A Levite and his concubine

[Esquilax]

Okay. You don't agree that God creating us gives him the right to set the standards for our condiuct. I believe that our creator is the source of ultimate morality for everyone. Do you believe that there are ultimate moral standards that apply to every person? If you do then where did it come from? If it's just your opinion, then why do you hold God to your standards?

Oh, come on, I've answered this question a while back. I believe that there is an objective framework which applies to everyone, and that framework is reality, which we all share and can reliably predict the outcomes thereof. In reality, we are all the same species, and we are all the same kind of thing; evolved beings with a tendency toward social grouping and cooperation. We need certain things, our pain response developed to signal that negative things are happening to us, when we're sick we suffer... these are the facts which apply to every single person without exception, and they are sufficient from which to derive general moral rules, which cover most any moral context.

Is everyone obligated to follow them? No, of course not. But then, nobody is obligated to follow any moral rules. It doesn't mean that they aren't effective or properly justified, just that some people are intent on doing immoral things. You call that sin, I call that a failure to properly justify a given action in a non-fallacious way. We both observe that it happens. But at least, when I'm pressed to explain my moral decisions, I can provide a concise and rationally justified reason for them. So can you, I'm willing to bet, and you actually kinda need to; if you seriously can't supply a reason why murder is wrong beyond "god said not to," then there is something very wrong with your moral compass.

As I keep saying over and over--God's actions were just, based on our sins. Of course, you disagree with the concept, but this is what the bible says and as a christian this is what I believe.

Believe whatever you like. Just understand that your reasons for doing so are completely circular; you're believing for bad reasons.

Again, during the old testament times people were under God's judgement. The new testament tells christians to treat their slaves with love and respect. I don't know, but I assume that these were voluntary contracted slaves. The bible doesn't say that we're allowed to kill some of another or no religion.

On the slave thing, you're just wrong; there's a parable in the new testament about a slave who escapes- obviously he doesn't want to be there- and the good, virtuous christian man who takes him back to his master, which is considered a good act. Additionally, you'll find that the passage on slaves in the NT actually says to obey your earthly masters, even the cruel ones, and it never bothers to repeal any of the old testament rules on slavery either, so one could easily make an argument that those are the rules the NT is operating under. That being said, are you in favor of slavery as it is described in the bible?

As regards killing someone of another religion, the bible says that if a member of your family tries to turn you to another religion, "yours shall be the first hand on them to put them to death."

Instead of answering my question, you keep telling me to stop asking the wrong question? You've gone on and on about reasons to adopt certain moral standards, but why should someone else agree with you if they reason differently? Why should God abide by your standards other that they are logical to you?

It's not just "logical to me," because there aren't multiple valid logical syllogisms regarding the comprehensive moral facts; simply put, there is no non-fallacious way to argue for cold blooded murder, when one keeps in mind the factual premises that underpin our nature as human beings. At one point or another there will always be a hidden special pleading exception or fallacy waiting to be pointed out. Someone could reason differently, but they could not do so in a way that is a logically valid argument. That's the nature of a moral system that respects objective facts and reasoned argument.

And god shouldn't abide by my morals because they're logical to me, he should do so because they're logical in general. Logic is not something I get to dictate, it is the framework in which I am forced to work, not the other way around. The rules of logic are external to me, they are objective ways of interrogating an argument. Let me ask you this: if a proposition is both logically sound and supported by facts, if it is true, in other words, what possible reason could you provide for god claiming that it is false?

And if there isn't one... that's kinda the end of the discussion. If god has no reason to reject a true thing, and I can show that my moral determinations are true, in that they are factually supported and reasonable, then god has no reason to reject my moral determinations.

I'm sure many murderers would justify their actions and "survival of the fittest" and would agree that it applies to themselves as well.

Oh, so you don't understand survival of the fittest either? Well, okay...

"Fittest," does not simply mean strongest, or most needlessly ruthless. In biological terms fitness refers to how well a given organism utilizes both its environment and survival niche to, well, survive. It's "most fit to survive," not "most literally physically fit." For humans, the survival niche is cooperation and social grouping; in a human society a murderer is least fit, not most. Any murderer using survival of the fittest as their justification would be factually wrong, and therefore not be in possession of a valid moral argument.

That was easy.

I justify these beliefs because I get them from the bible.

Circular reasoning, fallacy, invalid moral argument. Next.

Do you believe that abortion, fornication and divorce are okay? If so, is it because they meet your standards of not hurting anybody? If so, can you back up your belief with concrete supporting evidence?

[/quote]

Yes, yes, and yes... but that's a really long conversation, citing multiple variables and contextual caveats. I could do it- in fact I already have the arguments lined up in my mind- but I don't have the several hours it would take for me to present them, and then predict your- no doubt numerous- objections to them, present answers to all those.... and then just have you resort back to the bible.

In short, I really have no interest in a lengthy, one sided interrogation that'll just end up with you failing to even acknowledge that my position has any validity in the end.