New religion

[Carnavon]

This definition does not conform to the dictionary definition of "objective", which is a measure independent of ANY subjective judgment. This is why GodWillsIt is not, by definition, objective. No matter how powerful, wise or benevolent the being in question may be, if that being exorcises judgment to make rules, it is a subjective set of rules, based on that being's perspective.

Using your definition, I could just as easily say that North Koreans have an objective standard of morality based on the whims of their "Dear Leader", whom they regard as a god. Followers of other religions could make similar claims. The followers of Bin Laden thought it was morally correct to kill "infidels" because they thought it was the "Will of Allah". There are many examples in history of Christians who've committed atrocities and even today there are Christian terrorists (see the Hutaree movement).

Maybe I should further qualify what I meant in view of the original argument of “they agree to have an open marriage and that is then not wrong”. 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”

Now you may say these were not True Christians and they acted contrary to scripture. The problem is that neither Jesus nor Allah ever come down from Heaven to explain their will. It's always filtered through religious priest-type characters who have their own agenda.

Jesus claimed to be one with the Father and being thus God. He was crucified thus for at least blasphemy. Priests may interpret any way they want, but that does not make it true. If somebody interprets a poem, he does not give its real meaning. The poet had a message, irrespective of how others may see it.

Myself included, not just in my rejection of inequality but also as a matter of personal preference. My wife is a headstrong passionate woman. We fight sometimes but in truth I prefer it this way and I suspect she does as well.

Inequality has nothing to do with it. All people are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Thus whether you are a male,female, white, black, rich, poor, American, Australian is totally irrelevant. It is purely a matter of authority. If you regard for instance your employees as inferior, you have a problem. You asked your wife about her real views?

Seeing that the issue of slaves were raised, and a topic of a recent a sermon at our church, the following will be guidelines for employer/employee relationships.

Would I be right in assuming that the passage that speaks of beating your slave to death is OK as long as he doesn't die right away was not mentioned? Exodus 21:21

This is a difficult issue. It would seem that the purpose here was not to kill, but discipline. As you would have noticed, action should be taken against the “owner” if he died because of the assault. (see previous verse)
We have the same principle in our laws now. Cases are decided whether a man dies as a direct result of the injuries inflicted or was there other causes that affected the situation. Not an easy answer, I agree.
However, you will agree that the principle that I put forward and that is relevant to treating employees, are valid not so?

“How can you judge others by your standards as they are not accepted as "universally applicable” or use your criteria to judge what should generally be accepted as morally right? This is the predicament.”

Only in the Christian mind. Much of these "philosophical arguments" of apologetics seem to revolve around finding a problem that doesn't actually exist and then offering "GodDidIt, GodWantsIt, GodWillsIt" as the solution.

Morality is a matter of empathy. We identify with the suffering of others, the very nature of compassion. The "social contract", as summed up by Jesus and others before him, is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. How can you pardon the existence of slavery when you would not be a slave yourself?

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.

”It is now accepted that children may be aborted”
It is actually not accepted that "children" be aborted, though it was in the OT (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

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.
You would have noticed what the process was: Did not listen to his father/ and mother in matters of morals, not because he “does not wash his feet before entering the house” ( This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard). After they have exhausted their efforts to rectify his behaviour, they have to justify any action to the “elders” of the city who were respected persons in the community.
This is contrary to what we find nowadays that there are actually action groups that lobby and take issue in the matter of “violence against woman and children” because of the rife occurrence. What a shame on our society!

What is accepted now is that a 1st trimester fetus may be aborted. Since the brain doesn't form until roughly week 21, a 1st trimester fetus is not another conscious being but a collection of cells.
Late term abortions are not on demand, as conservatives suggest, but only available when the woman's health is at risk. You can't just walk into an abortion clinic after week 21 and say you've changed your mind and want an abortion. Your life must be at risk.

The argument of brain functioning is thus the criterion? Thus people with brain damage may be killed? Awareness the only value to life? Are you not just a collection of cells? The child is not an “it”, it is a human being in the process of development. We call the developing child all kinds of things to distance ourselves from this. Why are mothers going through such trauma when they abort? My dear friend, we have really now limited the value of those least able to fend for themselves, and I always thought that this was the responsibility of a caring people – to defend the rights of those not able to fend for themselves? It is a tragic shame!

”The issue is thus the treatment of people and clear guidelines are given in this respect in the Bible.”

The Bible can be used to justify any belief. Jesus is a liberal, a conservative, a capitalist, a socialist, black, white, straight, gay or anything else you want him to be. This is why there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, each one thinking they got it right.

You are right. The Bible is the only truth and when we use it, as you previously mentioned, for our own purposes, it becomes distorted. Apartheid was justified by the Bible.

Why is homosexual behaviour accepted as fine? On what basis? If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that nature has worked out a really great method to ensure the survival of the specie- which is jeopardized by homosexual behaviour.

Evolution is about communities, not individuals. Homosexual couples may not reproduce themselves but can be effective godparents to children orphaned in a community. Research has shown that gay couples are every bit as effective at parenting as their heterosexual counterparts and in nature we see same sex animal couples raising orphaned young.

Also, evolution is not about morality, though I do believe that morality is its own reward in the long run.

As for why homosexuality should be accepted but not predatory sexual behaviors like rape or child molestation again comes back to the social contract. Someone who's not gay might still fight for the rights of gays because they would not wish to be abused themselves. This is distinguished from predatory behaviors where there is a victim.

I accept your point that you may justify it from a evolutionary point of view although it still seems at odds with the “system” that was developed over “millions of years” to find the best solution, and thus an aberration thereof.

God’s law does not change and does not have to.

One word: Shellfish.

Leviticus 11:10

I do not know what the reasons 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.

The issue is Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts having all his faculties, and claiming to be the Son of God and equal to God, laying down his life so you could have eternal life in fulfillment of the prophecy

And this is the biggest problem I have with Christian morality. What are the three classic steps again?

1. Admit you're not perfect
2. Repent what you've done wrong
3. Believe that Yahweh sent his own son who was also himself down to earth to bleed upon a cross as the only means by which he could convince himself to forgive you because human sacrifice makes everything better because... because... well, that part is never explained.

You had me. You had me. You lost me.

Yes, as I indicated with a previous post, it may not seem “rational” that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. 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?
Let's see:
You know that you need a car.
You know your drivers license has been endorsed for drunken driving and no longer valid. You are offered a brand new Lincoln Continental, or a brand new Ferrari by a friend and he can remove your drivers license suspension. Are you going to say “No this gift is unacceptable because the price for the vehicle is not what I think it should be ”? What a friend you are!
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?”

He did not have to convince himself – the punishment for sin is death (not only physical, but also spiritual) and Jesus suffered that on your behalf so you can have eternal life. The sacrifice removes all your sin, You are a clean slate with all the arguments and possible harsh words with your wife forgiven, and you complain?

The great thing is that in the previous example, you were for argument's sake not worthy of your friend's friendship (maybe you betrayed him and he knows it), and he still makes this offer to you, showing clearly that he loves you. This is what happens, the Bible tells us.
Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Yes, Jesus loves you. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
(implication also -some will not hear)

---

Your argument to substantiate your claim that God does not exist? I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and thus I accept what He says as truth. You accept other matters as truth, such as there is no God

Burden of proof lies with the claim that something exists.

You, I would speculate, do not believe there is an Allah, Zeus, Ra, Odin or variety of other gods. If you were to say, "there is no Allah", we would not demand proof. It would be understood that the statement is "as far as we know".

There seems to be a difference between stating "there is no God" and "I believe there is no God". Without any fancy footwork, it is very obvious that if you make a positive statement such as you did, you are the one with the burden of proof. If you said "I believe there is no God" would be another matter altogether. But don't worry, you cannot prove there is no God, so shall we say "truce"?

***DEISTPALADIN EDITED TO FIX QUOTE BOXES***