Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150

    Morality is Objective, like a Pair of Scales: A Fatal Flaw in Craig's Moral Argumennt

    Just posted this article on my blog (see here). I am reproducing it here to encourage discussion since not everyone on this forum visits my blog.


    Morality is Objective, like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God

    There is a pervasive confusion about the meaning of morality shared by believers and skeptics alike. Theists typically assert that nothing could be "really" right or wrong without an authority - a God - to define it as such. Atheists often accept this premise and so conclude there is no objective morality. Meanwhile, neither side has said a single word about what morality actually entails. They don't seem to notice that morality is based fundamentally on concepts like fairness, equity, and justice which are objectively defined and measurable properties.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lady_justice.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	28.6 KB 
ID:	1024What determines if something is just or unjust? The answer flows immediately from the definition of the word. Here are some representative samples from various dictionaries on the net:

    JUST (adj)

    1. Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
    2. Done or made according to principle; equitable
    3. Conforming to high moral standards; honest
    4. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
    5. Fair or impartial in action or judgment


    Justice is grounded in reason, rationality, truth, and fairness. For a judgment to be just it must correspond to reality which is why it is objective (as opposed to subjective). Justice, fairness, and equality all lie at the root of our moral intuitions. Indeed, the word iniquity is based on the Latin root iniquitas which literally denotes unequalness, unevenness, injustice. Something is just and moral if it is equitable, fair, reasonable, impartial. It is an objective property no different than the objective fact that two authentic coins of the same denomination have the same weight. That is why Lady Justice, an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems, is pictured with a scale. Nothing is more objective than a scale. She wears a blindfold because justice must be impartial and objective, which means she ignores any factors not specifically relevant to the thing being judged (weighed, in the metaphor of the scales).

    Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective. It is taught to children throughout the world in some form of the Golden Rule which tells us how to tap into our moral intuitions by putting ourselves in the place of the other. This helps us be impartial and fair and promotes mercy, compassion, kindness, and empathy. The Golden Rule stands "in light of its own reason" as explained by Professor R. M. MacIver in his article The Deep Beauty of the Golden Rule (provided online by Google Books):
    Do to others as you would have others do to you. This is the only rule that stands by itself in the light of its own reason, the only rule that can stand by itself in the naked, warring universe, in the face of the contending values of men and groups.
    Rationality and the Golden Rule are the foundation of morality as explained in my articles The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality and The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. See also my wife's article, Justice: The Root of Morality, on her blog GodAndButterfly.net.

    The Moral Argument for the Existence of God


    On page 172 of his book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Dr. William Lane Craig stated his Moral Argument for God as follows:

    1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    His argument is immediately susceptible to Euthyphro's dilemma: Is something morally good because God says so, or does God say so because it is morally good? The first possibility implies morality is arbitrary, while the second implies it is objectively true independent of God. Either horn of this dilemma destroys Craig's moral argument so he needed to find a third option which he developed in his article Euthyphro Dilemma Once More where he splits the horns by asserting that "God’s moral nature is the paradigm of goodness; what is good or bad is determined by conformity or lack thereof to His nature." Craig asserts that there would be no meaning to words like "good, just, true, or fair" if there were no God. He then presents this question by a reader "James":
    If God’s nature rejects the raping of little children, but it is not an arbitrary rejection (rejected for no reasons), then would this not mean that God’s nature is good in accordance with good reasons? In other words, can we not say that God’s nature is necessarily opposed to the rape of children BECAUSE in every possible world it causes injustice and injury to the victim (i.e. good reasons)?
    Here is how Craig responded:
    I’d respond that there certainly can be reasons for what God commands. For example, He forbids raping little children because it would be unjust and injurious to them. But then the deeper question is, “Why is it wrong to cause injury to innocent persons? What determines what is just or unjust?” Eventually such questions must find a stopping point in the character of God. Kindness is good because that’s the way God is; cruelty is evil because it is inconsistent with God’s nature. Therefore He issues commands that forbid behavior which is cruel and prescribe behavior which is kind. Rape is cruel, not kind, and therefore it is forbidden by God and therefore wrong.
    Craig's question "What determines what is just or unjust?" exposes the rank absurdity of his assertions. He appears to be profoundly ignorant of the meaning of basic moral terms like "just" and "fair". As a supposed "philosopher" such ignorance is inexcusable. The job of a philosopher is to take concepts like justice and unpack them in terms of things that are commonly understood, such as a scale which is a universal symbol of justice. His assertion that we could not determine the difference between just and unjust without ultimately appealing to God is as ridiculous as saying that scales would cease to function if God did not exist. Likewise, we need not appeal to any God to understand why it is wrong to rape children. Craig addressed this point as follows:
    You rejoin, “Must we conclude that the reasons to not rape (unloving, unjust) would cease to exist if there was no transcendent, necessarily, good nature in existence?” Yes, in the sense that in the absence of God it’s not evident that cruelty would be wrong. Activity that looks very much like rape goes on all the time in the animal kingdom but without any moral dimension to the act. On atheism that’s all we are—just animals, relatively advanced primates, and it’s hard to see why human activity should have the moral dimension that is missing from the activity of other animals. So while rape in the absence of God would still be injurious, cruel, and demeaning, there wouldn’t be anything, so far as I can see, that would make an action having those properties morally wrong. One could try to defend some sort of atheistic moral Platonism, I suppose, but then one must answer my three-fold critique of Atheistic Moral Realism in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
    Craig said that "it’s hard to see why human activity should have the moral dimension that is missing from the activity of other animals." This is the fundamental flaw in his moral argument. He falsely asserts that humans would be nothing but animals under atheism, as if we would lose all human capacities of language and logic if there were no God. He repeats this error in almost every presentation of his moral argument. He usually puts on a very pained look on his face, and whines on and on about how he just can't "see" how, under atheism, humans would have a "moral dimension." I addressed this error in grotesque detail in my article Why Most Animals are not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument. There is no excuse for Craig's continued error on this point. He is simply incorrigible. He has been corrected by many professional philosophers, as seen, for example, in this clip from his debate with Shelly Kagan:

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155
    Great Stuff!!! I love this kind of discussion. It is amazing to me how much disagreement there is on the subject, but i suppose i should not be surprised. It was through my discussions with Richard and Rose that i have been able to synthesize my beliefs more fully on Morality. Up to this point in my Life I have spent time in both the Subjective and Objective Camps, and also in believing there is a God and being Agnostic (I am not sure if God exists or Not.)

    I think the problem with Craigs argument is that the first assertion he makes is not self evident. I am completely sold on the second assertion that their is an objective standard. My previous discussions with Atheists many times cannot even clear the hurdle of recognizing the need for that objective standard, most of them instead believe in an subjective definition. This is why i was SO SO excited to See that Rose and Richard do recognize that need. In making my argument though I will declare it as my first Assertion and give my reasoning for such, just in case anyone would like to debate that point.


    1. Objective and Absolute Truth exists (2+2=4).

    No discussion or meaning can take place if this is not a given. To refute this assertion is the ULTIMATE conversation killer. If there is no such thing as objective Truth and it is merely subjective then ANY statement can be True for any given individual. If we claim that 2+2=4 only if you can understand it or believe it then there is no meaning to anything it all. The universe is then just comprised of 7 Billion different versions of "truth". It becomes a matter of preference or merely opinion. IF Truth does not exists outside of our own personal experience then their is really no point of even pretending that it exists.

    Truly everything that ACTUALLY exists must (by definition) exist in Truth otherwise it is NOT.

    2. Morality can be achieved simply by recognizing that Truth is Good is Right precisely because it is in accordance with reality.

    This also should be easy to recognize!!!! Any action or Any statement is Only GOOD when it is made or done in the accordance with the reality. If any action contains Untruth or fails to recognize the goodness of Truth the it is Wrong. If I teach a little child that (2+2=5) then i have done something Bad and Wrong.

    So any Morality is merely a collection of Truths. Immorality is merely a collection of Lies which is presenting something as Truthful that is NOT.

    These 2 assertions seem simple enough. Now for the tough one ;-).
    Really mathematically speaking the first two assertions are really one because Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, Justice, Love(?) are all different aspects of the same absolute.

    3. Truth, Goodness, Righteousness etc , has a personality.

    I believe that it is the Truth that Truth knows it is True. I believe that Good knows that it is Good. Love Loves and Hate Hates. Recognizing God is merely recognizing that Truth can recognize and experience itself. In this way God exists absolutely .... it is that absolute objective Truth being Self aware.
    All these principles MUST exist is a given, does it make more sense that these principles are Aloof and Ignorant of Reality, or does it make more sense that these principles are Self evident and Knowledgeable of the fact that they exist. Is it False that Truth knows the Truth? Is it even possible that the Truth is Ignorant of the Truth? Denying the existence God requires that one also Denies That Truth knows the Truth. Affirming the existence of God is merely recognizing the Truth can discern itself. In so much that I as a mere mortal can discern the Truth (sometimes) I therefore must recognize that Truth can know itself completely.

    Even as Elementary as this all seems we still debate it very much, many claim there is no objective truth, many claim that Truth is unknowable to itself, and then even the people that do believe in a God/Gods have WIDELY divergent beliefs on his or her character. It is interesting to me though that most (good?) definitions of God require that he cannot know a untruth, being Just cannot tolerate Injustice, being Holy cannot tolerate Evil.

    The Idea or belief in the existence of God is a prerequisite for us to know the Truth because if Truth cannot know itself (2+2=4) then how can we know anything at all?

    SO let us move on from debating the existence of God and graduate to REAL challenge of discerning the Truth which is God. The Whole Point of Science, Religion, Language, the Arts, Philosophy, and all the things that make HUMANS special are all attempts to discern and experience the Truth; therefore, they are all attempts to understand God which is the Objective Truth. Debating that it exists or that it can know itself just shows how immature humans are in respect to God.

    If God exists then we should (moralistic statement of Good) strive to know the truth and surrender all our preconceived notions in the face of that absolute Truth which is God. If No God exists ie if Truth is not capable of knowing itself then what hope do we have of discerning it. The Truth is we Need the Truth to reveal itself to us... to give itself to us...... God as Truth personified is the ONLY Hope for mankind. If truth has NO personality then I think it would be safe to say that we are in DIRE straits indeed.

    This is why i don't mind at all when some deny that the God of the OT, or Allah, or Jesus, or any other idea of God, is the True God, If we are DEVOTED and beholden to the Whole Truth (The Real GOD) then we must critically analyze any claims about that Truth which is God.

    With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
    Matthjar
    Last edited by Matthjar; 08-19-2014 at 10:39 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155
    Ohhhh i didn't get the part in the Video where he claims that it is not Wrong for the 18 month old to tear up a book because he cannot conceive that it is wrong. ?????? Isn't this just taking us down the path of Subjective Truth. IMHO it is Wrong for an 18 month old to tear up a book even if he does not know it is Wrong. Is it Wrong for a severely handicapped individual that is very Strong to strangle 18 month old children for tearing up books if he is not developed enough to realize it would be Wrong??? I say yes on both accounts...... I fail to see how ignorance can make wrong behavior right behavior.

    Maybe the distinction is the the Child is Guilty of Wrong behavior but not Guilty of Wrong thought or motivation.

    Interestingly enough SO Far Man is only able to judge behaviors (actions) in other men but not so much thoughts (unless they honestly disclose) and even less so beliefs. While God can judge all three, as well as man can judge himself in the same manner, but only in so much that he is willing to be Honest with himself (accepting the Truth) and knows himself.

    With utter devotion to Truth and Love,
    Matthjar.
    Last edited by Matthjar; 08-19-2014 at 10:45 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Great Stuff!!! I love this kind of discussion. It is amazing to me how much disagreement there is on the subject, but i suppose i should not be surprised. It was through my discussions with Richard and Rose that i have been able to synthesize my beliefs more fully on Morality. Up to this point in my Life I have spent time in both the Subjective and Objective Camps, and also in believing there is a God and being Agnostic (I am not sure if God exists or Not.)
    Hey there Matthjar,

    It's great to find a friend who is interested in this kind of stuff. I've had this post up for over 18 months and you are the first to answer. Guess we are a rather rare species.

    Thanks for letting me know where you stand on the questions of God and morality. It helps me understand where you are coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I think the problem with Craigs argument is that the first assertion he makes is not self evident. I am completely sold on the second assertion that their is an objective standard. My previous discussions with Atheists many times cannot even clear the hurdle of recognizing the need for that objective standard, most of them instead believe in an subjective definition. This is why i was SO SO excited to See that Rose and Richard do recognize that need. In making my argument though I will declare it as my first Assertion and give my reasoning for such, just in case anyone would like to debate that point.
    I agree. I don't see any evidence or logic connecting the "God concept" with morality. That error was exposed 2500 years ago by Euthyphro. Craig's attempt to avoid the dilemma by appealing to God's nature as the "necessary ground" of concepts like fairness and kindness is absurd in the extreme because it implies that those words have no meaning independent of "godiness" and so they have no meaning at all since "godiness" is not defined.

    And yes, atheists have been really stupid when it comes to morality, truth, and objectivity. I've watched creationists tie them in knots by forcing them to admit that there "is not absolute truth" and so there is no truth of any kind and so the atheist is reduced to absurdity. Very sad. That's one of the reasons I felt compelled to develop an atheist moral theory. I needed to do it myself because no one else has done it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    1. Objective and Absolute Truth exists (2+2=4).

    IMHO No discussion or meaning can take place if this is not a given. To refute this assertion is the ULTIMATE conversation killer. If there is no such thing as objective Truth and it is merely subjective then ANY statement can be True for any given individual. If we claim that 2+2=4 only if you can understand it or believe it then there is no meaning to anything it all. The universe is then just comprised of 7 Billion different versions of "truth". It becomes a matter of preference or merely opinion. IF Truth does not exists outside of our own personal experience then their is really no point of even pretending that it exists.

    Truly everything that ACTUALLY exists must (by definition) exist in Truth otherwise it is NOT.
    Totally agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    2. Morality can be achieved simply by recognizing that Truth is Good is Right precisely because it is in accordance with reality.

    This also should be easy to recognize!!!! Any action or Any statement is Only GOOD when it is made or done in the accordance with the reality. If any action contains Untruth or fails to recognize the goodness of Truth the it is Wrong. If I teach a little child that (2+2=5) then i have done something Bad and Wrong.

    So any Morality is merely a collection of Truths. Immorality is merely a collection of Lies which is presenting something as Truthful that is NOT.
    I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Hitler killed the Jews. That is a truth. It is the opposite of something moral.

    Now there is a connection between "Truth" and "Morality" in the sense Morality is Integrity and Integrity is possible only if one adheres to Truth because truth (reality) is an integrated whole. It seems to me that the key is not so much "truth" as "integrity." I discussed this at length in my article On Integrity as the Highest Value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    These 2 assertions seem simple enough. Now for the tough one ;-).
    Really mathematically speaking the first two assertions are really one because Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, Justice, Love(?) are all different aspects of the same absolute.
    I have a big problem with such reifications of abstracts. There is no "Good" just floating around as an "absolute." The concept of "good" is grounded in self-love, the integrity of one's own being. To speak as if there were these abstract absolutes floating around in unknowable metaphysical space adds nothing to our understanding of morality or truth. We need to ground our philosophy in reality, not speculative metaphysical unknowables.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    3. Truth, Goodness, Righteousness etc , has a personality.

    I believe that it is the Truth that Truth knows it is True. I believe that Good knows that it is Good. Love Loves and Hate Hates. Recognizing God is merely recognizing that Truth can recognize and experience itself. In this way God exists absolutely .... it is that absolute objective Truth being Self aware.
    I do not agree with any of that. "Love" and "Hate" are not some personal self-aware beings floating around somewhere. They are descriptions of human emotions fueled by hormones and desires and needs and fears (to mention just a few of the elements). It makes no sense to me to think that abstract concepts like "Truth, Goodness, Righteousness" have "personality."

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    All these principles MUST exist is a given, does it make more sense that these principles are Aloof and Ignorant of Reality, or does it make more sense that these principles are Self evident and Knowledgeable of the fact that they exist. Is it False that Truth knows the Truth? Is it even possible that the Truth is Ignorant of the Truth? Denying the existence God requires that one also Denies That Truth knows the Truth. Affirming the existence of God is merely recognizing the Truth can discern itself. In so much that I as a mere mortal can discern the Truth (sometimes) I therefore must recognize that Truth can know itself completely.
    Again, you comments make no sense to me. I see no reason to think that abstract concepts are personal beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    The Idea or belief in the existence of God is a prerequisite for us to know the Truth because if Truth cannot know itself (2+2=4) then how can we know anything at all?
    How can an equation like 2 + 2 = 4 "know itself"? It's nothing but an equation! It has no consciousness of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    SO let us move on from debating the existence of God and graduate to REAL challenge of discerning the Truth which is God. The Whole Point of Science, Religion, Language, the Arts, Philosophy, and all the things that make HUMANS special are all attempts to discern and experience the Truth; therefore, they are all attempts to understand God which is the Objective Truth. Debating that it exists or that it can know itself just shows how immature humans are in respect to God.
    I do not accept your idea that truth is a personal being. You will have to establish that before we can build anything on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    If God exists then we should (moralistic statement of Good) strive to know the truth and surrender all our preconceived notions in the face of that absolute Truth which is God. If No God exists ie if Truth is not capable of knowing itself then what hope do we have of discerning it. The Truth is we Need the Truth to reveal itself to us... to give itself to us...... God as Truth personified is the ONLY Hope for mankind. If truth has NO personality then I think it would be safe to say that we are in DIRE straits indeed.
    That's not true. We should seek truth for it's own sake, because it is an integral and necessary part of our own integrity which is our own well-being. Self-love is the ground of morality.

    The idea that God offers "hope" seems absurd. Where is this God? What hope does "he" offer? How do you know anything about "him"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    This is why i don't mind at all when some deny that the God of the OT, or Allah, or Jesus, or any other idea of God, is the True God, If we are DEVOTED and beholden to the Whole Truth (The Real GOD) then we must critically analyze any claims about that Truth which is God.

    With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
    Matthjar
    Again, I don't see any connection between "truth" and "God." As far as I can tell, all you have done is to define "God" as a personal being who embodies a bunch of abstract concepts such as "Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, etc." I see no reason to believe such a being exists. I agree that those concepts exist in a meaningful and objective way, but I see no connection with the "God" concept which began with primitive monsters like Yahweh who was anything but true and good (since he commanded genocide, slavery, and sexism).

    Great chatting!



    I'm really glad you found this old post.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Ohhhh i didn't get the part in the Video where he claims that it is not Wrong for the 18 month old to tear up a book because he cannot conceive that it is wrong. ?????? Isn't this just taking us down the path of Subjective Truth. IMHO it is Wrong for an 18 month old to tear up a book even if he does not know it is Wrong. Is it Wrong for a severely handicapped individual that is very Strong to strangle 18 month old children for tearing up books if he is not developed enough to realize it would be Wrong??? I say yes on both accounts...... I fail to see how ignorance can make wrong behavior right behavior.

    Maybe the distinction is the the Child is Guilty of Wrong behavior but not Guilty of Wrong thought or motivation.
    It is not taking us down the path of Subjective Truth. Moral judgments apply only to moral agents. An 18 month old child is no more a moral agent than a dog. The action of "destroying a book" would be "wrong" only in the sense that you don't want it to happen. A dog would not be "immoral" for destroying a book. The same goes for an 18 month old child who has no conception of right or wrong.

    There is an element of subjectivity in any objective judgment, but that does not mean that the judgment itself is "subjective." If that were the case, then it would be impossible to speak of anything as objective. There is a lot of confusion about the meaning of objectivity. That's why I begin my main article on objective morality - The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality - with a discussion of the scientific definition objectivity and how it relates to scientific theories.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello John
    Morality is another great stumblingblock as is evident from all the posts on this forum concerning the subject. In my book, morality is learned just as everything is learned as a child develops. A child learns from its surroundings and is greatly influenced by its parents. What a child manifests from what it learns shows great extremes. Why if morality is innate as Richard thinks and which he calls the 'Golden Rule', is so much immorality practiced by adults?
    Good morning David,

    I'm glad you are joining in the conversation. Perhaps we can finally clear up some persistent confusions.

    There are many reasons people don't always act in the way that they know would be best. First, there is the process of dehumanization where enemies are seen as subhuman. This happens a lot during war. It makes it easier to kill the enemy. Indeed, is this not how you justify the genocide in the Bible? You say the Midianites were "reprobates" and "not worth saving." Other Christians literally demonize them, saying that they had to be slaughtered because they were contaminated with nephilim DNA (which is the ultimate dehumanization).

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    At the heart of man, is selfishness. Pride and greed are "lusts of the flesh" is the nature that is human nature which exhibits selfishness and is the way God has designed us for a purpose. We have a struggle within us all that we can win or lose and that is our personal battle. Those we would regard as having no morals do not see there is a battle to win. These are the people that do not try to better themselves, or have regard to their fellow humans as their neighbours. The purpose of God is not to create clones, but individuals. That necessitates there being "good" and "bad" individuals from which God will only select the good and reject the rest. Once that is known to us, then it is up to us to make our own decision knowing the consequences. The worst that can happen to anyone is eternal death and Evolutionists and have already accepted that, which is of no worry to them.
    Self-love is the root of all morality. If you hate yourself, you would die because you would not feed or care for that which you hate. Unless your hatred is so perverse that you want to keep yourself alive so you can torture yourself all the more. This was the attitude of early Christian ascetics who had their innate self-love destroyed by Christianity. Christianity preaches self-hatred which is the root of all evil. Morality is based in LOVE not hate.

    The idea that God will select the "good" and reject the rest makes god seem pretty stupid. Is that what a parent would do? Of course not. A parent would guide all his children in the ways of truth and love, and being omnipotent he could heal every wound and bring every child to the knowledge of the truth. But your god's not into that. He likes violence, and lots of it. He killed everyone in the Flood and the rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as just a little foreplay before his big orgy of blood and guts at his own wedding supper! What kind of madness do you subscribe to? The imagery of the Bible is perverse. There is nothing moral in the violence it advocates from Genesis to Revelation.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The worst that can happen to anyone is eternal death and Evolutionists and have already accepted that, which is of no worry to them.
    To whom would it matter? You teach that everyone dies and goes out of existence until God resurrects the elect. Great! So what if you don't get resurrected? You'd never know, so you'd never care.

    It's really not that hard to accept reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The responsibility rests with us all as individuals. Those who do not acknowledge they are deficient in morals, or try to better themselves in that area, are what I suspect God will class as reprobates. If we were morally upright, we would see nothing wrong in following the example of Jesus, who is the perfect and "good" man that is acceptable to God and who is the benchmark by which all others are judged. Only the morally dead (from my perspective) would not recognize that they are imperfect compared to Jesus, if they stopped and did the comparison.

    All the best
    David
    And what is the "example of Jesus" other than my own moral theory (without the god magic)?

    He taught the Golden Rule as the natural guide to natural morality. It remains regardless of any God, real or imagined. My theory of morality is objective.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •