says "So far as it depends upon you, leave peaceably with all". While sin still demands death as a penalty, it is not our place, as Christians, to decide how and when that penalty should be paid. To do so is to place ourselves in God's judgement seat, which is itself a sin of hubris and blasphemy.

All in all, the Atheist/Agnostic fascination with bringing up examples of God's past acts of judgement tends to overshadow 4 important facts. 1) The fact that they occurred under His direct orders against specific targets towards a specific purpose, not as general calls-to-action for all Believers past, present, and future. 2) That he just as often allowed death to come to his own followers in fashions only marginally less violent, often coupled with decades of servitude to the conquering nation. His justice still demanded death, even from his own followers. 3) That Christ, who is God, never orders His followers to take up arms for anything more than self-defense. 4) That from the first century onward, His followers have never had any grounds to call any war a Holy one, no matter what the pontiffs of the time may have said. Deus Non Vult, as the Latin would go.

So, quite frankly, this fear of Christian morality is irrational. We are no more likely to go on a murdering spree than an Atheist. Our God will not 'wake up' tomorrow and just decide to send a band of Christians to your house to kill you and steal your hypothetical daughter. Anyone who comes to you and tells you otherwise is a lunatic, a liar, or has such a warped understanding of Scripture as to not be Christian in the slightest. That we derive our moral compass from Scripture should be of no true concern, because the same Scripture that records God using one nation to punish another with total war also records Him saying we should strive to be good citizens of our respective nations, and to live peaceably with our neighbors, and to trust God to take vengeance on our behalf and not enact it ourselves, and to teach rather than coerce. All in all, you can take or leave the Christian Faith, but it doesn't make our moral choices any less sound than yours.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 2:04:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2016 10:31:58 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:33:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:


What makes you think they would be morally opposed to rape when they killed all the small boys, the elderly and the sick?

Can you finish the following sentence?:

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap the virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.

Except when God Almighty is using your nation as His tool of Divine Justice, which I will reiterate, as it's a point so often lost in these conversations, that God has not used such direct means in over two-thousand years, over three thousand by some counts. And as many times as God commanded his people to wage war, he also permitted them to be defeated in war for their own sin and hubris. The entire book of Judges is a record of the cycle of God choosing a leader who leads God's people to victory against their oppressors, the people then screwing it all up, and God allowing them to be defeated and subjugated again as punishment.

The core thing to keep in mind about God's morality and justice, as far as we can understand it, is that all sins, no matter how minor in our eyes, merit death as a penalty. The Bible is explicitly clear in both testaments on this point. Any other punishment is a mercy He extends. With that in mind, total war is an unsurprising method of punishment. It brings the death His justice demands. Further delving into this matter would require exhaustive explanation of the theological underpinnings of what sin is and why death is the required punishment, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

For now, it is sufficient to understand that God views all sins as transgressions meriting death. In this light, it should be more strange to you that Christians are explicitly commanded not to wage holy war on others, rather than be surprised at the deaths God demanded in the past. Our last command from God was "Go, therefore, and teach all nations", not "conquer all nations" or "convert all nations". The Apostle Paul echoes this when he says "So far as it depends upon you, leave peaceably with all". While sin still demands death as a penalty, it is not our place, as Christians, to decide how and when that penalty should be paid. To do so is to place ourselves in God's judgement seat, which is itself a sin of hubris and blasphemy.

All in all, the Atheist/Agnostic fascination with bringing up examples of God's past acts of judgement tends to overshadow 4 important facts. 1) The fact that they occurred under His direct orders against specific targets towards a specific purpose, not as general calls-to-action for all Believers past, present, and future. 2) That he just as often allowed death to come to his own followers in fashions only marginally less violent, often coupled with decades of servitude to the conquering nation. His justice still demanded death, even from his own followers. 3) That Christ, who is God, never orders His followers to take up arms for anything more than self-defense. 4) That from the first century onward, His followers have never had any grounds to call any war a Holy one, no matter what the pontiffs of the time may have said. Deus Non Vult, as the Latin would go.

So, quite frankly, this fear of Christian morality is irrational. We are no more likely to go on a murdering spree than an Atheist. Our God will not 'wake up' tomorrow and just decide to send a band of Christians to your house to kill you and steal your hypothetical daughter. Anyone who comes to you and tells you otherwise is a lunatic, a liar, or has such a warped understanding of Scripture as to not be Christian in the slightest. That we derive our moral compass from Scripture should be of no true concern, because the same Scripture that records God using one nation to punish another with total war also records Him saying we should strive to be good citizens of our respective nations, and to live peaceably with our neighbors, and to trust God to take vengeance on our behalf and not enact it ourselves, and to teach rather than coerce. All in all, you can take or leave the Christian Faith, but it doesn't make our moral choices any less sound than yours.

You derive your moral compass from the scriptures and yet the scriptures show clearly that god's prophet told his men to kill babies, young boys, elderly, sick, etc but keep the young virgins alive for their own use.

On the moral issue of soldiers killing innocent civilians and raping their young daughters, how do you know what is right or wrong?

You said a lot but I don't know if the scriptures are clear as to when you cannot do it since it explicitly says that there are situations when it is encouraged. Please finish the following sentence so we can all know when those acts are wrong. If you need ideas, you can say that it was moral prior to Jesus' death, if you are a holy Jew, etc. Feel free to be as detailed as you feel necessary.

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 2:04:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:

You derive your moral compass from the scriptures and yet the scriptures show clearly that god's prophet told his men to kill babies, young boys, elderly, sick, etc but keep the young virgins alive for their own use.

On the moral issue of soldiers killing innocent civilians and raping their young daughters, how do you know what is right or wrong?

You said a lot but I don't know if the scriptures are clear as to when you cannot do it since it explicitly says that there are situations when it is encouraged. Please finish the following sentence so we can all know when those acts are wrong. If you need ideas, you can say that it was moral prior to Jesus' death, if you are a holy Jew, etc. Feel free to be as detailed as you feel necessary.

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.

I answered that in the first sentence of my last response. In fact, my entire last response was an in-depth explanation of this exact principle, so either you're intentionally forcing me to repeat myself, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. So for your sake, and mine, I'll summarize again, bullet-point style so you can't miss anything this time.

-God considers every sin, no matter how minor, a transgression worthy of death
-At times in the past, he has used nations as tools to execute his justice on other nations with total war and annihilation.
-All such acts were ordered by him against specific kingdoms and kings, not against nebulous concepts like 'unbelievers'.
-All such acts therefore have no bearing on our modern morality, since those wars ended thousands of years ago, the kings and kingdoms long since dead and buried.
-Christ, who is God, died to offer an escape from the death God's justice requires.
-Christ, who is God, never ordered his followers to war, and only told them to take up arms to defend themselves.
-Christ, who is God, ordered his followers to teach, not to coerce or conquer.
-Christ, who is God, taught good citizenship and to live peaceably with neighbors.
-Since the First Century AD, no Christian has ever had the grounds to enact holy war or militarize in any form, despite what pontiffs of the day may have said.

So...

Whereas all examples of Holy War in the Bible were against particular targets now long dead, and
Whereas all such wars required direct orders from God himself, and
Whereas Christ is God, and so his orders and equal to Gods, and
Whereas Christ has ordered Christians to peaceful coexistence and obedience to civil law, be it

Resolved that no Christian at any point in the last 2000+ years has been justified in declaring holy war or committing murder/kidnapping/other war crimes in the course of a military campaign, and be it
Resolved that no Christian may ignore the laws governing combat and rules of engagement, to include the prohibitions against wanton slaughter of non-combatants and the kidnapping of local children.

That clear enough for you now?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 3:46:34 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:04:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:

You derive your moral compass from the scriptures and yet the scriptures show clearly that god's prophet told his men to kill babies, young boys, elderly, sick, etc but keep the young virgins alive for their own use.

On the moral issue of soldiers killing innocent civilians and raping their young daughters, how do you know what is right or wrong?

You said a lot but I don't know if the scriptures are clear as to when you cannot do it since it explicitly says that there are situations when it is encouraged. Please finish the following sentence so we can all know when those acts are wrong. If you need ideas, you can say that it was moral prior to Jesus' death, if you are a holy Jew, etc. Feel free to be as detailed as you feel necessary.

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.

I answered that in the first sentence of my last response. In fact, my entire last response was an in-depth explanation of this exact principle, so either you're intentionally forcing me to repeat myself, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. So for your sake, and mine, I'll summarize again, bullet-point style so you can't miss anything this time.

-God considers every sin, no matter how minor, a transgression worthy of death
-At times in the past, he has used nations as tools to execute his justice on other nations with total war and annihilation.
-All such acts were ordered by him against specific kingdoms and kings, not against nebulous concepts like 'unbelievers'.
-All such acts therefore have no bearing on our modern morality, since those wars ended thousands of years ago, the kings and kingdoms long since dead and buried.
-Christ, who is God, died to offer an escape from the death God's justice requires.
-Christ, who is God, never ordered his followers to war, and only told them to take up arms to defend themselves.
-Christ, who is God, ordered his followers to teach, not to coerce or conquer.
-Christ, who is God, taught good citizenship and to live peaceably with neighbors.
-Since the First Century AD, no Christian has ever had the grounds to enact holy war or militarize in any form, despite what pontiffs of the day may have said.

So...

Whereas all examples of Holy War in the Bible were against particular targets now long dead, and
Whereas all such wars required direct orders from God himself, and
Whereas Christ is God, and so his orders and equal to Gods, and
Whereas Christ has ordered Christians to peaceful coexistence and obedience to civil law, be it

Resolved that no Christian at any point in the last 2000+ years has been justified in declaring holy war or committing murder/kidnapping/other war crimes in the course of a military campaign, and be it
Resolved that no Christian may ignore the laws governing combat and rules of engagement, to include the prohibitions against wanton slaughter of non-combatants and the kidnapping of local children.

That clear enough for you now?

OK, you say that the acts of killing innocents and rape of young girls is immoral, which I agree with.

If the acts are immoral, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God's mouthpiece, Moses, directly and clearly encouraged the Israelite men to participate in such acts?

There are two options:

1. You have to say that Moses was not speaking for god, which brings up the question of what a prophet actually is or if the Bible's claim he was a prophet was accurate. It also begs the question as to why Moses was not held accountable.

2. You can claim that Moses was God's prophet that spoke for God but that contradicts your claim that the acts are immoral if you believe God is moral.
I_Wanna_Rawk
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 5:11:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2016 10:39:21 PM, janesix wrote:
Do you consult your Bible when you need to make a moral decision?

What if the Bible conflicts with your conscience?

What do you do?

Do you go with the what you interpret the Bible to mean, or do you act according to your inner sense of right and wrong?

As an example, the Bible commands not to kill. Would you kill someone in order to protect yourself or your family?
The Bible says not to murder, not kill. They are different. Murder is malicious, premeditated, etc. the original Hebrew word is translated to murder, not kill, as I have already said. Sorry, I don't have the source on me, but I'm sure if you looked it up you would find it. Again, I wish I had the source to show you, I just forgot where it is.
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 6:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 5:06:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:46:34 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:04:25 AM, matt8800 wrote:

You derive your moral compass from the scriptures and yet the scriptures show clearly that god's prophet told his men to kill babies, young boys, elderly, sick, etc but keep the young virgins alive for their own use.

On the moral issue of soldiers killing innocent civilians and raping their young daughters, how do you know what is right or wrong?

You said a lot but I don't know if the scriptures are clear as to when you cannot do it since it explicitly says that there are situations when it is encouraged. Please finish the following sentence so we can all know when those acts are wrong. If you need ideas, you can say that it was moral prior to Jesus' death, if you are a holy Jew, etc. Feel free to be as detailed as you feel necessary.

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when ______________________________________.

I answered that in the first sentence of my last response. In fact, my entire last response was an in-depth explanation of this exact principle, so either you're intentionally forcing me to repeat myself, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. So for your sake, and mine, I'll summarize again, bullet-point style so you can't miss anything this time.

-God considers every sin, no matter how minor, a transgression worthy of death
-At times in the past, he has used nations as tools to execute his justice on other nations with total war and annihilation.
-All such acts were ordered by him against specific kingdoms and kings, not against nebulous concepts like 'unbelievers'.
-All such acts therefore have no bearing on our modern morality, since those wars ended thousands of years ago, the kings and kingdoms long since dead and buried.
-Christ, who is God, died to offer an escape from the death God's justice requires.
-Christ, who is God, never ordered his followers to war, and only told them to take up arms to defend themselves.
-Christ, who is God, ordered his followers to teach, not to coerce or conquer.
-Christ, who is God, taught good citizenship and to live peaceably with neighbors.
-Since the First Century AD, no Christian has ever had the grounds to enact holy war or militarize in any form, despite what pontiffs of the day may have said.

So...

Whereas all examples of Holy War in the Bible were against particular targets now long dead, and
Whereas all such wars required direct orders from God himself, and
Whereas Christ is God, and so his orders and equal to Gods, and
Whereas Christ has ordered Christians to peaceful coexistence and obedience to civil law, be it

Resolved that no Christian at any point in the last 2000+ years has been justified in declaring holy war or committing murder/kidnapping/other war crimes in the course of a military campaign, and be it
Resolved that no Christian may ignore the laws governing combat and rules of engagement, to include the prohibitions against wanton slaughter of non-combatants and the kidnapping of local children.

That clear enough for you now?

OK, you say that the acts of killing innocents and rape of young girls is immoral, which I agree with.

If the acts are immoral, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God's mouthpiece, Moses, directly and clearly encouraged the Israelite men to participate in such acts?

There are two options:

1. You have to say that Moses was not speaking for god, which brings up the question of what a prophet actually is or if the Bible's claim he was a prophet was accurate. It also begs the question as to why Moses was not held accountable.

2. You can claim that Moses was God's prophet that spoke for God but that contradicts your claim that the acts are immoral if you believe God is moral.

It's like you're willfully ignoring points I've repeatedly stated. I must conclude at this point that you have to be spoon-fed information directly instead of given the benefit of being able to draw inference on your own. Twice now, I have, as part of answering your ridiculous hypothetical scenario, explicitly stated two things concerning God. One, that he considers all sins, no matter how small, transgressions worthy of death. Two, that he used total war as a means to bring this death to specific nations at specific times. So let's do this song and dance once more.

Whereas God considers all sins worthy of death, and
Whereas all humans sin, and
Whereas God has, at his disposal, the ability to give and remove life, by any means he desires, and
Whereas Christians are required to follow the commands of God, be it

Resolved that God is justified in bringing death in whatever manner he sees fit as punishment for sin, and be it
Resolved that God used total war as a means of executing the death His justice demands, and be it
Resolved that anytime death is not the consequence, it is an extension of mercy, and be it
Resolved that, since Christians are commanded not to enact holy war on our own authority, holy war is therefore only Moral when God himself commands it as a means to execute His Justice, and be it
Resolved that the command he gave to Moses was Moral.

Just to be absolutely certain you get the point, it is Moral when God directly commands it, not when we choose it to be. There is no conflict of morality because it is immoral for us, as Christians, to be executors of God's Justice. Christ says that that is a power reserved for Him alone.

Furthermore, what you're asking me to do is call God's Morality into judgement. That is philosophically impossible. God, the Christian God, at the very least, exists outside time and is able to see all possible futures. Decisions made with that information cannot be judged as morally correct or morally incorrect by us because we lack the information to judge for ourselves.

We are limited to our own time and can only see our present and remember our past, and even those are susceptible to faulty memory and bias. To judge God's choices without having God's perspective would be like solving a word problem for the number of apples if there are twenty in a basket without knowing how many baskets there are. There's simply not enough information for even an educated guess.

The morality of such choices requires context we're simply not capable of seeing. So you either trust God's judgement, like Christians, or you don't. There's no middle ground.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 6:40:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 6:25:26 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:06:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Just to be absolutely certain you get the point, it is Moral when God directly commands it, not when we choose it to be.

That's what I was looking for. So, you would complete the sentence as follows:

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when God commands you to do so.

This brings up other questions in our efforts to know when we are going morally astray:

Do you commit such acts when you think its Gods voice in your head telling you to do so? If so, why do we punish parents when God tells them to kill their kids?

Do you have to wait for a religious leader to tell you God has commanded you to commit such acts? If a religious leader told you to commit such acts, what criteria would you use to know whether he is authorized to command people to do such things?

All these questions are relevant to the thread given the title is "Christians, how do you know right from wrong?'.

Ahhh....so many questions...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 6:40:03 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/7/2016 6:25:26 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:06:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Just to be absolutely certain you get the point, it is Moral when God directly commands it, not when we choose it to be.

That's what I was looking for. So, you would complete the sentence as follows:

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when God commands you to do so.

This brings up other questions in our efforts to know when we are going morally astray:

Do you commit such acts when you think its Gods voice in your head telling you to do so? If so, why do we punish parents when God tells them to kill their kids?

Do you have to wait for a religious leader to tell you God has commanded you to commit such acts? If a religious leader told you to commit such acts, what criteria would you use to know whether he is authorized to command people to do such things?

All these questions are relevant to the thread given the title is "Christians, how do you know right from wrong?'.

Ahhh....so many questions...

You are like a horse with blinders on, reading only the parts of my posts you want to read and ignoring the rest. Please explain what parts of my following previous statements is escaping your comprehension:

> Our last command from God was "Go, therefore, and teach all nations", not "conquer all nations" or "convert all nations". The Apostle Paul echoes this when he says "So far as it depends upon you, leave peaceably with all". While sin still demands death as a penalty, it is not our place, as Christians, to decide how and when that penalty should be paid. To do so is to place ourselves in God's judgement seat, which is itself a sin of hubris and blasphemy.
> -Christ, who is God, died to offer an escape from the death God's justice requires.
> -Christ, who is God, never ordered his followers to war, and only told them to take up arms to defend themselves.
> -Christ, who is God, ordered his followers to teach, not to coerce or conquer.
> -Christ, who is God, taught good citizenship and to live peaceably with neighbors.
> -Since the First Century AD, no Christian has ever had the grounds to enact holy war or militarize in any form, despite what pontiffs of the day may have said.
> Resolved that no Christian at any point in the last 2000+ years has been justified in declaring holy war or committing murder/kidnapping/other war crimes in the course of a military campaign, and be it
> Resolved that no Christian may ignore the laws governing combat and rules of engagement, to include the prohibitions against wanton slaughter of non-combatants and the kidnapping of local children.
> There is no conflict of morality because it is immoral for us, as Christians, to be executors of God's Justice. Christ says that that is a power reserved for Him alone.

But again, since you seem incapable of drawing inferences for yourself, I will be blunt. Neither the individual layman, nor any priest, pontiff, pastor, bishop, or whatever title a cleric may be granted or take for himself, has the authority to execute, or call for, violence against another person or persons for any reason while simultaneously claiming the command comes from God. In fact, the litmus test is simple. We are told that even if an Angel speaks to us any command that contradicts Scripture, that Angel is to be ignored. So if even angels aren't allowed to countermand Scripture, why should anyone here on Earth be allowed to? And since Scripture records Christ's final command to be for us to teach and evangelize, not coerce and conquer, then it should be abundantly clear that anyone who tells us to do the latter is not in keeping with God's commands and ought to be ignored.

Is it really that outlandish to you that we, as followers of Christ, are not allowed to do things Christ says we're not allowed to do? Christians do not exist to 'eradicate sin' or 'destroy evil'. That is never commanded to us. We are to teach, baptize, and make disciples; worship God as Scripture proscribes and wait for Christ's second coming; all while being good citizens and peaceful neighbors in our own nations. That is all. Any directive outside of those parameters does not come from Scripture, and therefore, does not come from God.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:03:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 7:34:22 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 6:40:03 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/7/2016 6:25:26 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:06:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Just to be absolutely certain you get the point, it is Moral when God directly commands it, not when we choose it to be.

That's what I was looking for. So, you would complete the sentence as follows:

It is immoral to kill innocent non-combatants in war and kidnap their young virgin daughters for your own use, except when God commands you to do so.

This brings up other questions in our efforts to know when we are going morally astray:

Do you commit such acts when you think its Gods voice in your head telling you to do so? If so, why do we punish parents when God tells them to kill their kids?

Do you have to wait for a religious leader to tell you God has commanded you to commit such acts? If a religious leader told you to commit such acts, what criteria would you use to know whether he is authorized to command people to do such things?

All these questions are relevant to the thread given the title is "Christians, how do you know right from wrong?'.

Ahhh....so many questions...

You are like a horse with blinders on, reading only the parts of my posts you want to read and ignoring the rest. Please explain what parts of my following previous statements is escaping your comprehension:

> Our last command from God was "Go, therefore, and teach all nations", not "conquer all nations" or "convert all nations". The Apostle Paul echoes this when he says "So far as it depends upon you, leave peaceably with all". While sin still demands death as a penalty, it is not our place, as Christians, to decide how and when that penalty should be paid. To do so is to place ourselves in God's judgement seat, which is itself a sin of hubris and blasphemy.
> -Christ, who is God, died to offer an escape from the death God's justice requires.
> -Christ, who is God, never ordered his followers to war, and only told them to take up arms to defend themselves.
> -Christ, who is God, ordered his followers to teach, not to coerce or conquer.
> -Christ, who is God, taught good citizenship and to live peaceably with neighbors.
> -Since the First Century AD, no Christian has ever had the grounds to enact holy war or militarize in any form, despite what pontiffs of the day may have said.
> Resolved that no Christian at any point in the last 2000+ years has been justified in declaring holy war or committing murder/kidnapping/other war crimes in the course of a military campaign, and be it
> Resolved that no Christian may ignore the laws governing combat and rules of engagement, to include the prohibitions against wanton slaughter of non-combatants and the kidnapping of local children.
> There is no conflict of morality because it is immoral for us, as Christians, to be executors of God's Justice. Christ says that that is a power reserved for Him alone.

But again, since you seem incapable of drawing inferences for yourself, I will be blunt. Neither the individual layman, nor any priest, pontiff, pastor, bishop, or whatever title a cleric may be granted or take for himself, has the authority to execute, or call for, violence against another person or persons for any reason while simultaneously claiming the command comes from God. In fact, the litmus test is simple. We are told that even if an Angel speaks to us any command that contradicts Scripture, that Angel is to be ignored. So if even angels aren't allowed to countermand Scripture, why should anyone here on Earth be allowed to? And since Scripture records Christ's final command to be for us to teach and evangelize, not coerce and conquer, then it should be abundantly clear that anyone who tells us to do the latter is not in keeping with God's commands and ought to be ignored.

Is it really that outlandish to you that we, as followers of Christ, are not allowed to do things Christ says we're not allowed to do? Christians do not exist to 'eradicate sin' or 'destroy evil'. That is never commanded to us. We are to teach, baptize, and make disciples; worship God as Scripture proscribes and wait for Christ's second coming; all while being good citizens and peaceful neighbors in our own nations. That is all. Any directive outside of those parameters does not come from Scripture, and therefore, does not come from God.

So, in other words, you are saying that the man who was supposedly God's prophet instructed his men to do immoral things. That is one example, among many, of the immorality of the Old Testament.

You are the first Christian that has responded that would admit the Old Testament was immoral. If it cant be relied upon for a moral standard, I assume you wouldn't think it could be relied upon to take the creation account literally either.
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:13:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, in other words, you are saying that the man who was supposedly God's prophet instructed his men to do immoral things. That is one example, among many, of the immorality of the Old Testament.

You are the first Christian that has responded that would admit the Old Testament was immoral. If it cant be relied upon for a moral standard, I assume you wouldn't think it could be relied upon to take the creation account literally either.

You are putting words in my mouth and being completely disingenuous. I explicitly stated the absolute opposite of what you just said earlier in the thread. Moses' command was Moral because it came from God himself, and the Tribes of Israel were used as tools to carry out God's justice on the people of Midian. The reason Christians can discount any claims of that happening anymore is that God, through Christ's apostles, has made it clear that we will never 'hear God's voice' until Christ returns in Glory at the Second Coming. At that point, everyone, not just Christians, will hear His voice.

I have repeatedly made the distinction between God's modus operandi in the time of Moses versus now. It's not the same methods. Chronology matters. The change in method does not make God's commands more or less moral than they ever were, however. God is still within his rights to demand death in punishment, as I have, once again, repeatedly stated; over-and-over-and-over, yet you don't seem to pick up on it. Just because he forbids us, as Christians, from carrying out His justice does not change the morality of that justice, just the means by which he executes or withholds the punishment.

With that said, your disingenuous word-twisting and willful ignorance are trying my patience. You have proven unable or unwilling to consider the ramifications of my statements, and have, out of narrow-minded exclusion or intentional disregard, ignored key points or context that I've now had to repeat three or more times in this thread. If you will not make the attempt to read what I write critically or pay attention to the details you yourself are demanding I explain, then I'm not going to exhaust any more time attempting to explain anything further. I detest repeating myself, and you've forced me to do so three times at least. I will not repeat myself a fourth time.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:27:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 3:13:19 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
So, in other words, you are saying that the man who was supposedly God's prophet instructed his men to do immoral things. That is one example, among many, of the immorality of the Old Testament.

You are the first Christian that has responded that would admit the Old Testament was immoral. If it cant be relied upon for a moral standard, I assume you wouldn't think it could be relied upon to take the creation account literally either.

You are putting words in my mouth and being completely disingenuous. I explicitly stated the absolute opposite of what you just said earlier in the thread. Moses' command was Moral because it came from God himself, and the Tribes of Israel were used as tools to carry out God's justice on the people of Midian. The reason Christians can discount any claims of that happening anymore is that God, through Christ's apostles, has made it clear that we will never 'hear God's voice' until Christ returns in Glory at the Second Coming. At that point, everyone, not just Christians, will hear His voice.

OK, to sum up: God's people stopped killing because they stopped hearing a voice in their head that told them to kill. This is a great example of how religion can make otherwise sane people believe things that only the insane could believe on their own.

Of the people that say that God speaks to them in their head, how do you know who is telling the truth and who is crazy? Wouldn't you set the bar at least when they start commanding you to kill people?

I have repeatedly made the distinction between God's modus operandi in the time of Moses versus now. It's not the same methods. Chronology matters. The change in method does not make God's commands more or less moral than they ever were, however. God is still within his rights to demand death in punishment, as I have, once again, repeatedly stated; over-and-over-and-over, yet you don't seem to pick up on it. Just because he forbids us, as Christians, from carrying out His justice does not change the morality of that justice, just the means by which he executes or withholds the punishment.

And when did this change take place EXACTLY. Were there people that lived the first half of their lives killing and raping for god and then the other half those acts were immoral?

With that said, your disingenuous word-twisting and willful ignorance are trying my patience. You have proven unable or unwilling to consider the ramifications of my statements, and have, out of narrow-minded exclusion or intentional disregard, ignored key points or context that I've now had to repeat three or more times in this thread. If you will not make the attempt to read what I write critically or pay attention to the details you yourself are demanding I explain, then I'm not going to exhaust any more time attempting to explain anything further. I detest repeating myself, and you've forced me to do so three times at least. I will not repeat myself a fourth time.

I ask more questions than make statements. The reason you don't like me asking you questions is because the obvious answers expose your cognitive dissonance. You cant answer my questions because you cant accept the obvious answer nor can you come up with a good alternative that stands up under scrutiny.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:35:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 3:27:36 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I ask more questions than make statements. The reason you don't like me asking you questions is because the obvious answers expose your cognitive dissonance. You cant answer my questions because you cant accept the obvious answer nor can you come up with a good alternative that stands up under scrutiny.
In a bloody nutshell Matt. Huzzah.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:46:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2016 10:39:21 PM, janesix wrote:
Do you consult your Bible when you need to make a moral decision?

What if the Bible conflicts with your conscience?

What do you do?

Do you go with the what you interpret the Bible to mean, or do you act according to your inner sense of right and wrong?

As an example, the Bible commands not to kill. Would you kill someone in order to protect yourself or your family?

Self defense is something different.
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:50:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 3:27:36 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I ask more questions than make statements. The reason you don't like me asking you questions is because the obvious answers expose your cognitive dissonance. You cant answer my questions because you cant accept the obvious answer nor can you come up with a good alternative that stands up under scrutiny.

You speak as if the tone and content of your questions don't betray your lack of scrutiny and respect for what I write, as if questions can't be leading or pointed. Your questions betray a lack in consistency in your rhetoric and a willingness to pick up and drop premises when they suit your point. In one question, you accept the presupposition of Christian God, and the next refer to Him as "a voice in their head". You refuse to incorporate what I tell you into your reasoning and questions, changing tack to force conclusions I never made. You have no interest in learning how we know right from wrong, or what role Scripture plays in it. You care only to devolve this into yet another headbutting match over the existence and characteristics of God, which you admit in the post prior to my last.

This is further demonstrated by the number of times I've repeated myself. I've not stated anything new since early in this thread, merely reiterated points I already made, meaning your questions have not been progressing the conversation, only making circles until I stop repeating myself out of frustration. The circles you've danced have neither proven nor disproven anything. To answer your latest accusations, I'd have to repeat myself again. And I refuse to do so. If you want your answer, re-read everything I've already stated critically, with actual intent to understand, and you might actually learn something. As for me, I will not post further in this thread.

Good evening.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:17:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 3:50:06 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:27:36 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I ask more questions than make statements. The reason you don't like me asking you questions is because the obvious answers expose your cognitive dissonance. You cant answer my questions because you cant accept the obvious answer nor can you come up with a good alternative that stands up under scrutiny.

You speak as if the tone and content of your questions don't betray your lack of scrutiny and respect for what I write, as if questions can't be leading or pointed. Your questions betray a lack in consistency in your rhetoric and a willingness to pick up and drop premises when they suit your point. In one question, you accept the presupposition of Christian God, and the next refer to Him as "a voice in their head". You refuse to incorporate what I tell you into your reasoning and questions, changing tack to force conclusions I never made. You have no interest in learning how we know right from wrong, or what role Scripture plays in it. You care only to devolve this into yet another headbutting match over the existence and characteristics of God, which you admit in the post prior to my last.

This is further demonstrated by the number of times I've repeated myself. I've not stated anything new since early in this thread, merely reiterated points I already made, meaning your questions have not been progressing the conversation, only making circles until I stop repeating myself out of frustration. The circles you've danced have neither proven nor disproven anything. To answer your latest accusations, I'd have to repeat myself again. And I refuse to do so. If you want your answer, re-read everything I've already stated critically, with actual intent to understand, and you might actually learn something. As for me, I will not post further in this thread.

Good evening.

A Jesuit admitting defeat?
Di mortuis
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:07:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 3:13:19 AM, JusAnoCon wrote:
So, in other words, you are saying that the man who was supposedly God's prophet instructed his men to do immoral things. That is one example, among many, of the immorality of the Old Testament.

You are the first Christian that has responded that would admit the Old Testament was immoral. If it cant be relied upon for a moral standard, I assume you wouldn't think it could be relied upon to take the creation account literally either.

You are putting words in my mouth and being completely disingenuous. I explicitly stated the absolute opposite of what you just said earlier in the thread. Moses' command was Moral because it came from God himself, and the Tribes of Israel were used as tools to carry out God's justice on the people of Midian. The reason Christians can discount any claims of that happening anymore is that God, through Christ's apostles, has made it clear that we will never 'hear God's voice' until Christ returns in Glory at the Second Coming. At that point, everyone, not just Christians, will hear His voice.

I have repeatedly made the distinction between God's modus operandi in the time of Moses versus now. It's not the same methods. Chronology matters. The change in method does not make God's commands more or less moral than they ever were, however. God is still within his rights to demand death in punishment, as I have, once again, repeatedly stated; over-and-over-and-over, yet you don't seem to pick up on it. Just because he forbids us, as Christians, from carrying out His justice does not change the morality of that justice, just the means by which he executes or withholds the punishment.

With that said, your disingenuous word-twisting and willful ignorance are trying my patience. You have proven unable or unwilling to consider the ramifications of my statements, and have, out of narrow-minded exclusion or intentional disregard, ignored key points or context that I've now had to repeat three or more times in this thread. If you will not make the attempt to read what I write critically or pay attention to the details you yourself are demanding I explain, then I'm not going to exhaust any more time attempting to explain anything further. I detest repeating myself, and you've forced me to do so three times at least. I will not repeat myself a fourth time.

The ultimate conclusion that I am drawing from this is that you don't know right from wrong. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, hear me out.

You state that whatever God does/wants is moral. To you, some of the things that God might have you do, you view as immoral NOW but not after God tells you to do them.

That would mean that your morality is contingent upon what God tells you, and not your own inferences, some of those inferences you currently have formed... but... God might countermand, should He deign.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 12:07:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

The ultimate conclusion that I am drawing from this is that you don't know right from wrong. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, hear me out.

You state that whatever God does/wants is moral. To you, some of the things that God might have you do, you view as immoral NOW but not after God tells you to do them.

That would mean that your morality is contingent upon what God tells you, and not your own inferences, some of those inferences you currently have formed... but... God might countermand, should He deign.

Ah, good. Someone who is actually progressing the discussion. Perhaps I acquitted myself a little early.

Unfortunately, I still need to reiterate once more a simple fact that continually escapes notice or is downright ignored. The penalty for sin is death. When God, in the past, ordered total war, he was using it as a means to bring death as punishment to particular people(s) at particular times. Specifically, those wars also served the purpose of securing the land he promised to Tribes of Israel in the time of their forefathers and demonstrated that His favor went with the Tribes to the rest of the kingdoms around. He could have struck all the same people dead on the spot with lighting or ravaged the cities with a plague, but he chose instead to use an army. In that context, death by sword was no more or less moral than any other death God had the ability to bring.

Secondly, God is very consistent. What he calls sinful is always sinful, and what he calls righteous is always righteous. One obvious consistency is that He always punishes people who dare to presume to take His justice into their own hands without his blessing. "But Lord, I did it for you," is never an excuse with God. Multiple times in Scripture, it is repeated "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay," attributed to God. Therefore, it is never righteous for us to take vengeance on ours or God's behalf or take justice into our own hands without His direct orders.

Thirdly, God has declared he will not call us to enact vengeance or His justice. The last time He ordered such a thing was long before the birth of Christ. And Christ, being God, declared that we are not to do so. Ever. And his apostles clarified that anyone telling us to do so is lying. The last book of the Bible chronologically written was The Revelation. It was the last possible instance where God could have slipped in an order to us. Instead, it makes clear that we will not hear God's voice or receive any new commands from Him until the second coming of Christ at the end of the world, at which point, believers and non-believers alike will hear that voice. So, unless the whole world is hearing God's voice declare something, we can be perfectly sure any voices in our heads are not God's.

To be succinct to a fault, yes. What God says, no matter our opinion on it, is moral. He has perspective and power infinitely greater than we can grasp, creator of the very earth we walk, and we trust in his decrees. Simultaneously, that means that until the end of time, no new orders will come from God than what is already recorded in Scripture for us; so the hypothetical scenario of God contradicting himself by ordering us to go on a Crusade, for example, is completely impossible. He has recorded for us his Moral laws, the writings of the Prophets, and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, which, taken together as a contiguous whole, comprise the compass by which we measure our moral choices.

More often than not, the resulting morality is not so different from the rest of the world. For example, you may choose not to break a law because there's no benefit to it, or the punishment outweighs the benefit and you don't want to run afoul of law enforcement. A Christian also chooses not to break a law, because Christ taught us to be good citizens. The added benefit is that this morality is external and set in stone; an objective standard. Therefore, choices Christians make using that standard are consistent and predictable. Or as consistent and predictable as humans can be.

So we do indeed know right from wrong. Like you, we follow a system of morality that informs our choices. The only difference is that we have a codified objective morality we share as part of our faith, while you have an internal morality informed by subjective experience and goals. You can pose hypotheticals until our fingers are sore from typing, but in the end the answer is the same.

God has set a codified morality for us that He has decreed will not change until the end of time, at which point it will not matter anymore. You have no reason to believe that some new radical revelation from heaven will suddenly turn Christians into rabid immoral pawns of an angry God. No Christian would believe such a 'revelation', because it contradicts what we know God's commands to be. And any persons that do follow it, like all violent cults that claim to be 'Christian', will be ostracized, condemned, and ignored by Christendom at large.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 4:51:58 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:07:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

The ultimate conclusion that I am drawing from this is that you don't know right from wrong. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, hear me out.

You state that whatever God does/wants is moral. To you, some of the things that God might have you do, you view as immoral NOW but not after God tells you to do them.

That would mean that your morality is contingent upon what God tells you, and not your own inferences, some of those inferences you currently have formed... but... God might countermand, should He deign.

Ah, good. Someone who is actually progressing the discussion. Perhaps I acquitted myself a little early.

Unfortunately, I still need to reiterate once more a simple fact that continually escapes notice or is downright ignored. The penalty for sin is death. When God, in the past, ordered total war, he was using it as a means to bring death as punishment to particular people(s) at particular times. Specifically, those wars also served the purpose of securing the land he promised to Tribes of Israel in the time of their forefathers and demonstrated that His favor went with the Tribes to the rest of the kingdoms around. He could have struck all the same people dead on the spot with lighting or ravaged the cities with a plague, but he chose instead to use an army. In that context, death by sword was no more or less moral than any other death God had the ability to bring.

Secondly, God is very consistent. What he calls sinful is always sinful, and what he calls righteous is always righteous. One obvious consistency is that He always punishes people who dare to presume to take His justice into their own hands without his blessing. "But Lord, I did it for you," is never an excuse with God. Multiple times in Scripture, it is repeated "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay," attributed to God. Therefore, it is never righteous for us to take vengeance on ours or God's behalf or take justice into our own hands without His direct orders.

Thirdly, God has declared he will not call us to enact vengeance or His justice. The last time He ordered such a thing was long before the birth of Christ. And Christ, being God, declared that we are not to do so. Ever. And his apostles clarified that anyone telling us to do so is lying. The last book of the Bible chronologically written was The Revelation. It was the last possible instance where God could have slipped in an order to us. Instead, it makes clear that we will not hear God's voice or receive any new commands from Him until the second coming of Christ at the end of the world, at which point, believers and non-believers alike will hear that voice. So, unless the whole world is hearing God's voice declare something, we can be perfectly sure any voices in our heads are not God's.

To be succinct to a fault, yes. What God says, no matter our opinion on it, is moral. He has perspective and power infinitely greater than we can grasp, creator of the very earth we walk, and we trust in his decrees. Simultaneously, that means that until the end of time, no new orders will come from God than what is already recorded in Scripture for us; so the hypothetical scenario of God contradicting himself by ordering us to go on a Crusade, for example, is completely impossible. He has recorded for us his Moral laws, the writings of the Prophets, and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, which, taken together as a contiguous whole, comprise the compass by which we measure our moral choices.

More often than not, the resulting morality is not so different from the rest of the world. For example, you may choose not to break a law because there's no benefit to it, or the punishment outweighs the benefit and you don't want to run afoul of law enforcement. A Christian also chooses not to break a law, because Christ taught us to be good citizens. The added benefit is that this morality is external and set in stone; an objective standard. Therefore, choices Christians make using that standard are consistent and predictable. Or as consistent and predictable as humans can be.

So we do indeed know right from wrong. Like you, we follow a system of morality that informs our choices. The only difference is that we have a codified objective morality we share as part of our faith, while you have an internal morality informed by subjective experience and goals. You can pose hypotheticals until our fingers are sore from typing, but in the end the answer is the same.

God has set a codified morality for us that He has decreed will not change until the end of time, at which point it will not matter anymore. You have no reason to believe that some new radical revelation from heaven will suddenly turn Christians into rabid immoral pawns of an angry God. No Christian would believe such a 'revelation', because it contradicts what we know God's commands to be. And any persons that do follow it, like all violent cults that claim to be 'Christian', will be ostracized, condemned, and ignored by Christendom at large.

Nice to see a Jesuit going back on their word. one should expect it from christians.
Post#78
Di mortuis
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:07:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 4:51:58 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:07:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

The ultimate conclusion that I am drawing from this is that you don't know right from wrong. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, hear me out.

You state that whatever God does/wants is moral. To you, some of the things that God might have you do, you view as immoral NOW but not after God tells you to do them.

That would mean that your morality is contingent upon what God tells you, and not your own inferences, some of those inferences you currently have formed... but... God might countermand, should He deign.

Ah, good. Someone who is actually progressing the discussion. Perhaps I acquitted myself a little early.

Unfortunately, I still need to reiterate once more a simple fact that continually escapes notice or is downright ignored. The penalty for sin is death. .

No argument, but what is "sin" is subject to God's desires, right? If you are told to steal by God, technically what you are doing is NOT sin. Ergo, what is sin is transitory.

When God, in the past, ordered total war, he was using it as a means to bring death as punishment to particular people(s) at particular times. Specifically, those wars also served the purpose of securing the land he promised to Tribes of Israel in the time of their forefathers and demonstrated that His favor went with the Tribes to the rest of the kingdoms around.

He could have struck all the same people dead on the spot with lighting or ravaged the cities with a plague, but he chose instead to use an army. In that context, death by sword was no more or less moral than any other death God had the ability to bring.

Why didn't He just appear like He did to Moses to those other tribes? I am not certain how engaging in more of what He finds (some times...) disdainful is the hallmark of an all moral god.

Secondly, God is very consistent. What he calls sinful is always sinful, and what he calls righteous is always righteous. One obvious consistency is that He always punishes people who dare to presume to take His justice into their own hands without his blessing. "But Lord, I did it for you," is never an excuse with God.

This doesn't actually rebut what I previous suggested...

Multiple times in Scripture, it is repeated "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay," attributed to God. Therefore, it is never righteous for us to take vengeance on ours or God's behalf or take justice into our own hands without His direct orders.

Thirdly, God has declared he will not call us to enact vengeance or His justice. The last time He ordered such a thing was long before the birth of Christ. And Christ, being God, declared that we are not to do so. Ever. And his apostles clarified that anyone telling us to do so is lying. The last book of the Bible chronologically written was The Revelation. It was the last possible instance where God could have slipped in an order to us. Instead, it makes clear that we will not hear God's voice or receive any new commands from Him until the second coming of Christ at the end of the world, at which point, believers and non-believers alike will hear that voice. So, unless the whole world is hearing God's voice declare something, we can be perfectly sure any voices in our heads are not God's.

So, currently, when people are doing "Good" works because they swear up and down that God actively tells them to do it, what should we take that as?

To be succinct to a fault, yes. What God says, no matter our opinion on it, is moral. He has perspective and power infinitely greater than we can grasp, creator of the very earth we walk, and we trust in his decrees. Simultaneously, that means that until the end of time, no new orders will come from God than what is already recorded in Scripture for us; so the hypothetical scenario of God contradicting himself by ordering us to go on a Crusade, for example, is completely impossible. He has recorded for us his Moral laws, the writings of the Prophets, and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, which, taken together as a contiguous whole, comprise the compass by which we measure our moral choices.

So God can't change His mind? ;) Obviously, this is a trap, so....

More often than not, the resulting morality is not so different from the rest of the world. For example, you may choose not to break a law because there's no benefit to it, or the punishment outweighs the benefit and you don't want to run afoul of law enforcement. A Christian also chooses not to break a law, because Christ taught us to be good citizens.

And if you did not no Christ, you would not know how to be a good citizen. What about all those others that don't believe in Christ that are good citizens?

The added benefit is that this morality is external and set in stone; an objective standard. Therefore, choices Christians make using that standard are consistent and predictable. Or as consistent and predictable as humans can be.

Why didn't God outlaw slavery, then?

So we do indeed know right from wrong. Like you, we follow a system of morality that informs our choices. The only difference is that we have a codified objective morality we share as part of our faith

I think you mean "interpreted". Codified is far from what the Bible is on rules for morality, sir.

while you have an internal morality informed by subjective experience and goals. You can pose hypotheticals until our fingers are sore from typing, but in the end the answer is the same.

I agree: I could learn to be a good citizen without the aid of Christendom. Where does that leave you?

God has set a codified morality for us that He has decreed will not change until the end of time, at which point it will not matter anymore. You have no reason to believe that some new radical revelation from heaven will suddenly turn Christians into rabid immoral pawns of an angry God.

Given our conversation, only one of us would consider the subsequent acts to be immoral should it happen. That's the problem.

No Christian would believe such a 'revelation', because it contradicts what we know God's commands to be. And any persons that do follow it, like all violent cults that claim to be 'Christian', will be ostracized, condemned, and ignored by Christendom at large.

Fantastic: so, meat of the matter.

Judgement day sounds. Christ himself comes down on a significant spiritual creature of choice. To all His followers, His sovereignty is felt, sufficient demonstration of Judgment day is made. And, in short, his followers are asked to claim "vengeance" for the Lord.

That is to say, it is now your role, as appointed by God, to kill those that are in God's eyes impure.

What do you do?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 5:07:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No argument, but what is "sin" is subject to God's desires, right? If you are told to steal by God, technically what you are doing is NOT sin. Ergo, what is sin is transitory.

False. What is sin has been clearly defined. It is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the will of God. And God's will is not transitory, therefore sin is not transitory. God cannot contradict himself, or else He is not God.

Why didn't He just appear like He did to Moses to those other tribes? I am not certain how engaging in more of what He finds (some times...) disdainful is the hallmark of an all moral god.

To display his power for his own ends. That's the best answer I can give. You're asking me to delve into the reasoning of a being that, at the very least, exists outside space and time. I can't even know the reasoning my neighbor might use to make his decisions, let alone what an infinite God might be thinking at any one point in time. This is a very futile question to ask, as the only thing we can know is that He didn't.

So, currently, when people are doing "Good" works because they swear up and down that God actively tells them to do it, what should we take that as?

Benign insanity. Or, more likely, pointless lies. Good works are the thanks we give God in return for the Salvation He extends to us in Christ. We don't need a voice from heaven to do that. We're already told we should be doing them in the pages of the Bible.

And if you did not know Christ, you would not know how to be a good citizen. What about all those others that don't believe in Christ that are good citizens?

That is a false conclusion. If I did not know Christ, there are still other reasons to be a good citizen and other sources to learn good citizenship from. In fact, what it means to be a good citizen varies slightly from nation to nation, so even Christ's command to be one necessitates learning it from another source. The existence of one reason does not preclude the existence of other concurrent reasons.

Why didn't God outlaw slavery, then?

Again, a 'why' question to which I cannot give an answer beyond baseless speculation. I cannot know the mind of God.

I think you mean "interpreted". Codified is far from what the Bible is on rules for morality, sir.

Actually, the morals presented in the Bible are very clear-cut. For example, the Bible calls murder a sin, and also the contemplation of murder, and also unjust anger. It calls adultery a sin, and also extra-marital sex, and also lustful thoughts. In fact morality is codified so clearly and in such broad sweeps that it is quite impossible to keep the moral codex perfectly. This is a foregone conclusion, of course. A perfect God demands perfect conformity, in spirit, word, and deed; which imperfect beings cannot do. Thus the need for Salvation, but that is a tangential discussion.

I agree: I could learn to be a good citizen without the aid of Christendom. Where does that leave you?

In the same boat. As I said before, I too learned to be a good citizen outside the Church. My reason for being a good citizen is the only differentiating factor.

Given our conversation, only one of us would consider the subsequent acts to be immoral should it happen. That's the problem.

But the hypothetical is rhetorically pointless if it changes the pre-existing conditions of the argument. We are operating with the Christian God in mind, whose attributes include the fact that he does not go back on his word. It is impossible that God will order such things, so the hypothetical falls flat by virtue of altering initial conditions.

Fantastic: so, meat of the matter.

Judgement day sounds. Christ himself comes down on a significant spiritual creature of choice. To all His followers, His sovereignty is felt, sufficient demonstration of Judgment day is made. And, in short, his followers are asked to claim "vengeance" for the Lord.

That is to say, it is now your role, as appointed by God, to kill those that are in God's eyes impure.

What do you do?

At that point, what does it matter? Aside from the point that this is not the sequence of events the Bible describes, the Day of Judgement is just that; the day the faithful are gathered up into heaven, and the faithless left to face God's judgement.

I will instead pose this question to you. At that point, with Christ sitting in judgement over the Earth, is there a significant moral difference between being struck down by God directly, or being struck down by a chosen executioner on God's behalf?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:14:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 5:56:47 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:07:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No argument, but what is "sin" is subject to God's desires, right? If you are told to steal by God, technically what you are doing is NOT sin. Ergo, what is sin is transitory.

False. What is sin has been clearly defined.

You just got done stating that what God decrees you to do is not immoral when you do it.

It is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the will of God. And God's will is not transitory, therefore sin is not transitory. God cannot contradict himself, or else He is not God.

Why didn't He just appear like He did to Moses to those other tribes? I am not certain how engaging in more of what He finds (some times...) disdainful is the hallmark of an all moral god.

To display his power for his own ends. That's the best answer I can give. You're asking me to delve into the reasoning of a being that, at the very least, exists outside space and time. I can't even know the reasoning my neighbor might use to make his decisions, let alone what an infinite God might be thinking at any one point in time. This is a very futile question to ask, as the only thing we can know is that He didn't.

You say futile, I say its common sense. Clearly God has no problem manifesting and talking to various humans through various means. Why not win more converts rather than raze them. Your neighbor can explain his intentions. Clearly. Unambiguously. "I did X Y Z because....". No interpretation required.

So, currently, when people are doing "Good" works because they swear up and down that God actively tells them to do it, what should we take that as?

Benign insanity. Or, more likely, pointless lies. Good works are the thanks we give God in return for the Salvation He extends to us in Christ. We don't need a voice from heaven to do that. We're already told we should be doing them in the pages of the Bible.

Interesting observation, to say the least.

And if you did not know Christ, you would not know how to be a good citizen. What about all those others that don't believe in Christ that are good citizens?

That is a false conclusion. If I did not know Christ, there are still other reasons to be a good citizen and other sources to learn good citizenship from.

Fair rebuttal.

Why didn't God outlaw slavery, then?

Again, a 'why' question to which I cannot give an answer beyond baseless speculation. I cannot know the mind of God.

But that is exactly what the Bible is supposed to enable you to do, right? How else would you know what He wants of you? There is another simpler solution, though: the God of the Bible does not exist as described. The obvious is disregarded in favor of the benefit of a select few: the writers of the Bible.

I think you mean "interpreted". Codified is far from what the Bible is on rules for morality, sir.

Actually, the morals presented in the Bible are very clear-cut. For example, the Bible calls murder a sin, and also the contemplation of murder, and also unjust anger. It calls adultery a sin, and also extra-marital sex, and also lustful thoughts. In fact morality is codified so clearly and in such broad sweeps that it is quite impossible to keep the moral codex perfectly.

Mmhm. And the penalties for those ranged from what man was supposed to do to what was then reserved for God, and the transition from one to the other is interpretational, NOT codified.

This is a foregone conclusion, of course. A perfect God demands perfect conformity, in spirit, word, and deed; which imperfect beings cannot do. Thus the need for Salvation, but that is a tangential discussion.


Given our conversation, only one of us would consider the subsequent acts to be immoral should it happen. That's the problem.

But the hypothetical is rhetorically pointless if it changes the pre-existing conditions of the argument. We are operating with the Christian God in mind, whose attributes include the fact that he does not go back on his word. It is impossible that God will order such things,

... any more...

so the hypothetical falls flat by virtue of altering initial conditions.

Fantastic: so, meat of the matter.

Judgement day sounds. Christ himself comes down on a significant spiritual creature of choice. To all His followers, His sovereignty is felt, sufficient demonstration of Judgment day is made. And, in short, his followers are asked to claim "vengeance" for the Lord.

That is to say, it is now your role, as appointed by God, to kill those that are in God's eyes impure.

What do you do?

At that point, what does it matter? Aside from the point that this is not the sequence of events the Bible describes, the Day of Judgement is just that; the day the faithful are gathered up into heaven, and the faithless left to face God's judgement.

And God's judgment is to be meted out by YOU in this particular instance. So, please, no dodging the question: what do you do?


I will instead pose this question to you.

-smells like dodge, to me-

At that point, with Christ sitting in judgement over the Earth, is there a significant moral difference between being struck down by God directly, or being struck down by a chosen executioner on God's behalf?

Yes.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:27:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 6:14:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You say futile, I say its common sense. Clearly God has no problem manifesting and talking to various humans through various means. Why not win more converts rather than raze them. Your neighbor can explain his intentions. Clearly. Unambiguously. "I did X Y Z because....". No interpretation required.

But it is futile to ask because there is no recorded answer. If your neighbor sudenly chooses to move away, but never leaves any indication of why, you can never know why he moved away, only that he did. Valid as the question may be, asking it is still futile because there's no way it can be correctly answered. God chose to act only through the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is the limit of what we know. Everything beyond that is speculation.

But that is exactly what the Bible is supposed to enable you to do, right? How else would you know what He wants of you? There is another simpler solution, though: the God of the Bible does not exist as described. The obvious is disregarded in favor of the benefit of a select few: the writers of the Bible.

Incorrect. The Bible is not there to let us 'know the mind of God'. That's borderline blasphemous for a Christian to even posit he has the capacity to think like God. Scripture is there to teach what mankind is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of mankind.

Mmhm. And the penalties for those ranged from what man was supposed to do to what was then reserved for God, and the transition from one to the other is interpretational, NOT codified.

You are mixing up the morality with the penalty. Conflating action and consequence. Consequence is not codified, of course. But the information required to make moral choices, the moral law, the codex of do's and don'ts, is very much set in stone.

And God's judgment is to be meted out by YOU in this particular instance. So, please, no dodging the question: what do you do?

I obey. The conditions have changed. In this hypothetical, the requirements are met for this to be considered a non-contradictory order, and therefore I would act as God orders. After all, the first commandment makes it clear we are to put neither ourselves, nor anything or anyone else, above God; so it would hypothetically be in keeping with my chosen morality to carry out the order.

I don't think that needed to be said, though. You obviously expected this answer from me. However, I am very interested in the fact that you indicated that there's a significant moral difference between execution by God directly and execution by proxy. Could you perhaps explain why?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 7:27:12 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:14:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You say futile, I say its common sense. Clearly God has no problem manifesting and talking to various humans through various means. Why not win more converts rather than raze them. Your neighbor can explain his intentions. Clearly. Unambiguously. "I did X Y Z because....". No interpretation required.

But it is futile to ask because there is no recorded answer. If your neighbor sudenly chooses to move away, but never leaves any indication of why, you can never know why he moved away, only that he did. Valid as the question may be, asking it is still futile because there's no way it can be correctly answered. God chose to act only through the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is the limit of what we know. Everything beyond that is speculation.

He chose to act through the people that by and large wrote the Bible, and by and large, the people that wrote the Bible also claimed moral high ground because of God. Coincidence, I suppose.

But that is exactly what the Bible is supposed to enable you to do, right? How else would you know what He wants of you? There is another simpler solution, though: the God of the Bible does not exist as described. The obvious is disregarded in favor of the benefit of a select few: the writers of the Bible.

Incorrect. The Bible is not there to let us 'know the mind of God'. That's borderline blasphemous for a Christian to even posit he has the capacity to think like God. Scripture is there to teach what mankind is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of mankind.

The bold indicates what must be on the mind of God. Were it not, there would be no reason to instruct you. "God loves you" I think is pretty axiomatic, right? That clearly must be on God's mind, as ultimately that is why you believe what you believe, right? The Bible has to on some level lend understanding to what or how He thinks.


Mmhm. And the penalties for those ranged from what man was supposed to do to what was then reserved for God, and the transition from one to the other is interpretational, NOT codified.

You are mixing up the morality with the penalty. Conflating action and consequence. Consequence is not codified, of course.

Um, what? "The Wages of Sin are death", right? That is not codified in the Bible? Its not moral to do God's justice when its codified as such?

But the information required to make moral choices, the moral law, the codex of do's and don'ts, is very much set in stone.

And God's judgment is to be meted out by YOU in this particular instance. So, please, no dodging the question: what do you do?

I obey. The conditions have changed. In this hypothetical, the requirements are met for this to be considered a non-contradictory order, and therefore I would act as God orders. After all, the first commandment makes it clear we are to put neither ourselves, nor anything or anyone else, above God; so it would hypothetically be in keeping with my chosen morality to carry out the order.

I don't think that needed to be said, though. You obviously expected this answer from me.

I expected the answer, sure, but congratulations, you are the first person to publicly state they would commence with whole sale slaughter should their God order them to given their perception of the circumstances. I attempted this earlier, and no one, and I do mean no one, stated they would engage. I got a lot of "wow this sucks..." kind of noncomittal answers, and I got a lot of "eek, I probably wouldn't...", but no one to profess what they would do plainly.

However, I am very interested in the fact that you indicated that there's a significant moral difference between execution by God directly and execution by proxy. Could you perhaps explain why?

Because you/I are accountable to yourself, and your/my fellow man, by what I see as morality. "I was only following orders" enabled the worst atrocities to be committed that humanity has known.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 11:49:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 8:18:17 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The bold indicates what must be on the mind of God. Were it not, there would be no reason to instruct you. "God loves you" I think is pretty axiomatic, right? That clearly must be on God's mind, as ultimately that is why you believe what you believe, right? The Bible has to on some level lend understanding to what or how He thinks.

It describes what He has said/commanded, and what he thinks in specific cases, but as to how or why he thinks or acts, that's a level of understanding that is not ventured into. He has told us who he is, and what he expects of us. The closest he's gotten to ever answering a direct 'why' question was declaring, essentially, "Because I Am".

Um, what? "The Wages of Sin are death", right? That is not codified in the Bible? Its not moral to do God's justice when its codified as such?

I left that a little unclear. That was my fault. The means of the penalty, the methods by which the penalty is handed out; that is not codified. We have the clear moral codex, but the methods by which the penalty is dealt are ultimately God's to decide, whether by letting entropy run its course or by another means.

I expected the answer, sure, but congratulations, you are the first person to publicly state they would commence with whole sale slaughter should their God order them to given their perception of the circumstances. I attempted this earlier, and no one, and I do mean no one, stated they would engage. I got a lot of "wow this sucks..." kind of noncomittal answers, and I got a lot of "eek, I probably wouldn't...", but no one to profess what they would do plainly.

Just keep in mind that what you set up for me was a hypothetical that I know is not going to come to pass. Christ will need no help come that day. The Revelation casts him as judge and executor of His justice. So while it's an interesting 'what if', it's also a pointless exercise with no bearing on the day-to-day morality of Christians.

Because you/I are accountable to yourself, and your/my fellow man, by what I see as morality. "I was only following orders" enabled the worst atrocities to be committed that humanity has known.

Believe me, as a Veteran, I very much understand that line of thought. I could not have served my time if I wasn't assured I could refuse orders that broke RoE, consituted a war crimes, or were beyond the authority of the individual to issue. I'm not about to claim the guards at Auschwitz were innocent.

But ultimately, the orders you're talking about came from men, humans, with all the flaws, biases, and corruption we both know mankind is fully capable of. As Christians, however, we accept that God is Righteous and that He never contradicts himself or goes back on his promises; that he is perfect and we are not. At the very least, he perceives causality in its entirety and every possible end. Given that kind of perspective, a point of view we cannot fathom or calculate with even our most sophisticated simulations, is it possible to confidently say any command He gives is not the correct one, given the vast gap of knowledge between our point of view and His?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:02:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 11:49:37 PM, JusAnoCon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 8:18:17 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The bold indicates what must be on the mind of God. Were it not, there would be no reason to instruct you. "God loves you" I think is pretty axiomatic, right? That clearly must be on God's mind, as ultimately that is why you believe what you believe, right? The Bible has to on some level lend understanding to what or how He thinks.

It describes what He has said/commanded, and what he thinks in specific cases, but as to how or why he thinks or acts, that's a level of understanding that is not ventured into. He has told us who he is, and what he expects of us. The closest he's gotten to ever answering a direct 'why' question was declaring, essentially, "Because I Am".

Um, what? "The Wages of Sin are death", right? That is not codified in the Bible? Its not moral to do God's justice when its codified as such?

I left that a little unclear. That was my fault. The means of the penalty, the methods by which the penalty is handed out; that is not codified. We have the clear moral codex, but the methods by which the penalty is dealt are ultimately God's to decide, whether by letting entropy run its course or by another means.

So I will never find in the Bible a verse on how to punish some one for... say... beating their slave to death? Or plowing on the sabbath? Correct me if I am wrong, but shalt thou or shalt thou not suffer a witch to live? I can't find a price for knocking up a woman without marrying her, or, worse, get killed should it seem as though we hid our transgression?

I expected the answer, sure, but congratulations, you are the first person to publicly state they would commence with whole sale slaughter should their God order them to given their perception of the circumstances. I attempted this earlier, and no one, and I do mean no one, stated they would engage. I got a lot of "wow this sucks..." kind of noncomittal answers, and I got a lot of "eek, I probably wouldn't...", but no one to profess what they would do plainly.

Just keep in mind that what you set up for me was a hypothetical that I know is not going to come to pass.

Because you know the mind of God or because you have faith in His word?

Christ will need no help come that day.

God tested Abraham. God sort of tested Job. Great adversity might be needed to show that He has strong servants.

The Revelation casts him as judge and executor of His justice. So while it's an interesting 'what if', it's also a pointless exercise with no bearing on the day-to-day morality of Christians.

I am always weary when judge jury and executioner are wrapped up in one person, especially if said person has no accountability to me. Or others.

Because you/I are accountable to yourself, and your/my fellow man, by what I see as morality. "I was only following orders" enabled the worst atrocities to be committed that humanity has known.

Believe me, as a Veteran, I very much understand that line of thought. I could not have served my time if I wasn't assured I could refuse orders that broke RoE, consituted a war crimes, or were beyond the authority of the individual to issue. I'm not about to claim the guards at Auschwitz were innocent.

Nor am I, but this is the rub about authority: you have plainly stated you cannot possibly know the whys and whats of God's mind. Your are working simply off assurances. While currently, in the past few thousand recorded years, God has never countermanded Himself... to us... that doesn't mean He hasn't practiced this on countless other planets, in countless other realities.

But ultimately, the orders you're talking about came from men, humans, with all the flaws, biases, and corruption we both know mankind is fully capable of. As Christians, however, we accept that God is Righteous and that He never contradicts himself or goes back on his promises; that he is perfect and we are not. At the very least, he perceives causality in its entirety and every possible end. Given that kind of perspective, a point of view we cannot fathom or calculate with even our most sophisticated simulations, is it possible to confidently say any command He gives is not the correct one, given the vast gap of knowledge between our point of view and His?

"We cannot fathom or calculate"...

" he thinks or acts, that's a level of understanding that is not ventured into."...

Is it possible to confidently say anything about the motive of this entity, at all?

How would you when you have given over to know when such an entity that has eternity on its side, you have no way of verifying its motive, no way of realistically checking its intentions, no potential to see into its calculus, and at best, its lack of attention to the planet or alternate means of accomplishing arguably better ends when questioned are something you call futile?

Remember, for all the seemingly benevolence you can find in the Bible, His worship comes before all. In the 10 commandments, four, the first four commandments are about how to keep Him, the "wrathful" and "jealous" God happy, the God that considers visiting the iniquities of a man upon the third and fourth generations as a just measure.

But me asking why my great grandfather's specific sin should be taken out on me is flirting with blasphemy. THIS is the problem I have with this version of a creator.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JusAnoCon
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:23:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2016 1:02:40 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I will never find in the Bible a verse on how to punish some one for... say... beating their slave to death? Or plowing on the sabbath? Correct me if I am wrong, but shalt thou or shalt thou not suffer a witch to live? I can't find a price for knocking up a woman without marrying her, or, worse, get killed should it seem as though we hid our transgression?

To get into this, I'd have to explain the difference between the Moral Law, the Civil Law, and the Ceremonial Law; a topic that, to explain in full, would stray pretty far from the core of this discussion. Just to be brief, the Moral Law is the simple do or do not. The Civil Law are the laws of governance and criminal justice. The Ceremonial Law describe the Temple, the forms of worship, ritual cleanliness, and dietary and medical laws. The Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ, the Civil Law is abrogated by those of the nation in which we live, and the Moral Law (referred to in the New Testament simply as the "The Law") remains as our moral compass.

Because you know the mind of God or because you have faith in His word?

The latter.

Nor am I, but this is the rub about authority: you have plainly stated you cannot possibly know the whys and whats of God's mind. Your are working simply off assurances. While currently, in the past few thousand recorded years, God has never countermanded Himself... to us... that doesn't mean He hasn't practiced this on countless other planets, in countless other realities.

And that is ultimately what it comes down to. Do you take God at his word, or not. Do you place your trust in His judgement, or your own. By his very nature, much of what God says about himself and about what awaits us is unverifiable, so you either place your faith in the fact that what He has revealed in the Bible is true, or the fact that what He says is false; or that He is false, which is effectively the same conclusion.

If I reject the message and later it is proven true, then my very soul is damned by that choice, but if I accept the message and it is eventually proven false, then I spent my life trying to adhere to an impossible set of moral rules, and ultimately, I lost very little. While that is not my primary motivation, that simple risk-reward analysis factors into my confidence in my decision. Ultimately, I cannot make that decision for you, nor would I want to. And God will not command me to come along and force you to make that choice by threat of violence, or at all. Part of my duty in this world is simply to let you know that there is a choice to be made. In that, I have already done my job.

I'm not here in this thread to convince you to adopt my chosen morality, or convert you to my religion. I am here to answer the question posed in the OP, and by now, I think, I have more than sufficiently done so.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Inque Hominem Salutem. Soli Deo Gloria.