Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Enjolras]

Yes, but you have yet to show how ethics can be anything but relative. Just asserting it is not an argument.

First you claim that my ethics are relative, even though you know they aren't. That's disingenuous and makes conversation with you frustrating and increasing pointless. Then you claim I am just making assertions. I stated my position and gave reasons for it. You don't agree, which is fine, but let's not pretend I havent explained my view.

You keep asserting ethics are grounded in God. You have further asserted God is good and just. These are also assertions. I find no good reason to believe they are true, but I will at least grant you the courtesy to acknowledge that is your view.

Like I asked - what teachings of Christ were leaders of the Inquisition following? Remember Enjolras, I'm a Christian, we get out moral marching orders from the New Testament.

You are missing the point. Their ethics were grounded in the exact same way yours are, yet we all know they were immoral. That tells me your ground is shaky...it is shifting sand. People make all kinds of conclusions about the teachings of Christ. Look around. Study church history. You know this to be the case. I'm sure you believe your conclusions are the correct ones. Maybe so. But one can justify nearly any teaching one wants from holy writ, which makes morals from God far more relative than you would like to imagine.

[Kelp(p)]

You are deliberately picking bad people here. What about new born babies? What about charity volunteer workers? Are they also responsible for Jesus' temporary death?

To a far lesser extent. We all sin and we're all born into the same world of suffering caused by each other's sins.

First, he had no reason distrust the serpent either.

What makes you say that?

Second, the serpent did not lie. The serpent said Adam and Eve would not die the day they ate the fruit, and this proved to be true.

They died to God. Also, we're all physically decaying from the moment we're born.

Third, we are talking about two people who were unable to tell right from wrong, which means they were not moral agents when they decided to eat the fruit.

Perhaps. Despite my willingness to correct you where I think you get the Adam and Eve story wrong, ultimately I see no need to take it literally. The point of the story is that humans have always been disobeying God through thinking we know better or falling for the glittery attractions of hubris.

While I agree there is a lot of misery that is man-made, there is also a lot that is not.

No, it's all man-made, directly or indirectly. Mostly directly.

And remember, this is about why Jesus had to get nailed to the cross.

The form His death took is incidental. The point is, human sin and cruelty killed Him.

Do you believe in heaven?

If you do, then you believe God can create a place where people can be happy, presumably without bacteria, tectonic plates, etc. Omnipotence certainly does mean he can do it twice.

No, I don't believe in the traditional fluffy cloud Heaven. Heaven is where the unveiled presence of God is. The reconciliation of all things to God will transfigure this earth into Heaven.

Are you saying that if we were without sin we would be able to perform miracles like Jesus supposedly did? And that would stop earthquakes? Can babies do this, before they sin?

There's a difference between sinning and being born into sin. Babies share the same fallen human condition as we all do.

As for miracles, I don't believe that they are for all people at all times. Before the redemption of all things, it is up to God's discretion when and where they occur.

But death has the same hold on us after the crucifixion as it did before.

Not really.

First of all, we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to comfort us and remind us of the hope of the resurrection by which we will ultimately escape death.

Second, the human condition is getting better all the time thanks to the advances of science and technology. I believe that this is also part of God's redemptive work, through guiding and blessing the minds of the scientists (I've also toyed conceptually with the idea of a "Christian Transhumanism," whereby biotech enhancements are the ways in which God finally conquers death.

Third, we have the fellowship of believers led by the same Spirit and the Eucharist by which Christ is in our midst.

[seer]

I use the term to indicate that your morality is well outside the norm, not to support that morality.

Murder is intrinsically wrong. Most people understand that.

Again with the intrinsic thing. Why is any moral behavior intrinsic in your world. How can it be? Do you even know what intrinsic means?

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Well no, I believe that all men do have inherent worth because they are created in God's image, with purpose. In your universe men are the accidental by product of the purposeless forces of nature. Just like a house fly. So how does that fact impute inherent worth?

[seer]

First you claim that my ethics are relative, even though you know they aren't. That's disingenuous and makes conversation with you frustrating and increasing pointless. Then you claim I am just making assertions. I stated my position and gave reasons for it. You don't agree, which is fine, but let's not pretend I havent explained my view.

Enjolras, that is just false. As a Christian I don't believe ethics, or most ethics are relative. Because eventually they are grounded in God. I'm asking you, the atheist, how ethics can be anything but relative. Yes you can assert that they are but you have offered no rational for that belief. So tell us again...

You keep asserting ethics are grounded in God. You have further asserted God is good and just. These are also assertions. I find no good reason to believe they are true, but I will at least grant you the courtesy to acknowledge that is your view.

That is the point. With God we have a possible non-relative, trascendent source for ethics, what is your source?

You are missing the point. Their ethics were grounded in the exact same way yours are, yet we all know they were immoral. That tells me your ground is shaky...it is shifting sand. People make all kinds of conclusions about the teachings of Christ. Look around. Study church history. You know this to be the case. I'm sure you believe your conclusions are the correct ones. Maybe so. But one can justify nearly any teaching one wants from holy writ, which makes morals from God far more relative than you would like to imagine.

And one can justify any immoral behavior without Holy Writ. And there you go again - "we all know!" Well obviously a lot of humans throughout history, did, or, do not, know. You are making an illogical argument - argumentum ad populum.

[seer]

The Christian God's moral character is immutable? Are we still supposed to stone people for breaking the Sabbath? The quality of a person's (or entity's) judgment doesn't change their subjective ideas into objective ideas unless they are discovering those objective ideas as universal properties.

Yes God moral character is immutable. Even if He did He used different penalties.

[Enjolras]

...Yes you can assert that they are but you have offered no rational for that belief. So tell us again...

I won't tell you again. You'll just want me to tell you again another time. That's not productive.

That is the point. With God we have a possible non-relative, trascendent source for ethics...

Sure, it's possible. Practically speaking, it hasn't worked out so well for your view.

And one can justify any immoral behavior without Holy Writ. And there you go again - "we all know!" Well obviously a lot of humans throughout history, did, or, do not, know. You are making an illogical argument - argumentum ad populum.

I'm pointing out that most theists today reject the Inquisition, slavery and the burning of hectics, even though they have the exact same objective source of morality as those who committed such acts. That tells me the source isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[The Pixie]

To a far lesser extent. We all sin and we're all born into the same world of suffering caused by each other's sins.

I guess at least there is a tacit admission that the suffering is not proportional to the sin.

The issue here is whether when Jesus "took a bullet" for us, it was a bullet he had himself shot. Okay, I get that a lot of suffering is human-caused. However, the system engineered such that Jesus had to be nailed to a cross was designed by God.

What makes you say that?

What makes you say Adam had no reason to distrust God? In both cases there is nothing in the story to suggest Adam having a reason to mistrust.

They died to God. Also, we're all physically decaying from the moment we're born.

What does that even mean? I am sorry, but that comes across as twisting the language to mean something very different to what is says. God does not say he will be dead to him, he just says dead. Dead means dead.

Even if you want to claim mystical nonsense, you need to show that the snake understood it to mean dead to God. If the snake understood it to mean physical death - which would seem most reasonable - then the snake was not lying, it was mistaken.

Perhaps. Despite my willingness to correct you where I think you get the Adam and Eve story wrong, ultimately I see no need to take it literally. The point of the story is that humans have always been disobeying God through thinking we know better or falling for the glittery attractions of hubris.

Which God sees as a sin, because of that ego of his. He gives us free will, then gets all narky when we use it!

No, it's all man-made, directly or indirectly. Mostly directly.

Malaria, smallpox, polio...

The form His death took is incidental. The point is, human sin and cruelty killed Him.

Well, seer was making a big deal about the form his death took, which is how we got into this discussion.

For me, the point is that God decided that his death would be required, given humans were exercising the free will he had given them.

No, I don't believe in the traditional fluffy cloud Heaven. Heaven is where the unveiled presence of God is. The reconciliation of all things to God will transfigure this earth into Heaven.

It does not matter how you envisage heaven as long as you think people (in whatever sense) will be there. God created a place (in the loosest sense) where everyone is happy. Thus it is within his power to create a place (in the loosest sense) where everyone is happy.

There's a difference between sinning and being born into sin. Babies share the same fallen human condition as we all do.

Right. It does not matter what we do, we are all born deserving hell.

Christianity's message to mankind is a message of shame. No wonder seer has problems understanding that people have worth if he is fed this all the time.

If babies are born into sin, it is because God chose to create a system that causes them to be born into sin. He could have chosen to engineer a system where Adam's sin does not carry over into new born babies.

Though as you do not think Genesis is literal, I wonder why then babies born into sin.

First of all, we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to comfort us and remind us of the hope of the resurrection by which we will ultimately escape death.

Second, the human condition is getting better all the time thanks to the advances of science and technology. I believe that this is also part of God's redemptive work, through guiding and blessing the minds of the scientists (I've also toyed conceptually with the idea of a "Christian Transhumanism," whereby biotech enhancements are the ways in which God finally conquers death.

Wow, you really do think little of mankind. I think the sad thing about people who claim the pyramids were built by aliens is that it so diminishes what ancient man has done.

You are doing the same thing here. Great men have worked long and hard to eradicate smallpox, to give people with cancer a good chance of surviving it. You seem to want to take that achievement away from mankind, and award it to God. You seem to think so little of your own species that you think all the bad stuff that every happens, even earthquakes and diseases, are mankind's fault, and all the good stuff, even scientific breakthroughs and technological achievements, are due to God. I appreciate I am arguing from emotion here, but I find that very sad.

[Adrift]

That is the point. With God we have a possible non-relative, trascendent source for ethics, what is your source?

Yes God moral character is immutable. Even if He did He used different penalties.

Hey seer, I just wanted to commend you for not getting caught up in side discussion that are not directly relevant to your OP. I notice that often times in these sorts of debates, skeptics seem more concerned with peripheral subject matter that sends a thread into a million different directions, its a kind of death by a thousand cuts way of debating, and its nice seeing you not get distracted by all of that. Of course, there are answers to all of these peripheral subject matters (ontological arguments demonstrate that a divine creator would need to be necessarily good, grace administered through Jesus' fulfillment of the law explains how God's moral character can be immutable and yet believers aren't expected to follow the letter of the law, etc.).

I'm struggling to figure out if those who are debating you honestly don't understand what you're getting at, or if they do understand, but just don't want to follow your line of reasoning because of where it may lead them.

All very interesting. Keep up the good fight.

[Enjolras]

I'm struggling to figure out if those who are debating you honestly don't understand what you're getting at, or if they do understand, but just don't want to follow your line of reasoning because of where it may lead them.

My thoughts exactly.

[seer]

I won't tell you again. You'll just want me to tell you again another time. That's not productive.

Then Enjolras tell me in which post you did this in. Which post you made a logical case for non-relative ethics. I can't find it.

Sure, it's possible. Practically speaking, it hasn't worked out so well for your view.

This is not about what "works well." It is about ontology - the nature of ethics.

I'm pointing out that most theists today reject the Inquisition, slavery and the burning of hectics, even though they have the exact same objective source of morality as those who committed such acts. That tells me the source isn't all it's cracked up to be.

That is why I asked you time and time again to show what teachings of Christ that those who ran the Inquisition followed. You offered nothing. Men are sinners Enjolras, even those who claim the name of Christ - and they do violate the law of God. Like I said, the moral unctions in the New Testament are not hard to understand - whether men follow them is a completely different story.

[seer]

Hey seer, I just wanted to commend you for not getting caught up in side discussion that are not directly relevant to your OP. I notice that often times in these sorts of debates, skeptics seem more concerned with peripheral subject matter that sends a thread into a million different directions, its a kind of death by a thousand cuts way of debating, and its nice seeing you not get distracted by all of that. Of course, there are answers to all of these peripheral subject matters (ontological arguments demonstrate that a divine creator would need to be necessarily good, grace administered through Jesus' fulfillment of the law explains how God's moral character can be immutable and yet believers aren't expected to follow the letter of the law, etc.).

I'm struggling to figure out if those who are debating you honestly don't understand what you're getting at, or if they do understand, but just don't want to follow your line of reasoning because of where it may lead them.

All very interesting. Keep up the good fight.

Thank you...

[Enjolras]

This is not about what "works well." It is about ontology - the nature of ethics.

An ontology, no matter how seemingly satisfying, is pretty worthless if it results in immoral behavior.

That is why I asked you time and time again to show what teachings of Christ that those who ran the Inquisition followed. You offered nothing.

They had the same ethical foundation you have. That is my point. How you and they interpret your texts is irrelevant to that fact. What's the correct interpretation of the Koran? Sunni or Shia? I don't know or care about that either. Muslims also have the same foundation you have. I'm sure you think they are wrong, but they share your ontology and they think you are wrong. Your ontology lacks the power you think it has.

[seer]

An ontology, no matter how seemingly satisfying, is pretty worthless if it results in immoral behavior.

What teachings of Christ do you find immoral and why? Based on what, a funny feeling in your tummy? A subjective moral standard that you invented.

They had the same ethical foundation you have. That is my point. How you and they interpret your texts is irrelevant to that fact. What's the correct interpretation of the Koran? Sunni or Shia? I don't know or care about that either. Muslims also have the same foundation you have. I'm sure you think they are wrong, but they share your ontology and they think you are wrong. Your ontology lacks the power you think it has.

That just doesn't follow. Believing that there universal moral truths, grounded in a perfectly good Creator does not necessarily lead to bad ends. And let us not forget the millions and millions that have been slaughtered under atheists.

[Enjolras]

What teachings of Christ do you find immoral and why? Based on what, a funny feeling in your tummy? A subjective moral standard that you invented.

This has already been discussed.

That just doesn't follow. Believing that there universal moral truths, grounded in a perfectly good Creator does not necessarily lead to bad ends. And let us not forget the millions and millions that have been slaughtered under atheists.

No, it doesn't necessarily need to lead to bad ends. It's just that it has in practice. And that's really all I need to prove my point: a moral ontology based on theism doesnt really solve anything. You still have to determine good and evil separately to even know if your God is good. And if that is the case, God is redundant to moral epistemology.

[seer]

No, it doesn't necessarily need to lead to bad ends. It's just that it has in practice. And that's really all I need to prove my point: a moral ontology based on theism doesnt really solve anything. You still have to determine good and evil separately to even know if your God is good. And if that is the case, God is redundant to moral epistemology.

You know Enjolras, most atheists I know are openly ethical relativists. So it is refreshing to run across moral realists like you and Pixie - as irrational as your view is. But it's sad that you don't realize that the universal moral truths, the love, grace, tenderness and goodness that you so ardently seek - that you intuitively know - are found in the teachings and person of Christ Jesus. The Son of God...