New religion

[DeistPaladin]

Maybe I should further qualify what I meant ... That there seems to be a standard that distinguishes between right and wrong, and is not open to individual choice, is evident. As you mentioned, war crimes are not “right”, so is mutilating animals for personal pleasure or pedophilia. Thus a set of standards which is independent of individual choice/preference, would be an “objective standard”, as its origin is “outside the subject/individual making the judgement”

Yes. My points on empathy and the social contract provide an explanation for why such things are wrong. I am satisfied with that explanation.

By contrast, I would not be satisfied with your explanation "GodWillsIt". This simplistic, dare I say vapid, explanation offers no elucidation as to what morality is or why such examples you mention are inherently wrong. It's little more than a "cause I said so" that we were never really satisfied with as children.

I just can't repeat enough that the Christian's "moral argument for God", like similar apologetic arguments, is worrying about a problem that doesn't exist and then positing a flippant, vapid GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, etc as the solution.

Your answer does not address the issue of the relevance of your value system as the criteria for right and wrong, whereas others may have a different set of values.

Actually, it does. The values of others is not relevant.

No reference to unborn children and the argument of protection of those unable to protect their own interests- which should be the “hallmark” of a better society. Now it is “No 1” that counts.

The 1st trimester fetus isn't a sentient, self-aware being, as it has no brain by which to experience reality. It's a collection of cells, nothing more.

You would have noticed what the process was...

Regardless of the process, the end result was to murder a troublesome child at the parent's behest. All that was required is the say-so of the father. There is no judicial process by which the child could appeal or plead innocence. The final punishment, death, is far beyond anything a civil or moral society would enact for the "crimes" of being a drunkard, etc. This treatment of children, while probably unfortunately common in ancient times, is shocking to our modern sensibilities and an example of how we are more moral now than in ancient times. It certainly is not indicative of a law laid down by a wise and benevolent god.

But back to the issue of abortion, my point was to offer this passage of scripture as one example of many that the Bible places ZERO value on the life of children, that they are the property of their fathers and can be murdered virtually at will by the father's say-so.

The argument of brain functioning is thus the criterion?

Yes. We have moral obligations to one another as self-aware being. We have no moral obligations to trees or rocks. These things are not self-aware.

Thus people with brain damage may be killed?

See what you can do to avoid the straw man argument in the future. I have not advocated such a position.

Awareness the only value to life?

Self-awareness, consciousness, sentience, yes. What other criteria is there?

Are you not just a collection of cells?

I sure don't think so. I think that I am a conscious being who is more than the sum of my parts. You believe in "souls" do you not? I'm not so sure about "souls" myself but would still use the term as a metaphor for the very real quality of self-awareness.

The (fetus) is not an “it”, it is a human being in the process of development.

Bold paraphrase above mine. I assume you refer not to a "child" but a 1st trimester fetus, yes? In any event, you deny such a thing is an "it" but then use the pronoun "it" to refer to it. Gotcha.

Aside bit of trivia, distinct gender doesn't form until later and all unborn are female at first.

Why are mothers going through such trauma when they abort?

They don't. There are a lot of lies told about abortion and this is one of them.

I do not know what the reasons (for outlawing the consumption of shell fish) were, but you will know that the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals existed before then (See the flood) and thus there would have been health reasons for the prohibition.

I have little doubt that there were reasons for the banning of certain food. If people got sick and died from eating them, people might have concluded that they died from divine punishment. Religion, like art and other forms of culture, develop out of a civilizations attempts to understand their world. None of this indicates authorship by a timeless universal god.

The passage, like many of the taboos of the OT, were intended for all time. That there is a "New Testament" at all indicates that the Biblical god does change over time, else nothing "New" would ever be needed.

Now if somebody offered you a gift that will change you whole future, are you going to describe to him what the conditions should be?

I haven't asked for conditions. I've simply concluded that the belief is absurd.

Jesus will give you a new life and remove your sins – without you deserving it. And you complain because you think “the price is unfair?”

There's a price for a "gift". Than it is not a gift. By definition. And again, I have not "complained" but simply regard the belief as absurd.

Jesus suffered that on your behalf so you can have eternal life.

Why would that be necessary? I can forgive without bleeding on a cross. Why is "God" not able to? What higher power compels Jesus to perform a ritual of blood sacrifice as the method of atonement? Does he make the rules or not?

harsh words with your wife forgiven

I've not had harsh words with my wife. We butt heads sometimes but never insult one another. Do you understand the distinction? If not, she and I both identified with John and Abigail Adams in the various biographies we've read.

If I ever did have harsh words for my wife, I would ask her to forgive me and I'm confident no bloodshed would be required. This is how secular morality works.

But don't worry, you cannot prove there is no God, so shall we say "truce"?

Again, the burden of proof lies with the one who believes something exists.