Debate reminder: Friday at 7:30 pm

Everything has to have an inspiration of a motive. Even if it is our biology or “selfish gene” that wants to continue our human existence. If that can be claimed to get you up in the morning to make scientific discoveries, I think it is just as feasible to say that love can motivate one to accomplish the same scientific discoveries.

So, yes, love can, and does cure all kinds of ailments.

Yea, it wasn’t my argument for anything other than, one should use caution with positive or negative claims.

I like that.

This is a scary/dangerous line of thinking though. To what extent would one go to, to have this occur? If you band an entire country to believe this, that (love, peace, patience, kindness ect.), but no one else does, then what? Is it ok to have genocide and decimate the remainder of the earth to achieve this utopia? Which obviously goes against the attributes it is founded on.

This is where God comes in for Christians. We believe He is in control, we are not, we give up our pride and ability to change(control) the world as we see fit, and give Him the control. Attempting to do good is not a “bad” thing (it is a sinful thing as it is not what God wants). But if you intent is to do the good things to create change that you pridefully think you have control over and can do (want to be god…), that is not. Maybe it isn’t a bad thing, but, one, you will fail as we are human, but two, if you succeeded, you go to hell, where you wanted to go, a place without the God you didn’t want.

That is why the 10 commandments are all about control, and trusting in God.

  1. If you trusted in Him, you would worship Him, and nothing else.
  2. You would not attempt to make Him your own. what you want Him to be.
  3. You would honor/respect His name.
  4. Trust God to provide for you.
    5.Trust He knows what is best. (earthly Father, heavenly Father)
  5. Trust in me, no need to murder that person.
    7.Trust in the spouse I provided you with.
    8.Trust I will provide
    9.Trust I will get you were you need to be, no need to lie to get there.
  6. Trust I have provided you your needs, no need to want other stuff

Human god

1-5.I am god and in charge of my destiny and my races, and planets destiny. I need to use my logic and science to preserve the material world (creation).
6. I need to kill this person, they are impeding my utopia.
7. This other person can satisfy my own desires.
8-9.I need to steal or lie to attain this object/thought/glory in order to help my utopia happen.
10. I am not happy with what I have, I need more to satisfy my desires.

Hitler followed those human commandments. There are a lot of bad people out there, that can warp this, and kill many to attain utopia.

Or you could have those pacifist, which want utopia, but think it can only be done for the individual. They can’t control the world, but still themselves (though they fail at that). So what is the point of life if just to do your best at you and then die never influencing anyone?

This is why all good deeds are like filthy rags if not done with the heart knowing that God is in control, and we do good things to honor Him.

If love cures all ailments then why were millions of people suffering from polio less than 100 years ago? Did no one love them? Why was infant mortality near 50% 200 years ago? Did parents not love their children 200 years ago?[quote=“still_learning, post:161, topic:36642”]
This is a scary/dangerous line of thinking though. To what extent would one go to, to have this occur? If you band an entire country to believe this, that (love, peace, patience, kindness ect.), but no one else does, then what? Is it ok to have genocide and decimate the remainder of the earth to achieve this utopia? Which obviously goes against the attributes it is founded on.
[/quote]

If it goes against the way you want the world to be, then obviously you wouldn’t do that.[quote=“still_learning, post:161, topic:36642”]
This is where God comes in for Christians. We believe He is in control, we are not, we give up our pride and ability to change(control) the world as we see fit, and give Him the control. Attempting to do good is not a “bad” thing (it is a sinful thing as it is not what God wants). But if you intent is to do the good things to create change that you pridefully think you have control over and can do (want to be god…), that is not. Maybe it isn’t a bad thing, but, one, you will fail as we are human, but two, if you succeeded, you go to hell, where you wanted to go, a place without the God you didn’t want.
[/quote]

Christians form governments, laws, constitutions, armies, courts, police forces, and community groups. It would seem that Christians take control of society as a primary mover.

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.

  • Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

Pretty horrible things happen when people ignore their own sense of morality in the name of following what they think the gods command.

1 Like

I am trying to understand Reality objectively as it is and not subjectively as I would like it to be. This is important if I’m am to live a life that is both rational and spiritual, or good, as far as possible. It seems to me that your position means that there is no way to live a rational and good life, because you do not accept that reality is rational and good.

Trying to understand life does not change what life is, but how we best live it. If life is only physical, then one’s physical pleasure is the best way to live it. There is nothing wrong with physical please per se, but a life based only on it is selfish.

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:159, topic:36642”]
I would also like to point out that things written in a book are not experiential.
Ideas found in a book are rational.

Ideas do not create experience, but they do organize information that we know from experience. I do not know about you, but whenever I learn of a new idea, I test it using my own experience and the shared experiences of others. That is a primary reason I am on the internet, to learn new points of view and to share my experiences with others.

Thus ideas become experiential when we test them to find out if they correspond to testable reality, based on experience, not speculation. Experience is not subjective when it is tested. That is what science is about, having experience test ideas and ideas test experience. Since you reject both experience and ideas, then you seem to reject science.

John, thank you for your comments.

My point is that one does not need empirical evidence to prove something is good or evil. Sometimes its just common sense, that is shared experience. Once we have determined something is objectively evil, we can determine what makes it evil and go from there.

@still_learning,

Thank you for your support and agreement.

You are right, it is scary when people talk about getting together to force others to do what is right. There are other ways to influence others to do right other than forcing them.

Laws should be based on common consent and penalize those who do wrong, not force people to do what is right.

Your understanding of the Decalogue as based on Trust (Faith) is interesting in that it differs from the analysis of Jesus as based on Love. “Love God and love others as yourself.” Nonetheless, Love and Faith (Trust) along with Hope are4 the three values that Paul says “will last,” that is are objectively true, “but the greatest of these is Love.” ( I Cor 13:13) Love is more active than trust, but both are relational, as is Hope.

Love helps, but respects others.

It seems that our roles have been reversed. You claim that I am missing things because I only rely on empirical evidence. You seem to be claiming the same thing.

What I am really saying is that we can follow our subjective opinions and emotions as long as we acknowledge that they are subjective. If you like chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream, that is a subjective opinion. Does that mean you will refuse to buy chocolate instead of vanilla because it isn’t a rational decision?[quote=“Relates, post:163, topic:36642”]
Experience is not subjective when it is tested. That is what science is about, having experience test ideas and ideas test experience. Since you reject both experience and ideas, then you seem to reject science.
[/quote]

That moves us to the question of what a valid test is. If your test is to compare the subjective to the subjective, then I wouldn’t consider it a test.

Did science allow us to go to the moon? Did love cure polio? They both took thousands of years, but they got done by means of science or love. I am not claiming 1 act of love will magically cure all diseases, not did I say love cures all ailments. I simply said, that love can cure things, just like science can put a man on the moon. When science failed to put people on the moon 100 years ago, did science not exist? You can’t argue did parents not love their children 200 years ago. The failure of love to cure something doesn’t mean that love cannot cure things, nor that it has cured things (in the past, like polio).

Sorry, I should have spoken more clearly. I should have said, this is where Christian/biblical ideals come from. God was supposed to be our only king. When the Israelites saw other nations with kings, they got jealous. God protected them as a king does, He conquered for them land, they didn’t need a king. But just as God allows free will that will end up screwing us up, He allowed them to have kings. Sometimes it was good, sometimes it was terrible. Monarchy is the greatest government known to man, it is God’s government. But the main problem where monarchy goes bad, is when the king is not perfect. But with a perfect king, it is the best.

But then over the years, yes Christianity has definitely screwed things up and still does. We were never commanded to legislate salvation. A pastor has the right (or should have) to not marry a gay in his church. But there is no constitutional reason, homosexuals can’t enter in a legal contract that has tax benefits (aka marriage).

There have been many Christians (possibly just in claimed name, possibly actual, God fearing Christians) who have been corrupted and did many things the Christian ideals don’t advocate.

But ideally speaking, God should be our king, we believe He is in control and knows what is best for us. Like Gandhi said, I like your Christ, just not your Christians. We fail to follow God, but failure to do so doesn’t mean flawed ideals, just flawed execution.

Though I guess you could use the same argument, that living by the fruits of the spirit is a “perfect ideal” that has flawed execution (in that it can’t happen). But it still just seems so meaningless to me. What is the point of life if it is just to be perfect and live in harmony and die?

I Agree. The key words being, what THEY think, not what God actually commanded. Many can argue details, but no one can argue the Biblical entirety of the Bible. Even an atheist from a scholarly prospective can see the greatest commandment to love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself. And how every other detail of the Bible can be measured against that. It there is anything God tell you to do, that goes against that, then it is wrong.

I use Hitler frequently when arguing morals. The problem is that morals are subjective. He might have actually thought he was being moral, by ridding us of the Jews. This is why we need a moral absolute, and if it is followed, results in the best results.

I think that in following the 2 greatest commandments to love the Lord with all your heart mind and soul and neighbor as yourself, is a retelling of what the Decalogue said the first time. Fulfilling the law, not contradicting it, as Jesus did. He told us murder is wrong, but if you anger at your brother, that is wrong. All the Decalogue did was act as a “spiritual thermometer” that showed how cold we were. You had such a cold angry heart, I needed to make a law to prevent you from murdering, you should have not been angry, you should have been loving with a warm heart. OT says give 10%, NT says sell it all and give to the poor. Not stealing shows your cold selfish heart that is ungrateful and untrusting in God. You warm heart would trust in God’s provisions and give to others. The greatest commandments are warm, and the cold truth is their hearts demonstrated by the need for the Decalogue. The Decalogue is like on a scale of 0-100, 100 being the heart of God, and following the Decalogue is a 1.

We might feel that we need an absolute, but do we have one? If it’s not explicitly clear that something exists and what it is, then how can it be said to be absolute? Merely thinking that we need something doesn’t make it exist. If Hitler doesn’t subscribe to your “absolute” you are right back to square one.

There are also portions of the Bible where God commands his chosen people to slaughter their neighbors, so there isn’t a completely consistent commandment in the Bible.

Everyone has an absolute. Having no absolute, is an absolute.

An absolute is the world you see when looking through a window. You see the world through that window. If the world in which you saw was also see through, then you wouldn’t see a world. You would just be looking into the beyond of nothingness, seeing through everything. Our life needs to be seen through a lens of some sort.

It isn’t something we need, it is just something that exists, or we would all die. We require motivation for action and an absolute with which we derive our motivation from.

The thing about a Biblical absolute, is that it is written down. Even them, some differ in a few things. How much more will we differ from something not even written down? But again, I think if you even take an atheist, or anyone from a scholarly standpoint, ask them to summarize the Bible. Using your logic to see the importance of some issues of the other, and how some things can be weighed against other things, seeing the entirety of something, I don’t think there is anyone who can disagree the main theme of the Bible. Have THAT, be your absolute. That is what I am suggesting.

Or even another religious book. But, take that context of that book in it’s entirety, and use that as an absolute.

Science is a great book of absolutes, though it could be argued that most science is just really strong certainties from repetition. But if science was an absolute, that would be fine, but science can’t measure morals. Or the science community needs to get together and debate and vote and write an official scientist morals based of studies and observation. At least then you have an absolute in morals.

But without that, all morals are subjective. Is that a truck in front of the window? I don’t see a truck (it’s transparent to them) I see the building behind the truck. I don’t see a building…ect…

An absolute is something that controls. A moral absolute is the best way to control something (in non-religious terms), better than a law. All the law does is lead to ingenuity, to bypass or hided the breaking of the laws. Or when the value of the thing outweighs the consequences, the law is ignored or factored out of a decision.

The only other thing that greatly out weighs morals in effectiveness of controlling is God. When we give God control, the best outcome occurs.

When a choice arises to an animal, it is instinct, that’s it. Results can be good, or disastrous.
When a choice arises to a human, instinct pulls them, but we also have our conscience to weigh in or pull us (our subjective morals). When we have a written moral code, our conscience has even more strength to over come our natural instinct. Results can be good, or bad.
When a choice arises to a human who trust in God, instinct pulls on them, out knowledgeable (written morals) conscience weighs in, but then we give God control. Results will always be perfect.

God made us, He knows what is best for us. He wants us to chose His ways, BUT gives us the free will to not chose His ways. This leads to sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. (Gal 5:19-21)

But when we listen to God we observe love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal 5:22-23)

I like a logical atheist, as logic can greatly attribute to a well developed subjective moral code. It might not be written, but I would generally agree that the well educated have a better potential to have a “better subjective moral code” than one who doesn’t know history, doesn’t know how Hitler used his own moral code to do what he did. Who doesn’t know of the atrocities done and how generally speaking, having “good morals” is a logically beneficial to us. I would prefer an educated atheist to a Muslim who didn’t follow their own written moral code. But if I know someone is a Muslim, I know what their code should be, I have no way of knowing an atheists code, until I get to know them. I think this is one reason they suffer politically, until you know one without a written code, it could be scary to know what they are capable of. I do realize those with a written code of moral can do just as scary things. But we could attempt to hold them accountable to that known written code. We can’t do that to a subjective code of morals of an atheist.

But all of that is kind of pointless in the scheme of things. These are just tools to help us do the right thing most of the time. But no tool can help us do the right thing every time. This is the fallen state of a sinner. Thanks to God for Jesus dying for us to forgive our past sins, and for the power of the Spirit to always do the right thing when we can’t.

I am not saying the same thing. You are falsely opposing empirical evidence with subjective feeling. There are three kinds of legitimate knowledge, empirical, logical, and experiential. When you reject all but one of these kinds of knowledge you cannot understand the reality in which we live.

To reject every kind of knowledge accept empirical science as false is ridiculous. We live by empirical knowledge, our senses. If they are unreliable, how can we and millions of other folk drive on the highways of our nation at 60-70 miles hour without numerous horrific accidents?

How do you know that life is real? Experience. How do you know that you are you? Experience. How do we know that life is good? Experience. Are all these facts false because they are not “empirical” or scientific?

Experience is not subjective by your definition, It is not perfect, because we are not perfect. Even “settled” science is not perfect, because it has changed over time. That is why I compare my experiences with the experiences of others. New information from many sources is always possible and must always be considered.

Our knowledge is always incomplete. It makes no sense to blindly reject knowledge because we don’t like it.

What makes experiential evidence legitimate?[quote=“Relates, post:169, topic:36642”]
To reject every kind of knowledge accept empirical science as false is ridiculous. We live by empirical knowledge, our senses. If they are unreliable, how can we and millions of other folk drive on the highways of our nation at 60-70 miles hour without numerous horrific accidents?
[/quote]

I am saying that believing in something doesn’t make it knowledge. I am disputing your claims of what is and isn’t knowledge.[quote=“Relates, post:169, topic:36642”]
How do you know that life is real? Experience. How do you know that you are you? Experience. How do we know that life is good? Experience. Are all these facts false because they are not “empirical” or scientific?
[/quote]

I know that life is real because we have empirical evidence that we exist. We can also use empirical means to determine that people have emotions. These are facts backed by empirical evidence.[quote=“Relates, post:169, topic:36642”]
Experience is not subjective by your definition, It is not perfect, because we are not perfect. Even “settled” science is not perfect, because it has changed over time. That is why I compare my experiences with the experiences of others. New information from many sources is always possible and must always be considered.
[/quote]

Experience is subjective as I define it. That is why I look for evidence that is independent of experience to determine if something is true. If there is no independent evidence I don’t claim it is false, I just don’t accept it as true. You keep creating this false dichotomy where everything must either be true or false. You keep ignoring the middle ground, which is “I don’t know”.[quote=“Relates, post:169, topic:36642”]
Our knowledge is always incomplete. It makes no sense to blindly reject knowledge because we don’t like it.
[/quote]

For me, it makes no sense to believe something is true based on “because I say so”.

Well yes, if the being, you just saw delivered you from slavery, part a sea, and provide nutrients from the sky, and move with you in a cloud and fire, surrounding by tens of thousands if you hear that one talk, you have my permission to do whatever they say.

But cults and Hitler’s who had God alone tell them something special, who had no previous miraculous interactions the one instructing them to appear to go against Biblical morals, that is a problem.

The clay can’t say to the potter a cup should be a bowl or be angry for the plate shattering. Whatever God does is good, He is the absolute definition of good. At the time, it was His land, He created it,and I do believe God told them to move, but they probably pridefully told Him no. So He decimated them. Just like God had a man ask for the Israelite’s to be freed before plaguing them. It isn’t recorded, but I can use what I do know about scripture. One it says God is good, and merciful, and values lives. I think He attempted to tell them to relocate, this is His land that He made and had a purpose for. They forced His hand when they didn’t move.

But I don’t think you believe these stories actually occurred, so you also don’t believe in the Israelite’s deliverance from the Egyptians or the other miracles witnessed by those who saw many wonders of God and heard his voice which made the mountains tremble.

You can’t really use a concept you don’t believe to invalidate a story you don’t believe in. So the response to my assertion below is invalid.

Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine when someone uses scriptures incorrectly, in attempt to prove the Bible is flawed.

If you want to argue the Bible is flawed because of a 6 day creation, that is valid. We could also argue that is not a literal interpretation.

But you can’t argue God is evil, because the Bible says He kills people.

1 Like

That’s the part that concerns me. If people feel they are following the commands of God then they can end up doing some pretty horrible things.[quote=“still_learning, post:171, topic:36642”]
You can’t really use a concept you don’t believe to invalidate a story you don’t believe in.
[/quote]

You don’t have to believe a story in order to point out internal inconsistencies.[quote=“still_learning, post:171, topic:36642”]
Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine when someone uses scriptures incorrectly, in attempt to prove the Bible is flawed.
[/quote]

If anything, I was saying that your portrayal of the Bible could be flawed. Earlier, you said:

Even an atheist from a scholarly prospective can see the greatest commandment to love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself. And how every other detail of the Bible can be measured against that. It there is anything God tell you to do, that goes against that, then it is wrong.

It would seem to me that there are examples in the Bible that contradict this portrayal. For example, in the Bible it says that God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. According to you, God didn’t actually command such a thing even though it says so in the Bible. Or, I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say which is entirely possible.

What is the empirical evidence that human beings exist?

Maybe you quoted the wrong text? I am not sure how this is relate-able? I was saying how the clay can’t accuse the potter of screwing up.

True, this is why I said you are fine to point out what you appear to be an inconstancy. Like how science sees creation, and Genesis appears to say different (when read literally).

But God being evil is not an inconsistency. It doesn’t come any where near eluding to it. It says the exact opposite. From a non-trying to prove the Bible wrong mindset. Anyone who sees the totality of the scriptures, would know that God is good, that is a truth that can’t be denied (from the Biblical perspective), God can do what He chooses, and it is still good.

What you are doing, is injecting the human thought, that slaughtering neighbors is wrong, then ascribing it to God, who can do no wrong. If the Bible says God is right in everything He does, and you perceive something to be wrong, that means you are Biblically wrong (perceiving it to be wrong), because He is right in everything. Every wrong that the Bible speaks of is for man, because again, God can do no wrong. If God says to slaughter neighbors, I would assume He had a good reason for that, but even without reason, I know it was not wrong, He can do no wrong. I don’t know how to explain that any better.

If you make a plate, you can smash it or polish it. You can do no wrong, you created the plate, it is yours to do with it what you want. The plate can’t say, well you told me to not to have food put on me, and you have food all over you. No. This is an invalid argument.

Sorry, I can see how that is misleading. My fault for having assumptions that you understand man is not God.

The Bible is intended for man. Everything in it, is for man.
Yes, every act of man, can be measured against the 2 greatest commandments. Every detail of the Bible that is said to man (which is the whole Bible) can be measured against those 2. If there is anything you think God is telling you to do that goes against those, then you are thinking wrong. Meaning if you read, kill all Gentiles somehow, or kill all Jews somehow, you are reading it wrong. Because when you measure that to the 2 greatest commandments, that is not loving your neighbor. All religious atrocities would be avoided if they followed this.

Though unfortunately, some people even warp the word love, to mean, what is best for someone ultimately. And mercy killing or scaring to heaven or other crazy hateful things occur with the guise of “loving” them.

We can see right after the 2 commandments, that Jesus used the good Samaritan, showing what loving a neighbor looks like. Jesus also showed us what loving a neighbor looks like He didn’t hate on anyone, and if He did get mad, it was at the supposed religious, who were nothing but hypocrites.

That being said, again, if a being can deliver your nation from slavery, perform countless miracles and speak to you verbally on a regular basis to which all hear the same voice saying the same thing at the same time, and this being says to do something. It is then good to do. Not just good, to do, but sinful not to do. Your creator tells you what is best, you do it. In absence of direct directions, there is the Bible to use, and that can be summarized and weighed by the 2 greatest commandments, which can see what love means, which will never lead to any atrocity.

Again, you first must understand that God created us, the potter can do no wrong, they do as they please to the clay and the clay must follow His rules for the clay. Thankfully we have a loving and personal God, who is jealous for our love to be for Him only/first. Though He gives us free will to chose our own terrible ways. Sometimes there are consequences, sometimes there are punishments for choosing wrong.

Again, though it is not written, I would not be surprised to find out that God asked them to leave, then told them to leave. God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but attempted to spare them 3 times. He was searching for just a few non-wicked, He would have spared them. So I do believe it is in His merciful character to not kill them with no attempts to have them leave without blood shed.

Even God’s own people were killed and brought into slavery and exile at the hand of God through the Babylonians. He prophesied it happening if they didn’t turn, He gave them chance after chance after chance after chance. They still rejected God, and His hand rained down upon them, in the form of Babylonians.

So it would not surprise me to find out that God did not give the Amalekites a similar courtesy, who rejected Him, and met the hand of God through the Israelite’s. The Israelite’s certainly didn’t win this war against a mightier foe, God’s hand was with them. Which also shows, when you trust God, and do His will, you will be victorious.

Though I think this did happen about giving Amalekite’s a chance or two (just not written) even if it didn’t happen, we are His creation, He does what He wants.

I’m not sure what you mean by all that, and what I do get, I don’t agree with on several counts. Anyway I don’t think that’s what people generally mean by “absolute”. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with morality, and I don’t see how those concepts could be applied to make an “absolute” morality meaningful.

You’d have to tell me what the main theme is. I imagine it’s going to be some kind of a general concept which can’t give us much direct guidance.

I don’t think a book of any kind can provide such an absolute, or that such a procedure could. Things change. It seems to me morals are the product of myriad interactions between people, and change over time. The laws in the Torah present some good examples of crimes and punishments which presumably seemed moral at the time but which don’t pass muster by current standards.

And so they are. However, if there’s a truck there we should all be able to see it and act accordingly. If it’s there, those who feel that they can’t see the truck are likely to have a lot of problems.

Laws are written systems of rules which ideally reflect prevailing mores. They certainly have their purpose. They aren’t a perfect system of ensuring that people act morally, but what is?

In short, I don’t see how that would necessarily be true. You’d have to demonstrate that there is a God to make this a convincing proposition. If one already believes, I can see how it could be a system that would work for one.

I like a logical atheist, as logic can greatly attribute to a well developed subjective moral code. It might not be written, but I would generally agree that the well educated have a better potential to have a “better subjective moral code” than one who doesn’t know history, doesn’t know how Hitler used his own moral code to do what he did.

He didn’t have to have a “moral code”–he could have simply been ignoring what he knew was morally right in order to gain a perceived benefit. There can always be some outlier who rejects prevailing morals. In any event, morals exist at the social level, and one’s personal morals don’t have much of an impact on them. If it’s a fear that a dictator can impose his own “morality”, it’s equally a fear that he can convince or force people to ignore any prevailing morality or moral system.

Who doesn’t know of the atrocities done and how generally speaking, having “good morals” is a logically beneficial to us. I would prefer an educated atheist to a Muslim who didn’t follow their own written moral code. But if I know someone is a Muslim, I know what their code should be, I have no way of knowing an atheists code, until I get to know them.

I think the best you can immediately do is to know the prevailing mores in a social context. If someone tells you they are a “Christian” or “Atheist”, you may gain some insight, but how much really? I’d want to know the person better in either case before I made any more definite conclusions, personally. In most cases of casual social interaction, it doesn’t really matter that much.

I think this is one reason they suffer politically, until you know one without a written code, it could be scary to know what they are capable of. I do realize those with a written code of moral can do just as scary things. But we could attempt to hold them accountable to that known written code. We can’t do that to a subjective code of morals of an atheist.

Sure you can. There are still prevailing social mores which can be applied. Atheists don’t say, “well he has his own subjective moral code, he can do whatever he wants”. If people don’t comply with social mores, they will be held accountable in a variety of ways from legal to social. In general, atheists don’t recognize that there is a higher power that serves as the arbiter of such things. We believe we have to do it ourselves the best we can, but we’re not waving our hands and totally rejecting the responsibility.

The same type of empirical evidence that supports the existence of the Empire State Building, the Moon, and the Pacific Ocean.

1 Like

“1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

That is not loving your neighbor.[quote=“still_learning, post:174, topic:36642”]
Again, though it is not written, I would not be surprised to find out that God asked them to leave, then told them to leave. God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but attempted to spare them 3 times. He was searching for just a few non-wicked, He would have spared them. So I do believe it is in His merciful character to not kill them with no attempts to have them leave without blood shed.
[/quote]

So the rule is try to love your neighbor 3 times, and then slaughter them after that?

If the God of the Bible makes exceptions for the “love thy neighbor rule” then that is what he does. I’m not arguing against that. What I was pointing out is that the “love thy neighbor” rule doesn’t appear to be universal in the Bible.

Do you really believe the baloney about the lunar landing?

Sorry, that is what happens when a simpleton tries to explain something that came from a more brillaint mind.

C.S Lewis “It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ [everything]. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.”

Have you read it cover to cover before? I don’t know if theme is the right word. Even if reading it as a fictional book, and trying to summarize what is most important, you would know that the God of this book doesn’t condone people being immoral in the name of God, or worrying about the ends (which leads to us dong bad things), but rather the means.

Though again, slaughtering the Amalekites children and animal isn’t immoral, WHEN you are told to do it by God. Like I said above, not a (God told me to do this) individual, but a collective group that heard the literal audio of God. This doesn’t happen anymore, there is no need to happen. Back then, it was needed.

That’s just it, things can’t change, that is what makes it an absolute.

Outside of that, morals are subjective, and can change. I assume you would argue in a good way, like slavery used to be good/acceptable, now it is bad. But it has greatly gone in the wrong direction too. It used to be immoral to talk back to a teacher or the elderly, now it is common place. The very fact that it can change is terrible. Some things might not be in a bad place now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be. Porn used to be maybe 18 year olds and few and far between. Now every 11 year old can see that stuff. It isn’t good for us to behave so animalistic and violent. You used to see people maybe stick up for someone getting beat up, now you see people laughing and filming it. People used to be some what cordial and accepting of others beliefs, now we are so closed minded and angry. It’s not immoral though, it is the norm.

But all a law does is (if the punishment is great enough and outweighs the crime) makes a slight deterrent, but mostly causes people to just try and not get caught. Laws just make people behave more crafty, not moral. Morals come from within, the integrity one attempts to have. Though we all fail at maintaining our integrity 100% of the time. But God was able to show 100% integrity, and we can also be that with Him in us.

It was Hitlers words of doing the world a favor and ridding the Jews. He was a moral person in his mind, he was helping out the world. You have to break some eggs to make omelets mentality. We can, and do find ways to justify our actions to our subjective morals. But something written, you can’t really justify. You can still violate your conscience, but you can’t justify it, it is written. All immorality comes from us trying to control something.

If we think we can’t pass a test but we want to control the passing grade, we cheat. We are annoyed at a person who keeps taking the promotions, we lie, to get him fired. We want something we can’t afford, we steal it. If you have faith in God and His control, none of those happen. Though Christians do things, when they do, it is because they aren’t trusting in God.

Even if you don’t believe in a God, but believed in fate, this would be true. Think of every immoral thing done, it is to reach the ends of something. But if you lived just in the means, you would do no wrong. The problem is, we can’t trust God or fate, it is in us to want to be God, to control the ends of everything. The problem with fate is, it doesn’t love you nor care about you.

I don’t think you reject all responsibility. But if morals can be moved a tad, like evolution, over a long time, great changes can happen. Few things in this world are instant, many things are gradual. It’s a slow fade to destruction. Going from eating a super fatty unhealthy fatty diet to a vegetarian can last a week or so, but that entire time, you are wishing you had some meat, living a life of denial. But if you cut it out one meal per day, than one day per week, and so on, next year, you are no longer living in denial, you are now a vegetarian.

Subjective morals move, perhaps slowly, but they move. If people lived forever, who knows how disgusting their morals would get.

Just like you are reading or applying my entire post, you need to read and apply the entire Bible.

They weren’t angry at their neighbor. Jesus says if you are angry at your neighbor, that is just as bad as murder. They were simply following commands, somewhat like the military. I understand the military has ROE and you can’t kill civilians…But the military didn’t create the civilians either. It would be like a general telling a soldier to blow up their own (unoccupied) tanks. It is a lawful order, they would do it, and not be at fault for doing it, when a different general got upset about it. Everything God says (again, not he psycho who hears voices) is a lawful order

But also in verse 2, it says "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel. God is the one doing the punishment, the Israelite’s are the tool. God is the person, the Israelite’s are the gun. For all we know, this is eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
Regardless of the reasons and the rights, the meaning of this passage is that God will protect His people, and vengeance is His. If the Israelite’s wanted to kill them due to anger, that would have been a sin, and they would have got slaughtered. Like the Israelite’s in Jericho the first time, when they went on their own, not God’s command.

No, the rule is, God makes the rules. And the rule is love you neighbor always. But the rule is also, obey God, and if He wants to use you as a tool, allow Him to use you.

Where is it not universal? Name one place in the Bible that there was bloodshed from the anger of man that isn’t shown to be wrong?

There are no exceptions, we are to always love our neighbors. Wars happen, we live in a sinful world., wars suck, that is not the intent, it is a product of humans, not God. There are times when your neighbor wants war, in this case, you are using self defense.

After saying love thy neighbor, He said the good Samaritan parable. So when you pass a man, who is not your kindred, and he is hurting, help him out, don’t ignore him, have compassion on him. Don’t lie to make yourself look good and put someone else down, don’t look down at someone. It basically means interact kindly with people, have compassion for them. It is about the heart, not the actions.

Like American Sniper. He killed plenty of people, and in one seen you see him say “com’on, put that down” He didn’t want to kill them. His heart was in the right place. He killed to save others, not in anger. It doesn’t say, that shalt not kill, it says, shall not murder. It is getting at the angry heart, not the action.

The other key ‘theme’ in the Bible is that is was always about the heart, not the law. Loving your neighbor by mowing his lawn for him to check some box of “being nice” or making you feel good is worthless in God’s eyes.

[content deleted by moderator]

Empirical evidence as you defined it and as it is evidence based on something beyond one’s own experience.

Most people know that the moon exists because they can see it, that is because of their own experience. For the Pacific Ocean and the Empire State Building, many have seen them for themselves and the rest have seen pictures in various forms. Again these are experience also. If you say that these experiences have been verified by others so they are beyond our personal experiences, that is what I have been saying also is the basis of my understanding of Reality.

If you wake up at night to go to the john, and you are the only one awake in the house or apartment, you are the only one who experiences your reality. Thus the only evidence for your reality, according to your thinking, is “subjective” and unreliable.

Human beings live by experience. That means learning from the experiences of others and our mistakes and achievements. Empirical or verified evidence is good, but not always possible. We must live on the basis of our own judgement and experience, which is why rationality and spirituality are required.