Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tonus]

Are you saying that people have a moral obligation to be logical?

I don't know if it's a moral obligation or not. It may simply be a conscious application of the instinctive drive to survive and propagate a species.

You keep using terms that make it sound like there’s a system of moral standards that apply to all groups. I am not sure how you can say one group is more “refined” than the other if no such standard exists. Thoughts?

I think the only moral standard(s) that would be applicable in all circumstances is that which promotes the continued survival of the group. As the group becomes more safe and secure, they can place more import on social behavior beyond that needed to ensure their survival.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't know if it's a moral obligation or not. It may simply be a conscious application of the instinctive drive to survive and propagate a species.

So anything that helps the species survive and propagate is moral?

I think the only moral standard(s) that would be applicable in all circumstances is that which promotes the continued survival of the group. As the group becomes more safe and secure, they can place more import on social behavior beyond that needed to ensure their survival.

Ok, why is continual survival of the group the ultimate standard?

[The Grand Nudger]

So anything that helps the species survive and propagate is moral?

That's how morality seems to be decided, yup. Whether or not it -should be-....well......that's another story, aint it?

Ok, why is continual survival of the group the ultimate standard?

If it weren't, there would likely be fewer of us left to wonder. I think the question you want to ask is why -should it be-...that's where you have some traction. Unless, of course, the goal is continued survival..and then you have no traction.

[Statler Waldorf]

That's how morality seems to be decided, yup. Whether or not it -should be-....well......that's another story, aint it?

No, that’s not the way the vast majority of people would define morality at all, so I am going to have to see some sort of proof establishing that is the way it should be defined.

If it weren't, there would likely be fewer of us left to wonder. I think the question you want to ask is why -should it be-...that's where you have some traction. Unless, of course, the goal is continued survival..and then you have no traction.

No, I am asking him why that is the standard, why isn’t it individual survival, family survival, species survival, all life on Earth survival or any other standard? Nobody on here seems to be able to explain how they know any of this, they’ll assert it, but they never back it up with anything besides their own opinion. Morality, as a normative system, cannot be based upon mere opinion.

[Cyberman]

So anything that helps the species survive and propagate is moral?

Species? Sure, if morality can even apply in a survival context.

Society, however, is a different matter and depends on the sort of society we want to live in, I suppose.

It's a vital distinction, however you slice it - and so important not to confuse the two.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that’s not the way the vast majority of people would define morality at all,

So what? Many people could be wrong, don't ad pop me bro!

so I am going to have to see some sort of proof establishing that is the way it should be defined.

exactly what I said...........

No, I am asking him why that is the standard, why isn’t it individual survival, family survival, species survival, all life on Earth survival or any other standard?

A good question. But ultimately -why- any standard is chosen is inconsequential so long as those who offer it are honest about their standard. You are free to disagree...and this will lead to moral relativism.

Why this standard? "That is my preference". Done and done.

[Statler Waldorf]

Species? Sure, if morality can even apply in a survival context.

According to several atheists on here, morality is defined by survival. Are they wrong?

So what? Many people could be wrong, don't ad pop me bro!

It’s up to you to prove their wrong, you keep asserting morals are relative but have done nothing to support that fringe claim.

exactly what I said...........

You gave no proof, you simply asserted it. Give me something to work with at least!

A good question. But ultimately -why- any standard is chosen is inconsequential so long as those who offer it are honest about their standard. You are free to disagree...and this will lead to moral relativism.

Not if my standard of morality is objectively true, relativism refuted.

Why this standard? "That is my preference". Done and done.

So you’re admitting that atheistic morals are arbitrary and therefore meaningless?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's up to you to prove their wrong,

No, it isn't........................................

you keep asserting morals are relative but have done nothing to support that fringe claim.

Do you and I share the same morals?

You gave no proof, you simply asserted it. Give me something to work with at least!

Proof of what...? Is/ought? Either you take that or you leave it. Your call.

Not if my standard of morality is objectively true, relativism refuted.

Indeed, now get to work

So you’re admitting that atheistic morals are arbitrary and therefore meaningless?

No more or less so than "theistic morals". Neither collection of morals are likely to be arbitrary -or- meaningless...even if the justifications offered -are- ( I like to leave room for people who simply cant articulate their thoughts very well.....)

[smax]

It’s appealing because it is logically sound.

That explains why Calvanists abound!

His efficacious will yes, but not His decreed will.

So, he wanted it but he didn't want it. Got it.

Do you have an actual proof to demonstrate that you have a free will or are you conceding you cannot prove you in fact do?

I have proven it by making conscious choices throughout this conversation.

For example: at first, my responses were prompt and now they are delayed. A varied approach, just as many things are varied.

It is; there’s nothing logically unsound about my position.

There absolutely is. Your position preposes that all things meaningless, not to mention extremely petty.

Sure you have, you claimed that Calvinists believe that everyone is a vessel prepared for wrath, which is not true at all; God’s elect are vessels prepared for mercy (Romans 9). You also seem to be completely ignorant of how Calvinists view God’s wills, which is surprising for someone claiming to have once been a Calvinist.

Like I said, it's a difference of progression. I simply have a wider perspective than you, and because of that, I understand the contradictions involved.

That said, here is quote from the Westminster Confession:

Chapter VI…II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. (Palmer, p. 126)

You’ve mocked a misrepresentation of it, which is in itself meaningless and a sign of positional weakness.

Not at all. It's not my fault that the doctrines contradict themselves. That's the nature of the bible.

It’s not too complicated for most to understand, only apparently for you.

When (or if) you ever graduate, then will talk. Right now it's like trying to discuss the planet with a flat earther.

Now are you trying to represent Calvinism?

Just stating one of their contradicting beliefs.

What most Christians believe about Calvinism is irrelevant; it has no bearing on what the Bible actually teaches.

That makes sense. "God's Word" is so powerful and "appealing" that most people don't truly get it and aren't compelled by it.

That's logically sound!

[Tonus]

So anything that helps the species survive and propagate is moral?

At its most base level, I think so. Our concept of morals and moral behavior may have developed from there.

Ok, why is continual survival of the group the ultimate standard?

It strikes me as the logical option, especially for beings who are able to empathize.

---

No, I am asking him why that is the standard, why isn’t it individual survival, family survival, species survival, all life on Earth survival or any other standard? Nobody on here seems to be able to explain how they know any of this, they’ll assert it, but they never back it up with anything besides their own opinion. Morality, as a normative system, cannot be based upon mere opinion.

As far as I am aware, standards of behavior have changed throughout the centuries, and continue to do so today. They seem to be based on opinion.