Ask a Wiccan!

[Durthorin]

Lets compare the two cultures.

This culture given over to evil interacting with the occult and observe the fruits of such practice. They not only killed their own children but the taught those children they did not sacrifice to do the same thing. They passed this down through generations. The created and perpetuated a culture of evil. The children they raised did not have a chance of learning any better their is a very important link in families a role to pass on ones values and way of life to the formation of the young. It is a natural relationship. This relationship became a way to transmit the darkness of this throughout its generations in the case of these cultures. They became very cancerous and they spread this cancer to any of those they came in contact with. It would hardly be an act of love to let this society go on and flourish. They were an evil sinful people and they bore the result of their sin. If they even cared for their children they would have turned away. As it turned out their children were received into God's presence were they could receive the mercy, true healthy and holy life they were not going receive from the demon inspired evil that surrounded them. Everyone dies even children.

The life God has for us is very different and can be viewed in the covenant community of the Israelites in the times in which they were faithful to God. You find objective moral laws of honoring ones father and mother this law also entails that a father and mother become worthy of such honor and not to violate the special bond. To pass on the faith to their children to live lives pleasing to God. When these natural laws were observed their was great prosperity and peace. Children were a joy to their parents and they were raised in an environment that passed on the true law of a life that is fulfilling and raises the dignity of people up.

There are worse things than death and there are better things than this life. There is a life made available through our Lord Jesus Christ that is the fulfillment of the hope that the law of God reveals. A life we fall short of now but through repentence we are made right and in living a life of penance grow stronger and able to live the true life more faithfully. There is true justice were all evil is vanquished forever never to be able to harm or tempt us to harm anyone ever again.

The repeated pattern in the bible of God's destruction of evil can be interpreted by a view know as topology. In which their is a type which is a symbol that points to an antitype which is the reality that the type represents. All the stories such as the flood, the crossing of the red sea, the crossing of the jordan, God giving the land of Israel to his people are all types of among other things but including a day when all evil will end and God's people enter into the presence of God where nothing impure can enter. That is a day of great hope because none of us wants to gone on like we are forever in sin and neither does God so he has made all of fallen creation a way out like the type of the arc which is a symbol of the antitype baptism in which we are joined to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All are invited all are called to repent and be baptized into a new life.

This is objective morality we are truly and objectively called to do good and avoid evil.

Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

I personally find such a blatant disregard for the objective rights morality genuinely gives to others repulsive. Murder is wrong for everyone because we are all created equal and endowed with the right to life by a loving creator.

These are your words. IF your objective morality is correct, then murder is wrong for EVERYONE. From the least to the greatest. If murder is wrong then your God having committed murder is Wrong. An by your own logic is not a loving God but intrinsically Evil.

The entire tissue paper of everything you have said is based on the concept. "My God can do anything he wants and it is automatically good" because he does it. It is by its nature the classic logically fallacy of an appeal to authority. God says it is right, therefore it is. God says it is moral, therefore it is. It totally abrogates your responsibility. If God ordered you to go into the natal care unit of your local hospital and kill every one of those newborns because they would be a " cancer to any of those they came in contact with." them

Would you?

Is your morality based then on only one absolute. Obedience? In this you are no better than the Waffen SS guards who shoved the Jews into gas chambers and defended themselves at Nuremberg with the defense that they were "just following orders".

If this is your objective morality you have my pity.

You also talk about morality not coming from external sources as well.. but in your own justification of why genocide was acceptable you give a text book case of morality being taught by parents and a society.

The children they raised did not have a chance of learning any better their is a very important link in families a role to pass on ones values and way of life to the formation of the young. It is a natural relationship. This relationship became a way to transmit the darkness of this throughout its generations in the case of these cultures.

If your objective sense of right an wrong of moral conduct existed, where was it? If each one of these children born was born with that objective external God given sense of right an wrong then did they not have the choice no matter what their upbringing to choose good? We're animals really a threat to the morality of the Jewish culture of the time? Can you truly believe this?

Real moral obligation is a fact.

You keep saying this over and over, but you still have offered 0 proof of it. if anything you've offered proof that real moral obligation does not exist in your beliefs only the will of your Deity who from time to time thinks genocide is a "good" idea.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[technomage]

Pretty much all we have about the Canaanites is anti-Canaanite war propaganda from the Israelites.

Actually, this is incorrect--on several counts.

* We have a considerable amount of archaeological information regarding the Canaanites, and more than a few surviving texts.
* The Conquest accounts are not "war propaganda"--they were written almost a millenia after the supposed Conquest.
* The Conquest, as depicted in the Bible, did not occur.
* The Hebrews are Canaanites.

[one_lost_coin]

Please compare the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
http://heathenworld.com/swastika/Images/antinazi3.jpg
http://cgi.ebay.com/WW2-PROPAGANDA-A...17112003r26469

What I mean by this is that demonization of enemies is a common tactic in war. The Israelites obviously won their wars that are mentioned in the Bible. Looking at a contemporary situation, how different is the "rebellion" in the Democratic Republic of Congo from the American Revolution? My answer: probably not very. I've been taught a very skewed view of the American Revolution, such that I am to believe it to be a very good thing, while it is historical fact that not everyone supported it, the American forces were considered to be barbarous by the British forces due to the assassination of officers (American sharpshooters would specifically target British officers when it was a war convention of the time to spare the officers), and the entire conflict left regions greatly destabilized. The conflict in the DRC is basically about the "rebel" forces telling the government "Hey, we want to talk to you about getting Rowanda out of our country" and the government not being willing to meet with them, instead asking for outside military aid. Is the "rebel" army destructive to civilians? Yes. So are the government forces, however, who opted to taunt the "rebels" into attacking civilians in an attempt to make it easier to demonize them through the taking of a "rebel" controlled city, then absolute abandonment within 6 hours. If the government forces of the DRC were serious about protecting the civilians, they would not have abandoned the city as soon as they had cleared it of "rebel" troops, only to have it be defenseless when they came back.

What's my point? Of course your view of Canaanites will be biased against them. Pretty much all we have about the Canaanites is anti-Canaanite war propaganda from the Israelites.

And yet your moral system has no objective standard which can even judge their behavior as wrong or evil. Its only your personal morality that is offended by them. There moral system says it is ok.

Durthorin has already stated earlier that as long as anyone has the power to get away with it makes their moral system ok. He has admitted to not having any basis to condemn such evil as his moral system has no binding affect on any one other than him. You are in the same position if you hold to subjective morality as being true.

Yet you instinctively know that such things are wrong your conscience testifies that such things our evil. You know that they have violated an objective truth. That we are not to murder and yet these people did.

There are two views of morality being presented here. Which one best fits reality?

Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

You can choose the position of durthorin which is the atheistic one. Durthorin has defended Stalin, Hitler, Demonically inspired cultures that sacrifice their children to demons and can find no way to condemn any of these people as doing wrong. They merely were living out their moral code.

Or you can listen to your conscience which testifies to such actions as being evil and wrong for all people to do because all people are truly obligated to not murder and to avoid evil. This law is the true law by which all mankind is bound to live a law testified to by ones conscience.

By your words it is obvious such evil offends you. It should it was wrong for them to do and is why people instinctually condemn it and respond to end it. If you choose to reject this inherent belief for subjectivism than you must also accept what comes with it and that is the very and actually ultimate brutality that it eventually and always brings as a very valid way of life. You must accept that a culture that holds murder and rape as virtues is no better than one that doesn't

Experience teaches us that we are free to create alternative mores, like socially acceptable rules for speech, or clothing, or eating, or driving. But it also teaches us that we are not, in fact, free to create alternative morals. Like making murder, or rape, or treason right. Or making charity or justice wrong. We can no more create a new fundamental moral value than we can create a new primary color, or a new arithmetic, or a new universe. Never happened, never will. And if we could, if we could create new values, they would no longer be moral values. They would be just arbitrarily invented rules of the game. We would not feel bound in conscience by them, or guilty when we transgressed them. If we were free to create "Thou shalt murder" or "Thou shalt not murder" as we are free to create "Thou shalt play nine innings" or "Thou shalt play only six innings," then we would feel no more guilty about murder than about playing six innings.

As a matter of fact, we all do feel bound by some fundamental moral values, like justice, the Golden Rule. We experience our freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey them, but we also experience our lack of freedom to change them into their opposites. We cannot creatively make hate good, or love evil. Try it, you just can't do it. All you can do is refuse the whole moral order. You cannot make another one. You can choose to rape, but you cannot experience a moral obligation to rape.

Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. —Benito Mussolini

durthorin could not have said it any better himself as he has personally presented as truth in this very thread every single point. This are his comrades these people bear the fruit of this belief system. Every society in all of human history that has built itself on such beliefs has always been oppressive, murderous, and has always failed it always will. You can not build paradise on a lie.

[Durthorin]

And yet your moral system has no objective standard which can even judge their behavior as wrong or evil. Its only your personal morality that is offended by them. There moral system says it is ok.

Durthorin has already stated earlier that as long as anyone has the power to get away with it makes their moral system ok. He has admitted to not having any basis to condemn such evil as his moral system has no binding affect on any one other than him. You are in the same position if you hold to subjective morality as being true.

Yet you instinctively know that such things are wrong your conscience testifies that such things our evil. You know that they have violated an objective truth. That we are not to murder and yet these people did.

There are two views of morality being presented here. Which one best fits reality?

Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

You can choose the position of durthorin which is the atheistic one. Durthorin has defended Stalin, Hitler, Demonically inspired cultures that sacrifice their children to demons and can find no way to condemn any of these people as doing wrong. They merely were living out their moral code.

Or you can listen to your conscience which testifies to such actions as being evil and wrong for all people to do because all people are truly obligated to not murder and to avoid evil. This law is the true law by which all mankind is bound to live a law testified to by ones conscience.

By your words it is obvious such evil offends you. It should it was wrong for them to do and is why people instinctually condemn it and respond to end it. If you choose to reject this inherent belief for subjectivism than you must also accept what comes with it and that is the very and actually ultimate brutality that it eventually and always brings as a very valid way of life. You must accept that a culture that holds murder and rape as virtues is no better than one that doesn't

Experience teaches us that we are free to create alternative mores, like socially acceptable rules for speech, or clothing, or eating, or driving. But it also teaches us that we are not, in fact, free to create alternative morals. Like making murder, or rape, or treason right. Or making charity or justice wrong. We can no more create a new fundamental moral value than we can create a new primary color, or a new arithmetic, or a new universe. Never happened, never will. And if we could, if we could create new values, they would no longer be moral values. They would be just arbitrarily invented rules of the game. We would not feel bound in conscience by them, or guilty when we transgressed them. If we were free to create "Thou shalt murder" or "Thou shalt not murder" as we are free to create "Thou shalt play nine innings" or "Thou shalt play only six innings," then we would feel no more guilty about murder than about playing six innings.

As a matter of fact, we all do feel bound by some fundamental moral values, like justice, the Golden Rule. We experience our freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey them, but we also experience our lack of freedom to change them into their opposites. We cannot creatively make hate good, or love evil. Try it, you just can't do it. All you can do is refuse the whole moral order. You cannot make another one. You can choose to rape, but you cannot experience a moral obligation to rape.

Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. —Benito Mussolini

durthorin could not have said it any better himself as he has personally presented as truth in this very thread every single point. This are his comrades these people bear the fruit of this belief system. Every society in all of human history that has built itself on such beliefs has always been oppressive, murderous, and has always failed it always will. You can not build paradise on a lie.

If God ordered you to go into the natal care unit of your local hospital and kill every one of those newborns because they would be a " cancer to any of those they came in contact with." them

Would you?

Its a simple question. Yes or No?

[technomage]

Its a simple question. Yes or No?

Do not push this one too far, Durthorin. That's a question that would cause a grave amopunt of stress to many adults. This one is still young--perhaps too young for this depth of thought.

[one_lost_coin]

These are your words. IF your objective morality is correct, then murder is wrong for EVERYONE. From the least to the greatest. If murder is wrong then your God having committed murder is Wrong. An by your own logic is not a loving God but intrinsically Evil.

My reasoning lead to the exact opposite conclusion there is no doubt that God is love. It was God who gave His life on the cross. The God that you judge as evil while you can not judge Hitler evil at all. Even though this God who came to earth with the power to do anything He wanted and from your erroneous portrayal would only murder children and kill people offered forgiveness instead. He demonstrated His love so much that instead of destroying mankind instead while He was being murdered forgave. He loved so much that he offered himself for mankind instead of destroying it.

The entire tissue paper of everything you have said is based on the concept. "My God can do anything he wants and it is automatically good" because he does it. It is by its nature the classic logically fallacy of an appeal to authority. God says it is right, therefore it is. God says it is moral, therefore it is. It totally abrogates your responsibility. If God ordered you to go into the natal care unit of your local hospital and kill every one of those newborns because they would be a " cancer to any of those they came in contact with." them

Would you?

Actually you have spoken falsely that is not the basis of my concept.

There are four possible relations between religion and morality, God and goodness.

Religion and morality may be thought to be independent. Kierkegaard's sharp contrast between "the ethical" and "the religious," especially in Fear and Trembling, may lead to such a supposition. But (a) an amoral God, indifferent to morality, would not be a wholly good God, for one of the primary meanings of "good" involves the "moral"—just, loving, wise, righteous, holy, kind. And (b) such a morality, not having any connection with God, the Absolute Being, would not have absolute reality behind it.
God may be thought of as the inventor of morality, as he is the inventor of birds. The moral law is often thought of as simply a product of God's choice. This is the Divine Command Theory: a thing is good only because God commands it and evil because he forbids it. If that is all, however, we have a serious problem: God and his morality are arbitrary and based on mere power. If God commanded us to kill innocent people, that would become good, since good here means "whatever God commands." The Divine Command Theory reduces morality to power. Socrates refuted the Divine Command Theory pretty conclusively in Plato's Euthyphro. He asked Euthyphro, "Is a thing pious because the gods will it, or do the gods will it because it is pious?" He refuted the first alternative, and thought he was left with the second as the only alternative.
But the idea that God commands a thing because it is good is also unacceptable, because it makes God conform to a law higher than himself, a law that overarches God and humanity alike. The God of the Bible is no more separated from moral goodness by being under it than he is by being over it. He no more obeys a higher law that binds him, than he creates the law as an artifact that could change and could well have been different, like a planet.
The only rationally acceptable answer to the question of the relation between God and morality is the biblical one: morality is based on God's eternal nature. That is why morality is essentially unchangeable. "I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). Our obligation to be just, kind, honest, loving and righteous "goes all the way up" to ultimate reality, to the eternal nature of God, to what God is. That is why morality has absolute and unchangeable binding force on our conscience.

Is your morality based then on only one absolute. Obedience? In this you are no better than the Waffen SS guards who shoved the Jews into gas chambers and defended themselves at Nuremberg with the defense that they were "just following orders".

This answer has already been given numerous times objective morality calls for the protection of the Jews it is because of the moral obligation to defeat the evil because it was properly judged immoral because their actually does exist a universal objective morality that guides us and makes it possible to determine Hitler needed to be stopped.

No human being can have absolute authority over another. We are morally obligated to refuse that order.

If this is your objective morality you have my pity.

Its not my objective morality.

You also talk about morality not coming from external sources as well.. but in your own justification of why genocide was acceptable you give a text book case of morality being taught by parents and a society.

Of course I did that in no way denies that objective morality exists but confirms it. Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

I will have to finish later.

[one_lost_coin]

If God ordered you to go into the natal care unit of your local hospital and kill every one of those newborns because they would be a " cancer to any of those they came in contact with." them

Would you?

Its a simple question. Yes or No?

Unlike the questions I ask and have never got a response to and which I am still waiting for an answer to. I can repost them if you need.


You will get a response and it will begin with a yes or a no.

[technomage]

....that is not the basis of my concept.

But it is the logical outcome of your concept. When you get a chance, please read up on the Divine command theory of metaethics. DCT is the logical outcome of Christian ethical teaching.

[one_lost_coin]

If God ordered you to go into the natal care unit of your local hospital and kill every one of those newborns because they would be a " cancer to any of those they came in contact with." them

Would you?

Its a simple question. Yes or No?

No

To the way you understand the issue. You wish to be God's judge and yet you cannot even cause yourself to come into being. You cannot even judge the evils of Stalin of Hitler. How can you judge God? You have made nothing. God has made everything so we could have the joy of knowing Him. God loves everyone he has ever made with a love neither one of us can understand and wishes that all may be saved.

But Yes

To the way an all loving understands. Your question has actually already been asked of an individual. Abraham who knew of this all loving God who desires the redemption of man.

Hebrews 11:17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.


This question is a very real one for today because today more than a ward will be murdered by way of abortion. This is mans doing. God has given us a conscience whose guidance many have rejected. God has given us a law many reject. God gave us His son who many reject and God gave us a Church that has always taught that we are to defend the defenseless. God commands the opposite of what you asked me He asks that we do not kill babies or support those who do. Do you obey His command?

We have recently elected a president who has voted against a bill that would stop the killing of babies who survive abortion from receiving any care. There are actually living people right now who survived abortion.

God has spoken very plainly on this and yet it is happening right now just like in the days of the Israelites. Do you expect those who continue in such evil and do not repent of it will fare any better when their judgement comes?

You ask for an answer to a theoretical question to a command that doesn't exist. What do you answer to the real choice that God commands and a situation that really does exist?

How will you do when your judgement comes?

So again I say yes like Abraham through faith and with God's grace it is my desire to fulfill fill His commands. Just like His Son Jesus Christ. I also wish to serve HIm fully and faithfully because I know of His Mercy and Love given to me a sinner while I was still His enemy. Yet He forgave me. I know like Abraham that he will raise all up from the dead. There is something far worse than physical death the death that only destroys the body. There is spiritual death the seperation of Body and Soul from God which is hell. For God has the power to make good out of something evil. Just look at Jesus on the cross suffering the evil of murder rose from the dead and made it for our salvation

[one_lost_coin]

But it is the logical outcome of your concept. When you get a chance, please read up on the Divine command theory of metaethics. DCT is the logical outcome of Christian ethical teaching.

Actually it isn't i have 3 times written the logic outcome out.

I don't accept the divine command theory. Its not the Christian concept of God it a poor theory. read post 306 such nonsense has already been addressed.

You know I will make it easy for you. Here.

The moral law is often thought of as simply a product of God's choice. This is the Divine Command Theory: a thing is good only because God commands it and evil because he forbids it. If that is all, however, we have a serious problem: God and his morality are arbitrary and based on mere power. If God commanded us to kill innocent people, that would become good, since good here means "whatever God commands." The Divine Command Theory reduces morality to power. Socrates refuted the Divine Command Theory pretty conclusively in Plato's Euthyphro. He asked Euthyphro, "Is a thing pious because the gods will it, or do the gods will it because it is pious?" He refuted the first alternative, and thought he was left with the second as the only alternative.
But the idea that God commands a thing because it is good is also unacceptable, because it makes God conform to a law higher than himself, a law that overarches God and humanity alike. The God of the Bible is no more separated from moral goodness by being under it than he is by being over it. He no more obeys a higher law that binds him, than he creates the law as an artifact that could change and could well have been different, like a planet.

I believe the following and I offer it so you won't have to guess any more wrong theories.

The only rationally acceptable answer to the question of the relation between God and morality is the biblical one: morality is based on God's eternal nature. That is why morality is essentially unchangeable. "I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). Our obligation to be just, kind, honest, loving and righteous "goes all the way up" to ultimate reality, to the eternal nature of God, to what God is. That is why morality has absolute and unchangeable binding force on our conscience.

[technomage]

Actually it isn't i have 3 times written the logic outcome out.

There's a problem, OLC--what you wrote out does not match reality. It does match the DCT, which you reject.

It's called "Cognitive dissonance." You make a claim, one of us shows you the logical results of your claim, and you say "But that's not what I said." The problem is, that is what you said. You said God could do nothing immoral--yet you follow a book that depicts God doing things that He himself said is immoral.

Do not waste my time, or yours, trying to tell me that your beliefs are logical. I have already seen that they are not. Don't get me wrong--I do not wish you to abandon them if that is where you are comfortable. But I have seen the end result. It's not for me.

[one_lost_coin]

It's good you are so concerned with logic you should appreciate this.

From the Summa Theological.

Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
Objection 1: It would seem that the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil. For it is said (Is. 45:5,7): "I am the Lord, and there is no other God, forming the light, and creating darkness, making peace, and creating evil." And Amos 3:6, "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?"
Objection 2: Further, the effect of the secondary cause is reduced to the first cause. But good is the cause of evil, as was said above (A[1]). Therefore, since God is the cause of every good, as was shown above (Q[2] , A[3]; Q[6], AA[1],4), it follows that also every evil is from God.
Objection 3: Further, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. ii, text 30), the cause of both safety and danger of the ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.
On the contrary, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 21), that, "God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of tending to not-being."
I answer that, As appears from what was said (A[1]), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (Q[4], A[1]). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.
But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (A[1]) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (Q[22], A[2], ad 2; Q[48], A[2]), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wis. 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.
Reply to Objection 1: These passages refer to the evil of penalty, and not to the evil of fault.
Reply to Objection 2: The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.
Reply to Objection 3: The sinking of a ship is attributed to the sailor as the cause, from the fact that he does not fulfil what the safety of the ship requires; but God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all. Hence there is no parity.

Faulty logic hmmm.

[one_lost_coin]

Since you are so logical. Maybe you can explain how this is not a contradiction.

It has been told to me that there is one law "If it harm none, do as you will."

Are we human beings really obligated to obey this law; does this duty to obey this law arise from the way things really are, and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions?

Is this law true for everyone?

If it is true for everyone if we are all really and objectively obligated to perform this code than your basis of morality as being subjective is false.

If it is not true for everyone than it really doesn't matter if you do it or not. If morality is truly subjective as you say than one is no better if they follow the code or not. It really isn't much of a code at all.

[one_lost_coin]

But I have seen the end result. It's not for me.

Tomorrow we will explore the end result. I will compare the lives of the Saints who truly lived virtuous lives according to true moral obligation with those who truly lived out a life based on moral subjectivity.

A tree is known by its fruits.

[one_lost_coin]

As has been pointed out God cannot and does not murder. He does judge.

You in your judgement apparently want children to grow up in a society that murders their own children and teaches those children that survive to continue to murdering of children. You also are very upset when God judges this society as evil. Isn't that a little twisted?

You may not have noticed but children die everyday from the results of original sin. That is a sin we all share in. So the fact that children die from the sins of their parents is nothing new.

Physical death is hardly the worst thing that can happen to a person. Everyone dies both the righteous and the unrighteous but in our death God judges the hearts and actions of us all. Anything pure and innocent has nothing to fear in a just God only what is evil has something to fear. Innocent children that have died are received into the hope of heaven the actual murdering parents, hell. God gives life and he can take it away. Everyone is going to die. Death is a door. There are two paths, one of life and one of death. that is eternal life and eternal death.

Isn't that what you truly fear a just Judge? A judge that knows right from wrong. Who demands Holiness because He is Holy.