The Moral Argument

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

And I am not sure Hawking really said (or meant) that. At least according to this:

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." (The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).

My quote's more recent.

Besides, if space-time if finite, then that is a boundary and we've already explored how you're committing materialism of the gaps to fabricate explanations that deny that there cannot be an infinite regression of past events within a finite framework.

Nothing's changed viole so it's not like there's any point to traveling back down this road.

When I accuse someone of making a priori assumptions, I do not necessarily imply that what they say is wrong.

That's not the point. The point is you say you don't commit them, but you do.

Therefore you have to justify yours just as we do ours which we're here doing successfully and you're failing to do, and yet still trying to claim some sort of rational, higher ground.

I just state that we cannot prove anything definitive with (metaphisical) a priori assumptions. It is true that naturalists make a priori assumptions, but these assumptions are validated by the fact that they actually work and produce usable results.

You're asserting that they do here, and then when we follow your lines of reasoning you fully admit that you don't even anticipate that your assumptions will be empirically validated within your lifetime.

Further to that, you use myriad metaphysical a priori assumptions as though they were definite even though your worldview lacks the necessary preconditions to even house such assumptions.

The facts stand in stark contrast to your assertions.

It could very well be that I also make a priori assumptions and that I cannot prove my theories, but, at best, we have equally valid alternatives and worldviews which cannot be excluded on logical grounds only.

No you don't. Your assumptions are demonstrably self contradictory, so they are rationally invalid.

You try to claim to approach these issues with cold logic then you opt for theories that contain logical fallacies and self-defeaters, and are therefore patently illogical.

You try to claim to follow the evidence but in the past have freely admitted there is none to support your case and may not be any in your lifetime.

You're therefore clearly and demonstrably submitting to irrational explanations for which there is no empirical support and can claim no part of validity, rationality or empirical substantiation.

Lip service won't pay the bills viole, you have to have evidence and logic on you side not just the empty claim they're there for you.

And when things cannot be decided by thinking only, there is where you need to test and use the scientific method, if possible.

Which is why we're trying to look at evidence... but you retreat to thought experiments.

Aristoteles (and the Catholic theologians who borrowed from Aristoteles) thought that objects with different weights fall with different accelerations or that the sun revolves around the earth and it came to these conclusion by metaphisical thought only; someone tested the claim, and showed that it was not the case.

I know that perfectly well.

That you think that establishes some point you're making demonstrates only that we understand your points just fine and can provide refutation for them but you really don't understand the substance of what we're saying despite our repeated efforts to highlight the salient points for you, so you're still wasting your (and our) time wrestling with straw men... and somehow they're still winning.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I think we have a dilemma here. Either God transmits different morality to different people, thereby invalidating the argument that God is the common denominator of one morality, or you have to conclude that we are wrong.

viole seriously, we've been over this.

That's a false dilemma, because we're not talking about moral epistomology, but moral ontology.

If there is an objective moral standard, then there ontologically has to be on objective moral foundation, ergo God exists.

That point is true and inescapable regardless of our epistomological ability to comprehend the details of the morality.

Apart from that, naturalists constantly repeat that we know the difference between right and wrong and we don't need religion to tell us what that difference is, so if you reject that then great, but all that means is that we do need religion and it's insight via Divine revelation because we otherwise can't know the mind of God.

Therefore, we need religion both ontologically and epistomologically, so there is no dilemma - if there is morality, then there is a God.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

Sorry for neglecting you, I just have some problems now to answer all points of all posts. Therefore, I can only address one point at the time. -Viole

No, that is fine. Thanks for the reply! I get swamped in my debates on atheist forums because of all the replies. Since it is late and I'm just reading my e-mails now I will try and respond tomorrow night (Canada time) except to say what follows.

I don't see this as solving the problem I posed to you however. Why is what you believe right or why is the good of what your society believes actually good? What makes what you believe or what your society believes as the moral benchmark that we should all live by? If it is not then what is that benchmark of what good is? If it is not then why is what Hitler did to 12 million 'undesirables' bad if any society chooses to see it as good? If it is not, it is just whatever the preference is that we choose to believe and the only way our moral preference becomes law is if we can force it on others, either through mental persuasion or by physical force. In a world of moral relativism why should right be determined by you or your society? It is no different than a person or a group of people flying a plane into a building because they believe it is 'right.' They believe it so that makes it right. Again, may I remind you that you are confusing what ought to be with what is or what you prefer, unless that is, unless you have an objective measure/gauge of what 'right' is, what 'good' ought to be.

As the Bible says,

"In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." Judges 21:25

Peter

[Guest]

I think we have a dilemma here. Either God transmits different morality to different people, thereby invalidating the argument that God is the common denominator of one morality, or you have to conclude that we are wrong. But on what objective basis are we wrong?

Dear Sister I Present For Your Consideration One Objective Definition Of Immorality (Sin)

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6

And One Objective Definition Of Morality (Righteousness)

So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD. Deuteronomy 21:9

Just Trust Beloved

Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalms 139:23-24

Trust

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Love, Joe

[Guest]

Hi Viole,

Sorry for neglecting you, I just have some problems now to answer all points of all posts. Therefore, I can only address one point at the time. -Viole

No, that is fine. Thanks for the reply! I get swamped in my debates on atheist forums because of all the replies. Since it is late and I'm just reading my e-mails now I will try and respond tomorrow night (Canada time) except to say what follows.

I don't see this as solving the problem I posed to you however. Why is what you believe right or why is the good of what your society believes actually good? What makes what you believe or what your society believes as the moral benchmark that we should all live by? If it is not then what is that benchmark of what good is? If it is not then why is what Hitler did to 12 million 'undesirables' bad if any society chooses to see it as good? If it is not, it is just whatever the preference is that we choose to believe and the only way our moral preference becomes law is if we can force it on others, either through mental persuasion or by physical force. In a world of moral relativism why should right be determined by you or your society? It is no different than a person or a group of people flying a plane into a building because they believe it is 'right.' They believe it so that makes it right. Again, may I remind you that you are confusing what ought to be with what is or what you prefer, unless that is, unless you have an objective measure/gauge of what 'right' is, what 'good' ought to be.

As the Bible says,

"In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." Judges 21:25

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

What you say here is my main critique to the moral argument. Authors like C.S.Lewis also believes that there must be a God, since morality must come from Him. For the argument to make sense, it must assume that we share this objective morality even if we do not believe in God, otherwise there would be nothing to prove, if we already knew that God exists.

But what morality? Later in the book he says that homosexuality is wrong. Well, I don't feel that way, and with me vast sectors of the society I live in. Even our church celebrates gay marriages... -Viole

Again you seem to be mistaking your subjective feelings or those of your society to the ultimate measure in your mind (because by default you don't have an objective measure), but why does your feelings of right and wrong have to be those of another subjective mind or society? It doesn't unless there is an ultimate objective measure that we can know by.

The biblical defence would be Romans 1:18-32 and onward.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them....They exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity....Although they know God's righteous decrees that those who do such things deserve death, they continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

I think we have a dilemma here. Either God transmits different morality to different people, thereby invalidating the argument that God is the common denominator of one morality, or you have to conclude that we are wrong. But on what objective basis are we wrong? Because we threaten our species by accepting homosexuals? Homosexuals always existed and, yet, we are 7 billions now. Probably would be better for our species to have more homosexuals who adopt... Because God said so? That would put the existence of God in the premise and would, therefore, beg the question and prove nothing. Because you disapprove homosexuality? I don't see how that can prove God. I disapprove homophobia, and? -Viole

As you can see from the above biblical quote it is not God who transmits different morality to different people but people who suppress God's truth and refuse to act according to His goodness. The dilemma for you is still trying to justify why your subjective standard can even define what good is.

Yes, because God said so! It is not a question of 'accepting homosexuals' but a question of whether what they do is immoral and wrong. As humans we are made in the image and likeness of God, even if that image was marred by the original sin of disobedience. Every human being deserves dignity and respect, but not every act done by human beings is moral. Do you think homosexuality is a natural act? One of the many ways of proving God is by the impossibility of the contrary. How do you ever arrive at good outside of an objective ideal - God? But you will never truly know Him intimately in a personal relationship outside of Jesus Christ. That is the greatest proof.

Btw, did you know that 7 billion people could fit in half the size of PEI in Canada given a square foot (or is that meter) of each other?

Edited November 6, 2011 by PGA

[Guest]

.... And this is the problem with all so-called proof of the God's existence (cosmological, ontological, moral, fine tuning, etc.): if you dig below the surface, they are all question begging and circular and end up always by putting their wished conclusion into the premise, or by citing the Bible to prove a point....

Or By Citing The Bible

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

To Hear The Master's Voice

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

And Dear One, You Are Not Cheap

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

No, You Are Not

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:27-29

See

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Yes

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Bless This Woman LORD

Teach Her To Learn To Seek Your Face

And Bless Her With The Knowledge Of Your Grace

In The Name Of Jesus I Pray

Thank You My God

Amen

Love, Your Joe

[imoss]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

OK, I will cut and paste a moral question from another forum. If objective moral values existed, we should all agree on the answer to the following question. If we do not all agree, then it is questionable whether objective moral values actually exist, and if they do, who decides?

- A is a very good person. She helped the poor all her life and she has always been devoted to reduce sufferance in this world. She considers herself a good Christian and tries to apply Jesus message in everything she does. But she does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. She dies very young with this (dis)belief by trying to save a drowning child.

- B was a war criminal. She is responsible for the death and misery of millions of people. Just before dying she accepts Jesus and a literal interpretation of Genesis with all her heart. She dies in her nineties in her comfortable bed with this newly acquired faith.

.

According to your allegedly objective morality, who should be saved (eternity of bliss and happiness) and who should be condemned (eternity under infinite torment) ?

Both are saved, neither condemned. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus regardless of our individual knowledge or interpretation of scripture. When I came face to face with the righteousness of God I fully understood that though I considered myself to be basically a good person... In the eyes of a Holy & just God I was black with sin. I was washed of that in an instant. I'm just as saved 20 years later & not perfect in scripture interpretation as I was the minute God gave me his grace & mercy.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

Well PGA,

the problem with this is that you put God's existence in the premise, whereas the moral argument tries to prove God because of the existence of objective moral values. Since we have here a non-shared moral value, we have to find a way to resolve the dilemma without asking God, who still needs to be proven. -Viole

I have given you the necessity for objective morality, any morality, as being omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal, true, unchanging and so on. That is how the Bible describes God.

All you have shown me so far is your preference, your feelings, your opinion, your subjectivity, your relativism. How can you base an ideal good/right on that? If you can't then why is it good at all - because you say so, because you have found like-minded people who also believe what you believe, because it has been ingrained in your mind through biological, psychological, environmental and social factors? What about those who have been influenced in another way or factors and have the opposite views that you do? Why are their views evil/bad/wrong - just because in your opinion you don't like their opinion. You see, opinion never made something right or wrong unless it conforms to what really is right and wrong. If those are the only grounds you have - your preference - then what makes Hitler's Germany bad if I choose to believe it is good, or if my whole society think likewise?

You see, your world-view works only in mind. As soon as you become the victim or evil is perpetrated on, or you are the next person in line for the gas chamber, then relativism is thrown to the wind. There are certain things that are evil for all times and all places, except for those who have hardened their hearts and minds to the point where they cannot tell the difference any more.

We could prove the existence of anything by thinking like that. I could invent a God that approves homosexuality and state that it is your rejection of homosexuality which is subjective and related to your society, whereas mine is objective because derives from my God. The same is valid for other so-called objective moral values (sex before marriage, abortion, etc.). -Viole

No you can't because not everything conforms to what is actual, what is real, what is true. I can give you many proofs that the Bible is what it claims to be. I started on the presuppositional argument from a moral standpoint. I could work from the evidential argument, from prophesy, from the internal and external consistency of the Bible. No other belief can stand up to the scrutiny that the Bible can.

When you look at the world from an evolutionary viewpoint how do you explain evil? Is there such a thing? How can you prove it? If not then why do so many object to what one person or one society does to another? Accidental, unguided, mindless processes do not do what we do. There is no way they could.

And this is the problem with all so-called proof of the God's existence (cosmological, ontological, moral, fine tuning, etc.): if you dig below the surface, they are all question begging and circular and end up always by putting their wished conclusion into the premise, or by citing the Bible to prove a point. -Viole

Every world-view must answer four to five basic/ultimate questions in order to make sense of itself.

1) Who are we?

2) Why are we here?

3) What difference does it make?

4) What happens when we die?

From the evolutionary standpoint we as humans are just biological bags of atoms that react in different ways to our environmental and other factors. We have no idea of how they originated.

We are here for no ultimate purpose or reason, just an accident that for some unknown reason wants to survive, but what caused that reason we have no idea. What we do and who we are has no ultimate purpose or meaning yet we act as if it does. When we die nothing matters for we no longer exist. Why should it matter now?

Btw, if you dig below the surface every world-view begs the question, every world-view has its bias and prejudice. The difference is whether or not it is based on truth. The question is, as Jesus asked Pilot, 'What is truth?' How do you ever find truth in a shifting value system? How do you ever find it in shifting subjective opinion, in a knowledge base that is constantly being altered? One minute it is, the next it isn't. One minute abortion is wrong, the next it isn't. One minute homosexuality is wrong the next it isn't. One minute polygamy is wrong the next who knows? One minute having sex with a minor is wrong, the next people are pushing the bounds of human decency, such as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Once one biblical standard falls others are pushed until the minority gets its 'rights' because it screams the loudest and people get desensitized to what is being asked. Psalm 11:3 says, "When the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?" But a society in which every opinion is valid is an anarchy of ideas. A society in which one view trumps all others is a dictatorship of ideas. The God of the Bible invites reason and to worship Him with all our mind, heart, soul and body. As Christian we are called to put it all to use and to seek out truth. Not every world-view is as valid as every other world-view. Basically we are challenging each other to justify why their particular world-view is true. Misplaced faith is bad faith. I believe your faith is misplaced, if you'll forgive me for saying so?

We can take the biblical argument to the marketplace and show relativists and non-believes the consequences of their ideas and the inability of their world-view to make sense of anything ultimately. I have yet to see an atheist or secular humanist who can do the same to our belief in God.

Here in North America we are a culture fixated on entertainment. Our gatekeepers are mostly relativists who can't separate truth from hype and who are always trying to convince others of their spin with fine sounding arguments that have no backbone. Secular universities control and indoctrinate those who come through their doors with their ideas of higher learning. The media follows along, as do the arts. Nancy Pearcey wrote two books on this indoctrination that I found quite revealing, as have others, such as Ravi Zacharius, Francis Schaeffer, Cornellius Van Til, John Frame or Os Guinness to name but a few.

Peter

Edited November 7, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

Thanks again for your reply. Let me mull it over for a few days since I'm working night shift.

I'll probably break it up into sections again (Oh no, she says. Another long-winded effort).

I can start with your first two responses for now.

I have given you the necessity for objective morality, any morality, as being omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal, true, unchanging and so on. That is how the Bible describes God. -Me

I am not so sure that the eternal and unchanging bit is valid. Is it still valid today to stone adulterers, rebellious children, people who work on the sabbath, slavery, etc.? You will immediately say that all these things were necessary in a theocratic society or during another covenant. I translate this with: they can and do change, depending on the society and its shifts in culture, and even in the Bible this is the case. -Viole

Well the first thing to consider is if the unchanging part of my equation/statement is necessary for objective morals. Can you see how a position that is constantly shifting could be used to determine what the objective reality really is? But goodness comes from the very nature of God. It is an intrinsic part of who He is, His very being. Show me how a shifting standard that keeps defining and redefining 'good' can be objective. That is all I ask. If you can't then why is your definition good? In your statement below you have already shown me that you are unsure of why it is actually good for the very reason we are talking about - that is by whose authority is goodness determined. Who can you cite as having an objective, ideal understanding of goodness that we should all follow?

If there is no objective value then all you have is one preference forcing itself on another. Can it be anything but? If that is the case, then there is no need to get upset with what one person does to another, unless that person is of course you or your close biological unit, or if that person will indirectly affect you or your family unit. It is just the law of the jungle - the strong, more cunning, more vicious, more resourceful survive and outlast the rest and it is probably wise to forget about altruism, except where it becomes a benefit to your survival. If steeling someones last food supply (thus resulting in their eventual death) helps your family unit then do not think twice about doing so. Why should you? Why even share it with your family if you are still of a fertile age, unless of course they are still an asset to your own survival? You can produce more biological units. (Sorry to get absurd. I find it emphases a point much more effectively).

Your very view of morality is what wars are fought over - subjectivity - relative only to those who share similar opinions.

As for the rest of your statement/rebuttal I agree with part of your statement. God was addressing a particular people in which He made a covenant with. He imposed certain punishments in order to teach them that sin or wrongful action has severe consequences. He promised blessing if they would obey the agreement the two parties had entered into (a binding blood covenant between God, the greater party, and the people of this covenant) and curses if they disobeyed. Individually there were certain laws that were punished more harshly than others, in order to stop perversions and acts that would corrupt the whole society. God placed great emphasis on protecting the family unity and each individual as well as the groups relationship to Him.

Because of the stubbornness of the people of that covenant and their inability to keep the demands they had agreed upon, God finally brought the curse/judgment spoken of in Deuteronomy 28-32 upon this people for their disobedience by sending the promised Messiah to save those who would believe and judge those who would not. The eternal Son, who was given the name Jesus/Joshua (God is salvation), came to remove this OT covenant and bring in a better one, one that was for all people in order that all who believe in Him would be reconciled to God. This is an eternal covenant that is not conditional upon our merit/our works before God, but on the merit and works of One far greater than us, because He was before us and because He met every righteous requirement of God within Himself on our behalf as well as satisfying God's holy and righteous wrath and demand for justice for wrongful action. This covenant does not depend on what we do or have done but on what Jesus did as our substitute in our place. But that is not all of the transaction of believing in Jesus and sharing that relationship with Him. He has also given the believer a heart that is open to God - a new nature that is no longer hostile to God, but at peace with Him.

The point of this new covenant is that God's righteousness is credited to those who believe. There is no condemnation, for Jesus has suffered that in/on our behalf. God no longer looks upon our worthiness, but upon the One we are betrothed to, the One we are in union with. The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, that He sacrificed for. We are under the protection of our Redeemer, our Deliverer! He sends those who have faith in Him a Counselor, a Helper, a Teacher, a Comforter for our remainder of our time on earth. You will/probably have notice(d) the distinction made between believers and un/non-believers. The Christian is said to be in Christ! His blood, His life, was shed in our place. His Spirit is at work in us, helping us grow from the new birth/regeneration into childhood, adolescence and then maturity and adulthood in who we are in Him.

The humility and wisdom and purity that is our God teaches us to rest in Him, to give Him control of our lives for we have died to our old self, to our old ways so that He may live fulling in and through us in that intimate relationship. This dying to self is for the benefit of other, that they may to find the Author of salvation. This is mostly something that the unbeliever does not understand.

All you have shown me so far is your preference, your feelings, your opinion, your subjectivity, your relativism. How can you base an ideal good/right on that? If you can't then why is it good at all - because you say so, because you have found like-minded people who also believe what you believe, because it has been ingrained in your mind through biological, psychological, environmental and social factors? What about those who have been influenced in another way or factors and have the opposite views that you do? Why are their views evil/bad/wrong - just because in your opinion you don't like their opinion. You see, opinion never made something right or wrong unless it conforms to what really is right and wrong. If those are the only grounds you have - your preference - then what makes Hitler's Germany bad if I choose to believe it is good, or if my whole society think likewise? -Me

I am not sure I am showing you my preferences. Even if I came from Mars, I would notice that people of different cultures have sometimes conflicting interpretation of what is moral. This is just a fact. How to decide which interpretation is the correct one? No idea, the only thing I know is that so called shared objective morality (objective like 2 + 2 = 4), seems to be an illusion. Take slavery, for instance. We do not need to call upon Hitler. Few centuries ago, slavery and brutal racism was considered absolutely normal. And we are talking of times when atheists or secular humanists were as ubiquitous as white flies. Where did all these people take their objective moral imperative that slavery was ok? Even if they never read the Bible and its non-explicit-condemnation of slavery, we see a problem with this positive attitude against slavery and rampant racism. -Viole

Unless you can show me that your belief in what is good or bad is anything other than your subjective belief or that there is an ideal reference/measure/standard outside ourselves that applies to everyone and that is necessary to know what good is then all you have is your preference and the preference of those who are like-minded in their opinions and feeling. When you say, 'how to decide which interpretation is the correct one' you imply that there is a correct one. Now the question is how would you ever come to that realization of 'correct' apart from the ideal being revealed to our subjective minds from an outside objective source?

2+2=4 may be an illusion in the purely mathematical world of abstract ideas and numbers, depending in which sense the term is being discussed, but in the real world two objects plus another two objects are four objects, not seven hundred or whatever.

The problem of slavery is what kind are you talking about? In the OT times a person could become indebted to another in order to survive. It was one person with greater means looking after another with lesser means, and as payment the one with lesser means agreed to serve the one with greater means in return for their livelihood. We have a similar situation today between employer and employee. After seven years the debt was considered wiped clean. The lesser person could continue in this relationship if he so chose, but the law was that after seven years the debt was to be considered paid in full.

It was the kind of slavery that the Egyptians put the Israelites under that God objected to. That kind of wicked, harsh subjugation of people is wrong. As Christians we look upon (or are supposed to) all in Christ as equal -mthere is no distinction -we are all of one fellowship, one family, if we are truly His. There is neither Jew, nor Gentile, free or slave, male nor female for we are all one in Christ. Some of us just have more earthly things than others. It is not ours. It is God's.

The evolutionary world-view is a dog eat dog eat cat eat rat world-view. You borrow from the Christian framework when you consider someone's needs above your own for no other purpose than to love then, not what you can get from them, or how useful they may be to you in the long run. In these areas and so, so many more you live inconsistently with your starting points.

And again, if we leave God out (since it is the thesis of the moral argument), we have no possible way to discern who, between us, is right concerning homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc. Me

But even if we let God in, I cannot help but notice that opinions are divergent between Christians, too. All Christians say they have a personal relationship with God, but apparently, God tells them different things. I have the impression that the results of this personal relationships say more about the person than about the God they are talking to. Conservative people have a conservative God whereas liberal people have a liberal God. Some hear the universe is 6000 years old, some don't. Some hear that witches exists exist and some don't. Some hear that halloween is a demonic belief, some don't. For some God is vengeaful, for some He isn't. For some there is a post tribulation rapture, for some there isn't. For some women can be ordained, and for some they can't. Some reject the death penalty and some don't. Who is right and why do we have so many contradicting results from their personal relationship with Jesus?-Viole

Well the church you described earlier in your homeland certainly sounds like it has diverged from God's standard, His word. The point is that we do have a standard that claims itself objective and is necessary in order for there to be objectivity. There is also a correct way of interpreting Scripture. It is when we misinterpret that we go amok. That is the standard that I would point you to anytime you feel that I am misrepresenting it. The clear teachings of God come through and are logical when we use Scripture to interpret itself and listen to what God is actually saying, in context and related context, rather than reading something into the context that it does not say.

Out of time.

Ciao for now!

Peter

Edited November 7, 2011 by PGA