What's the moral difference?

[cheachea]

This is another person you might find interesting : Chris White.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by cheachea

I know this is off topic a little bit, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad you are here God-free.

I also wanted to recommend some individuals you might find helpful/interesting.


* Dr. William Lane Craig: You might enjoy some of his debates.





* And Dr. Ravi Zacharias

I watched the Craig/Hitchens video. I don't have time right now to indulge in Ravi Zacharias. Is there something about them that you wish to discuss?

[God-free]

Originally Posted by cheachea

This is another person you might find interesting : Chris White.

Does this video demonstrate Jesus as the son of God? Or, does it simply demonstrate that a man known as Jesus existed? I ask this because I don't necessarily deny that Jesus existed. I just don't believe he was a god or the son of a god.

Please post a separate thread if you wish to discuss this.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

always happy to be of service....

Just wanted you to know that I have posted a thread here about the Adam and Eve story.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

from a purely Christian perspective ,I can see many differences.

The robber,in this case, wants something from you that doesn't belong to him. So morally he has no right to take it ,but by force.

In the other scenario, God has a claim on what was his to begin with and never belonged to the person he approaches.

in other words , you can't blame someone for exercising his right to the free use of private property.

and that's one of several moral differences.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

In the other scenario, God has a claim on what was his to begin with and never belonged to the person he approaches.

in other words , you can't blame someone for exercising his right to the free use of private property.

and that's one of several moral differences.

Proof of ownership required.

Seriously, it sounds like you're an advocate of slavery.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

Proof of ownership required.

Seriously, it sounds like you're an advocate of slavery.

irrelevant to your challenge....... pure deflection.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

irrelevant to your challenge....... pure deflection.

Call it whatever you like. You’ve answered the challenge and now I’m exploring the details.

Your answer suggests a slave owner/slave relationship of which you seem to approve. Personally, I think slavery is highly immoral. And since we’re dealing, hypothetically, with living, breathing, thinking, feeling persons, then the excuse you give for God makes no moral difference between the two scenarios and, in my opinion, makes the second scenario even more repugnant than the first.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

Call it whatever you like. You’ve answered the challenge and now I’m exploring the details.

Your answer suggests a slave owner/slave relationship of which you seem to approve. Personally, I think slavery is highly immoral. And since we’re dealing, hypothetically, with living, breathing, thinking, feeling persons, then the excuse you give for God makes no moral difference between the two scenarios and, in my opinion, makes the second scenario even more repugnant than the first.

you seem to enjoy your own biased opinions and I don't really care how you feel about slavery.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

you seem to enjoy your own biased opinions

Yes, I’m biased. I prefer moral behavior over immoral behavior every time.

and I don't really care how you feel about slavery.

Obviously.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

Yes, I’m biased. I prefer moral behavior over immoral behavior every time.


Obviously.

Moral behavior can't be arbitrary .. You seem to think it is.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

Moral behavior can't be arbitrary .. You seem to think it is.

Actually, I don't. However, since you brought it up, isn't God's morality the very definition of arbitrary?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by God-free

Actually, I don't. However, since you brought it up, isn't God's morality the very definition of arbitrary?

I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....

However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....

However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.

I agree. In the book of Habakkuk, the prophet opens by asking God in light of all the evil and violence, why He doesn't act against it? God's answer in Chap 1 vs. 5 is"“Look around at the nations; look and be amazed! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it." As believers we are sometimes perplexed by God's actions as well as His inaction in certain situations. Honestly, His ways are mysterious and misunderstood but they are always right. Sounds like an excuse but even believers must admit we don't understand much of what God does and allows. In Habakkuk Chap 2 we are told that "the just shall live by faith". Its good advise.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....

And I would heartily disagree.

However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.

If God’s way of thinking is so much different than our own that we can‘t understand his reasoning, then on what basis do you simply trust him? How can anyone know that God is actually trustworthy?

As for poor old ***, this is only one of the many great examples of God’s immorality to be found in the “good” book.

[alanmolstad]

all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determination

[God-free]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determination

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

all things that are verifiable are not necessarily spiritual.
you're taking a very sop****ric approach to all this.

Religion or God belief has been incrementally adding to man's human experience.

Things that are trustworthy are scientific . Religion is based on faith on something greater than one's self.

You may have a serious ego problem.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

all things that are verifiable are not necessarily spiritual.
you're taking a very sop****ric approach to all this.

All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.

Religion or God belief has been incrementally adding to man's human experience.

Yes, it has, with both good and bad results. If a cost-benefit ****ysis were to be done, I wonder how religion/God belief would fare. Somehow, I doubt it would fare well.

Things that are trustworthy are scientific . Religion is based on faith on something greater than one's self.

Yes, I understand that. I’m trying to figure out why anyone would believe and place their trust in something/someone, without examining the claims being made about it so they can determine its veracity and trustworthiness. I understand why heavily indoctrinated people won’t question their beliefs, especially those who never knew they could. It’s the intelligent adults who don’t/won’t question their beliefs that have me baffled.

You may have a serious ego problem.

Nice.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.


Yes, it has, with both good and bad results. If a cost-benefit ****ysis were to be done, I wonder how religion/God belief would fare. Somehow, I doubt it would fare well.


Yes, I understand that. I’m trying to figure out why anyone would believe and place their trust in something/someone, without examining the claims being made about it so they can determine its veracity and trustworthiness. I understand why heavily indoctrinated people won’t question their beliefs, especially those who never knew they could. It’s the intelligent adults who don’t/won’t question their beliefs that have me baffled.

Nice.

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion.

But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".

.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion.

But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".

.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.

It is not what man does that steers the course of the earth. God is the Lord of history. God was sovereign in creation, God is sovereign in the historical process. And God’s just as sovereign in how it all ends as He was in how it all began. God is going to end history because He began it and He’s responsible for everything that happens. So there is a divine control over history. And may I say at the same time, there’s a divine plan in history. Things don’t happen by accident. They’re a part of God’s plan. Because, you see, it’s God who sees the end from the beginning, because it’s God who knows the times and the season. God knows exactly what He’s doing, the clock of God is never off one split second. Every single thing happening in this world today is happening right on schedule because God has a divine timetable and the result will be His Kingdom.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion.

I completely agree.

But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".

Please define "spiritual value" and then tell me the difference between that and "human value."

.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.

Well, now you’re just scaremongering. This doesn’t surprise me, though, because that’s one of the ways religion spreads itself around. It instills fear in people and then preys upon those fears.

I would happily accept the consequences of the world becoming a god-free zone. Are you not aware that among the world’s top ten peaceful nations are a high percentage of the world’s least religious countries?

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

There is no one who can answer your two questions as posted because they are based on the creation of a false equivalence, which is an error of logic. In other words, your two questions are comparing apples to lug nuts. Here is why.

By definition of the term, an armed robber who is also a human being (please excuse the tautology, but it is necessary here) has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.

By definition of the term, God is a non human, Who occupies a different time realm and space than does a human. Further, you compound the error by not attributing any sort of definition about his/her character, nor do you ***ign any abilities to your amorphous God. Because you are expecting the reader to "fill in the blanks" about your "God" you created, your God is nothing more than a concocted word and that creates another logical error called the "straw man argument".

Until and unless you address and define the God in your argument, there is no way that any rational being can address what you are stating. Yours is a vacuous and sop****ric construction which you created, having no basis in reality in a futile effort to bolster an over inflated ego.

As a result, your OP is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...

.
And her is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
.

Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

I completely agree.

Please define "spiritual value" and then tell me the difference between that and "human value."

Well, now you’re just scaremongering. This doesn’t surprise me, though, because that’s one of the ways religion spreads itself around. It instills fear in people and then preys upon those fears.

I would happily accept the consequences of the world becoming a god-free zone. Are you not aware that among the world’s top ten peaceful nations are a high percentage of the world’s least religious countries?

Human values are spiritual values.
The atheists in all countries seem to think that morality dropped out of the skies.
This is just as true with individuals. You say you are a moral person ,right?
But were you born a moral person ... All morality is an inherited sum. And if you trace it back it stems from religion and a belief in something greater than oneself.

I'm not scare mongering . I'm telling you exactly what would happen if the Christian Faith were to slowly roll back and all you had were free thinking atheists. The basic human morality would slowly evaporate because there would be no solid basis on which to pin it.

In time, man would revert to a basic bestial vegetation until merciful death would end his existence.

The best proof is to view what happends in areas or in parts of american culture where Christian Faith is forced to retreat.
Shooting in public schools is just one of many areas I can point to with certainty.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

There is no one who can answer your two questions as posted because they are based on the creation of a false equivalence, which is an error of logic. In other words, your two questions are comparing apples to lug nuts. Here is why.

By definition of the term, an armed robber who is also a human being (please excuse the tautology, but it is necessary here) has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.

By definition of the term, God is a non human, Who occupies a different time realm and space than does a human. Further, you compound the error by not attributing any sort of definition about his/her character, nor do you ***ign any abilities to your amorphous God. Because you are expecting the reader to "fill in the blanks" about your "God" you created, your God is nothing more than a concocted word and that creates another logical error called the "straw man argument".

Until and unless you address and define the God in your argument, there is no way that any rational being can address what you are stating.

It surprises me to find, on a Christian site, that God needs to be defined by me so that you can know who/what I’m talking about. It should be obvious that I’m talking about the anthropomorphic God of the Bible who, I strongly suspect, was created according to the manners and customs of the authors,and was given extraordinary powers intended to astonish and amaze.

You said, “…an armed robber who is also a human being…has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.”
That’s an incorrect representation of the OP.

The robber and God each have the same purpose (i.e. to reach a desired goal). That goal is to get something from someone that the person may or may not be willing to give. Both, the robber’s and God‘s, threats to do harm are the coercive tool they’re using to compel the person to comply.

There is no relevant moral difference between the two scenarios. If you think otherwise, please explain what you think the difference is.

...Yours is a vacuous and sop****ric construction which you created, having no basis in reality in a futile effort to bolster an over inflated ego.

Of course it’s not based in reality! It’s based on the God character depicted in the Bible. If you want to talk about over inflated egos, I’ll be happy to do that in another thread. Perhaps we could start by discussing the notion many theists seem to have that the entire universe was created just for them. Now, THAT’S something someone with an over inflated ego would believe.

As a result, your OP is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:

<snip>

.
And her is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.

<snip>

Please provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to take these verses seriously.

Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist.

That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. In reality, atheists are as capable of humility as anyone else. They simply won’t humble themselves to anyone’s notion of a deity without reasonable justification.