(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.
