(October 5, 2009 at 11:11 am)amw79 Wrote: You can't realistically call the consequentialism view of moraility "self serving", as its implicit meaning is derived from the consequence of the moral act, not the context or belief system responsible for the act.

This is incomprehensible. No belief system—not even Christianity—can be "responsible for the act" because belief systems don't act! Please reformulate your objection intelligibly.

(October 6, 2009 at 9:02 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: I have another question. On your view, what right does God have to put those he deems wicked into 'gehenna'?

Because the entire universe is produced by and belongs to him, the sovereign and univocal lawgiver who is the final court of arbitration. At the consumation of his purposes he will finally eradicate all sin and its every consequence from the face of his creation, which includes all those who prefer it and everything affected by it, and he will finally exist once again in open communion with his children. Those who want no part of a world like that will have their wishes granted; since the entire universe was made by and belongs to God, there is nowhere to evict them to, so they are to be eradicated along with everything else of sin. As C.S. Lewis put the matter quite succinctly, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'Thy will be done'."

P.S. You may have noted that I changed the wording of your question. You had asked, "By what right do you believe God has to put those he deems wicked into 'Gehenna'?" I did not think you meant to ask me about my rights to form and hold some belief, but rather about God's right to do some thing. So I took the liberty of rearranging your question and hope that I was correct about what your question really was.

---

(October 8, 2009 at 4:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The SDA church is considered outside mainstream Christianity ...

They are considered strange, but not unorthodox (outside mainstream Christianity). The SDA church affirms the orthodox creeds, including the authority of Scriptures.

(October 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Arcanus Wrote: Because the entire universe is produced by and belongs to him, the sovereign and univocal lawgiver who is the final court of arbitration. At the consumation of his purposes he will finally eradicate all sin and its every consequence from the face of his creation, which includes all those who prefer it and everything affected by it, and he will finally exist once again in open communion with his children. Those who want no part of a world like that will have their wishes granted; since the entire universe was made by and belongs to God, there is nowhere to evict them to, so they are to be eradicated along with everything else of sin. As C.S. Lewis put the matter quite succinctly, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'Thy will be done'."

P.S. You may have noted that I changed the wording of your question. You had asked, "By what right do you believe God has to put those he deems wicked into 'Gehenna'?" I did not think you meant to ask me about my rights to form and hold some belief, but rather about God's right to do some thing. So I took the liberty of rearranging your question and hope that I was correct about what your question really was.

You are correct about what I meant to ask. I see how it can be misconstrued as asking you by what right do you believe. Maybe a comma would have clarified? Punctuation is not my strong suit. Anyway, thank you for these honest answers.

Another question. Do you think that a parent has the right to destroy a child because this child did not follow the rules of the household?

(October 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Arcanus Wrote: [quote='amw79' pid='36619' dateline='1254755519']
You can't realistically call the consequentialism view of moraility "self serving", as its implicit meaning is derived from the consequence of the moral act, not the context or belief system responsible for the act.

---

This is incomprehensible. No belief system—not even Christianity—can be "responsible for the act" because belief systems don't act! Please reformulate your objection intelligibly.

Mmm. I think pedantry is at play here. Substitute the words "responsible for" for the phrase "held by the committer of".

You know the point I was making (in context). The Christian view of morality has a built-in mechanism, which, as you stated, renders any moral acts commited by a non-christian as worthless. I would suggest that someone looking at this concept critically could see this as a very useful dogma designed to encourage people to 'subscribe' to Christianity or face damnation.

I don't believe the other views of morality you mentioned have a similar self-serving dogma attatched to them.

(October 9, 2009 at 9:35 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Another question. Do you think that a parent has the right to destroy a child because this child did not follow the rules of the household?

Well of course not.

---

(October 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm)amw79 Wrote: You can't realistically call the consequentialism view of morality "self serving," as its implicit meaning is derived from the consequence of the moral act, not the context or belief system held by the committer of the act.

I see what you are saying. And yet the Christian view is no different. In other words, he can do moral acts without being a Christian. The moral value of some act is determined by its correspondence to the nature and will of God, not by whether the person committing the act is Christian or not. Non-Christians are intellectually capable of understanding God's commands and physiologically capable of obeying them. The problem isn't that he can't, but rather that he won't. He could obey God’s law if he desired to do so, he could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. "Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do."

(October 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm)amw79 Wrote: The Christian view of morality ... renders any moral acts commited by a non-Christian as worthless.

No, it denies that those acts are moral at all—the same way that a humanist consequentialism would deny that the acts of a sociopathic serial killer are moral. In either case, the context or belief system held by the committer of the act is irrelevant.

(October 13, 2009 at 11:34 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(October 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm)amw79 Wrote: The Christian view of morality ... renders any moral acts commited by a non-Christian as worthless.

No, it denies that those acts are moral at all—the same way that a humanist consequentialism would deny that the acts of a sociopathic serial killer are moral. In either case, the context or belief system held by the committer of the act is irrelevant.

But the belief system of Christianity benefits itself from having this as a doctrine, whereas consequentialism does not. Hence my accusation of the self serving element.

And hang on, you're stating that Christianity "denies those acts are moral at all". Why? Because they were commited by a non-Christian. Therefore had the belief system of the committer of the act been Christian, those acts would otherwise have been moral, ergo the belief system held by moral actor is fundamental.

Anyways, the above quote just epitimises my original problem, in that you have, without a hint of irony (that i could detect) likened 'a moral act commited by a non-christian' with "the acts of a sociopathic serial killer". I don't even know where to start with that one!

(October 13, 2009 at 11:34 am)Arcanus Wrote:

---

(October 9, 2009 at 9:35 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Another question. Do you think that a parent has the right to destroy a child because this child did not follow the rules of the household?

---

Well of course not.

But arguable the parents produced the child and therefore that child belongs to the parent.

As you stated:

(October 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Arcanus Wrote: Because the entire universe is produced by and belongs to him, the sovereign and univocal lawgiver who is the final court of arbitration.

---

At the consumation of his purposes he will finally eradicate all sin and its every consequence from the face of his creation, which includes all those who prefer it and everything affected by it, and he will finally exist once again in open communion with his children. Those who want no part of a world like that will have their wishes granted; since the entire universe was made by and belongs to God, there is nowhere to evict them to, so they are to be eradicated along with everything else of sin. As C.S. Lewis put the matter quite succinctly, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'Thy will be done'."

---

It seems entirely contradictory to me to claim that a God has the right to "destroy" humans or send them to "hell", yet we recognize we do not have that same right over our children, whom we have created through sexual reproduction, provide rules to live by, as well as care for and support.

(October 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: But the belief system of Christianity benefits itself from having this as a doctrine ...

Huh?

(October 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: And hang on: you're stating that Christianity "denies those acts are moral at all." Why? Because they were commited by a non-Christian.

No, that is not why those acts are immoral. You are ignoring the very post you're responding to, in which I said very clearly, "The moral value of some act is determined by its correspondence to the nature and will of God, not by whether the person committing the act is Christian or not. Non-Christians are intellectually capable of understanding God's commands and physiologically capable of obeying them. The problem isn't that he can't, but rather that he won't. He could obey God’s law if he desired to do so, he could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. 'Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do'."

(October 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: Anyways, the above quote [the Christian view of morality denies that those acts are moral at all] just epitomizes my original problem—that you have, without a hint of irony that I could detect, likened a moral act commited by a non-Christian with "the acts of a sociopathic serial killer." I don't even know where to start with that one!

Nice misquote. Good thing those who are reading this can scroll back a couple posts to see what I actually said.

---

(October 14, 2009 at 10:21 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: But arguably the parents produced the child and, therefore, that child belongs to the parent.

But not arguable under the Christian view, Eilonnwy, which your questions were inquiring after. Under the Christian view, parents do not own their children. Moreover, nobody owns anything because God has never given up ownership of everything—again, under the Christian view. It's sort of akin to what Carl Sagan said: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." Couples reproduce offspring from already existing stuff, and it all belongs to God, including the couple themselves. Under the Christian view, parents are stewards of their children, not owners, and morally culpable to God for their stewardship, or how they treated that which belongs to him.

(October 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: And hang on: you're stating that Christianity "denies those acts are moral at all." Why? Because they were commited by a non-Christian.

(October 19, 2009 at 6:27 am)Arcanus Wrote: No, that is not why those acts are immoral. You are ignoring the very post you're responding to, in which I said very clearly, "The moral value of some act is determined by its correspondence to the nature and will of God, not by whether the person committing the act is Christian or not. Non-Christians are intellectually capable of understanding God's commands and physiologically capable of obeying them. The problem isn't that he can't, but rather that he won't. He could obey God’s law if he desired to do so, he could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. 'Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do'."

This fits in quite nicely with the thread title, as its a blatant contradiction in terms.

So it doesn't matter "whether the person committing the act is Christian or not", but the "moral value of (an) act is determined by its correspondence to the nature and will of God". By which, you mean the Christian god.

Followed by some wittering on about "trust(ing) in Christ",

Its a good job people reading this thread understand what a contradiction is.

(October 19, 2009 at 6:27 am)Arcanus Wrote: Under the Christian view, parents are stewards of their children, not owners, and morally culpable to God for their stewardship, or how they treated that which belongs to him.

This is also Dan Dennett's view, as an atheist. And my own too.

Dennett even put it exactly like that, parents are strewards of their children.

Sorry if this point seemed a bit irrelevant or uninteresting, I just wanted to point out that whether a Christian thing or not, that, of course, there are plenty of atheists with the same view.

I think that basically all good parents have this view, whether religious or non-religious.

I'd just like to say that, I strongly support that view, in both a secular and non-secular sense. And parent(s) that has (have) this view have the right view, whetehr it's for secular reasons or whether they believe in it due to their "faith" (Although I'd, of course, prefer it if they'd be like it without needing "faith", but that differes from person to person *sighs*).

EvF