Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Angrboda]

Let's say that, for the sake of argument god exists and he is the ultimate moral authority. So, now what? Which god? Which morals? (Jesus contradicts some of the OT laws) Is there a need for interpretation? Here's something to think about: god never said "thou shalt not abuse cocaine", therefore it is not immoral to do so. How would you respond to this?

---

Jesus says - seek and you will find. There is no absolute way to know the will of God or be a Christian. God's will changes over time. But if you seek God, you will find him. The New Testament of the Bible is a good place to law, but it is not intended to be a moral absolute that replaces God. God is the ground of being and the ground of morality. The two are related. God can be the ground of morality because God is the ground of being. When God created the universe, morality was created at the same time.

---

The bible forbids drunkenness (1 Cor 6) which has been interpreted through church tradition to include drug abuse and reason says that cocaine is more dangerous than other drugs so it is reasonable to believe that cocaine use is sinful. Perhaps you had a tooth operation and you were going to be given cocaine (it is legal for some purposes), if you were concerned about it, you could pray and ask God to show you in the scriptures whether it is acceptable, and God would. Ultimately, God has the final authority to direct people, but God will agree with the New Testament and use that, at least in this particular period of the grace of God.

[ETA3: He didn't answer your question of which god. He begged the question by assuming the god of the bible.]

This raises a question which may or may not have been answered. Is jstrodel a Catholic, a Protestant, or something else? He sounds like a Protestant, and if so, this argument has no foundation as the tradition of the church is not authoritative for a Protestant. (Protestants have other problems involved in deriving authority from their chain of command, but that's a separate issue.) [ETA: Drunkenness and mere use of alcohol may be separate things; we have laws against public drunkenness, but not against drinking.] [ETA2: For a Protestant to argue in this way would be analogous to the controversial practice of kalam in Islam.]

The other question, which has been in the back of my mind, is the mechanism that makes these objective morals flow from God. One might ask, if God happens to be dead — he created the universe, its morals, and human life, but ceased to exist somewhere along the way — are his morals still authoritative? Objective? Should we follow the morals of a non-existent god? And what properties of the universe would justify saying it has morals and teleology when the teleosee is gone? The likely answer you will get is that it is not possible for God not to exist, or that we know he still does; in doing so, that brings a lot of new, questionable premises onto the field, all of which need to be justified.