(May 24, 2018 at 3:30 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you believe the stories in the OT are historically factual and not written allegorically.

Jesus never killed anyone, and specifically taught us not to.

So you're a pick and choose. jesus promises to kill in revelations. john got it straight from the horses mouth.

Noticed your pivot from murder to kill. These are not the same thing.

(May 24, 2018 at 3:45 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:20 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: god must be exempt from the murder clause. god has killed humans (according to your stories) so it is in gods nature to murder.

Three things. First, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another, so...on that score alone God cannot murder. Second, God has the right to judge or show mercy to anyone and everyone, so his decision to take a person's life is a judgement or in some cases, a mercy (because of the eternal soul thing). Third, God does not give commands to himself, so his actions are guided by his nature. That nature (the paradigm of goodness) would ensure sufficiently moral justification if he did decide to take a life.

god gets a pass. Kind of a do as I say and not as I do god.

God doesn;t need a pass, because Steve isn;t describing a moral system anymore, let alone an objective one lol.

He;s just telling you that god does what god wants and calling it an objective moral system. It;s disgusting, if you ask me.

(May 24, 2018 at 11:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...Except I don't think murder is objectively wrong "just because God said so." That's a really simplistic way of putting it. Murder is objectively wrong because it is contrary to natural law. Since God created this natural world, natural law comes from God's nature. It reflects how He created this natural world to work. 

Here's from Wikipedia: 

"Natural law is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature - traditionally by God or a transcendent source - and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal, existing independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature, or society at large. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) "

My ethics professor taught natural law theory from a secular perspective. He told us that it was normally associated with theism but tried to present arguments for it that work regardless of God's existence. IMO, It's not the most compelling moral theory (it has problems like any other), but it has its merits. 

I think it was a good thing that my prof. presented it a as theory which does not depend on the existence of a deity because that kept me from dismissing it out-of-hand. However, because of his approach, I feel ill-prepared to discuss God's existence in relation to it. To be honest, it's a gap in my knowledge concerning ethics. I don't know what role God plays in validating the theory. In my view, even if God exists, his existence alone can neither validate nor invalidate moral reality. How exactly does that work?

I said in my former post that I was pretty sure you didn't think things are morally wrong "just because God said so." We agree that morality is 100% objective. We also agree that morality can be understood through human reason. I reject that morality is subjective which is why I reject divine command theory. Divine command theory assumes that something can be wrong only if God says it is. Why is stealing wrong? Because God said so. Not because you are depriving someone of their hard-earned property--that's irrelevant. With divine command, it's subjective morality, but based on God's opinion. Thus divine command becomes incoherent without a deity. Natural law does not suffer from this limitation.

I think we agree on everything except this single point: an immoral action remains immoral in a godless universe. After all, if morality can be "understood universally through human reason" why is God necessary to distinguish moral values? It seems that all that is necessary is human reason. Thus--to return to your original point--even in a universe that exists by accident, we can discern objective moral values with our capacity of reason alone. No God required.

(May 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:30 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: So you're a pick and choose. jesus promises to kill murder in revelations. john got it straight from the horses mouth.

Noticed your pivot from murder to kill. These are not the same thing.

Apologies, for me murder is killing for no reason. Now fixed. god appears to murder in bible stories/revelations. Stop dodging.

Quote:Noticed your pivot from murder to kill. These are not the same thing

The difference is only in justification one uses for the latter. And there is the rub .

(May 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: Three things. First, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another, so...on that score alone God cannot murder. Second, God has the right to judge or show mercy to anyone and everyone, so his decision to take a person's life is a judgement or in some cases, a mercy (because of the eternal soul thing). Third, God does not give commands to himself, so his actions are guided by his nature. That nature (the paradigm of goodness) would ensure sufficiently moral justification if he did decide to take a life.

god gets a pass. Kind of a do as I say and not as I do god.

A pass on what? He can't murder. Taking a life? Perfectly within the job description AND guided by a nature that cannot choose a lesser good. Your objection/analysis is overly simplistic. If that's the level of simplicity you need, you shouldn't engage in conversations containing systematic theology. The two are incompatible.

And so the dodging continues

(May 24, 2018 at 4:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: god gets a pass. Kind of a do as I say and not as I do god.

A pass on what? He can't murder. Taking a life? Perfectly within the job description AND guided by a nature that cannot choose a lesser good. Your objection/analysis is overly simplistic. If that's the level of simplicity you need, you shouldn't engage in conversations containing systematic theology. The two are incompatible.

Well, I mean if it;s his job what can we say, right?  Soldiers can;t possibly murder either..because, you know....

(May 24, 2018 at 3:55 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: My ethics professor taught natural law theory from a secular perspective. He told us that it was normally associated with theism but tried to present arguments for it that work regardless of God's existence. IMO, It's not the most compelling moral theory (it has problems like any other), but it has its merits. 

Natural law doesn't make sense without the concept of 'final cause'. I personally think that is very difficult to justify 'final cause' without appealing to the Divine. I am open to being shown otherwise however.