Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Also, did you hear that the new pope has declared that we are all saved by the sacrifice of that guy, what's his name .. oh yeah, Jesus. Atheists too. Good works are now officially enough. So if that was all that was holding you back from joining we godless, you need no longer worry.

How is this relevant to a Reformed Christian?

It's origins were between Socrates and Euthyphro discussing moral actions, but it has been a stop-gap for monotheistic religions as well ever since it was first worded with plenty of hand waves against it, From Socrates to Thomas Aquinas to William James. No theologian has been able to explain it away without a considerable effort of edifying their terms upon how they view their particular version of god.

No, it doesn’t apply to any God whose actions consistently derive from His character, God’s actions are Holy because they derive from His Holy character which is the ultimate standard of Holiness. The dilemma only applies in a polytheistic system where you have no ultimate authority or god.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Neither, it’s a false dilemma. God’s commandments are morally good because they consistently derive from His morally good character.

But really, all this hand-waving really accounts for is that people have decided beforehand what is moral and what isn't before even hearing of Euthyphro dilemma, which only elicits rationalizations by theists.

Have you given up trying to formulate a reason as to why pedophilia is morally wrong if God doesn’t exist?

Comparisons of versions show that no changes affecting significant doctrines have been introduced.

Totally false, laddie. Read "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman and learn how badly you have been conned.

Or better yet he could watch Daniel Wallace destroy Bart Ehrman in debate and hold to his original position.

“Thank you Miles for organizing this event, and for flying in Dan Wallace to beat my rear side all over the stage.” – Bart Ehrman

This reveals much about your motivation for your belief.

No it doesn’t.

You have an infantile need for justice after death.

As do you.

Joseph Stalin did "get away" with his crimes as did Jimmy Saville.

How do you know this?

You do know that we don't believe in your god because it is a stupid idea do you not?

What you may or may not think is stupid is irrelevant to what is and is not real.

What sort of monster are you that the only thing stopping you from rampaging through your town is your belief in a magic man?

Where did I say that? God’s grace is the only thing that prevents either of us from being as evil as we could be.

I don't go around doing evil because I am a nice person.

No, God prevents you from doing evil.

Because I have empathy I can put myself in the position of the child and think "I would not like to be treated like that".

So? Why is it morally wrong to treat someone unlike you’d want to be treated if God doesn’t exist?

Also mistreating a child would often have consequences if other members of society found out, particularly the parents

That’s a fallacious appeal to force; something is only wrong because other people might do bad things to you if you choose to do that thing? So saving Jews from the Gestapo in Nazi Germany was morally wrong because the Gestapo would have killed you for doing it if they caught you?

I really do not see a need for a deity of any kind to account for morals.

I see the need.

---

the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group

---

Is your argument really going to be that simply because the Great Apes do something it is morally right for Humans to do the same? Apes kill one another and rape one another; is murder and rape therefore morally good for Humans? Not only this, but how are you valid in reasoning from the way things are to the way things ought to be?

---

"Crimes against an infinite authority necessitate an infinite punishment, makes sense. "

Sure, Stat, that would make sense if you were a despot interested in the relative measure of your authority over the relative weight of the actual crime committed when doling out punishment. So, say, stealing from a tyrant should require more punishment than stealing from a beggar. After all, the tyrant has more authority.

Round these parts, we punish according to the weight -of the crime-...not the weight of -the body doling out punitive measures-. If we did it the way that "makes sense", to you, every crime would have precisely the same punitive actions associated, as the weight of the authority doling out those actions is unchanged between any two entirely disparate crimes.

What a joke.

---

This fails for two reasons…

1. Simply because we do something a particular way in this country does not mean that is the just way of doing something.
2. Even if that were the case, we do punish according to authority in the United States. If you assault a homeless man you’re going to receive a lot less time behind bars than if you assaulted the President of the United States. Shoot a gang member and you’ll receive a lot less time behind bars than if you shot a Police Officer. Crimes against an infinite authority under this same system would necessitate a punishment of infinite duration.