|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #1 
THE MORAL PROBLEM(S) WITH FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY
By Sean Strnad

INTRODUCTION

            

                  According to a variety of polling done in the United States within the past few years, 31% of Americans believe that the Bible (including Hebrew Old Testament) is the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally; 47% believe that the Bible was inspired by the word of God. An astonishing 81% of adult Americans believe that Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth and died for the sins of humanity, while 69% believe in the concept of Hell. Interestingly, 77% of Americans see themselves reaching the Pearly Gates when they die. My sole purpose for referencing these statistics is to establish the importance of addressing the moral problems encountered within fundamentalist Christianity. This brand of Christianity adheres to biblical inerrancy, the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error. It also embraces biblical literalism, the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible. As consequence of these beliefs there are moral problems which I find detrimental to the Christian faith, especially as it seeks to expand its influence in the world moving forward.

My primary objections to the Christian faith lie in the archaic values of Yahweh, the divine monarch of the Old Testament who is worshipped today as "the Father" in the triune Godhead, and the notion of Hell, which is commonly agreed upon as a place of everlasting suffering. For fundamentalist Christians, Hell is a place that will contain all non-believers and considering the biblical language used to describe Hell, it isn't the sort of destination most people would prefer to experience. It is my intent to honestly evaluate the morality of Yahweh along with the general concept of hell, and to express concerns which relate to both believers and non-believers alike. In this I am not asking Christians to abandon their beliefs. There are many liberal Christians who can pre-empt some of my concerns by simply parting with specific doctrines that may exaggerate Christianity's moral dilemmas. I'm also not interested in arguing for any particular worldview except for that which views senseless human suffering as emphatically wrong. If Christians and I can agree that objective morality exists then the issues I raise must be considered. At the very least, my aim is to cause people of faith to re-examine their positions on the concerns I will share. Even if we disagree about the nature of reality, I think it’s important to unify behind the sanctity of life. This is especially true in the twenty-first century where questioning religion can still get one killed and where individuals have the potential to possess weaponry that threatens all of humanity's very existence. The need for civility and respect cannot be conveyed enough, and I will attempt to handle this subject with as much delicacy as possible while still expressing my honest considerations. Please note that while certain religious ideas may come under my attack, in no way do I condone the mistreatment of anyone for merely agreeing with these ideas. Of course, if the ideas pose a threat to others then I will point them out as such, but I do not intend to degrade any religion or the individuals who adhere to it. Again, this is my earnest and honest attempt at expressing the reservations I have about specific Christian beliefs. All that being said, I have one final moral objection to Christianity, apart from Yahweh's brand of morality and the concept of hell, which is at the core of the faith for all Christians, liberal or otherwise; that is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and how his death has been interpreted as the ultimate human sacrifice for the sins of mankind. There are endless problems with the notion that sacrificing flesh and blood will atone for the evil deeds of others, but I shall address this later. Thus, we shall begin with the questionable morality of the Hebrew God, Yahweh. 

PART I: THE QUESTIONABLE MORALITY OF YAHWEH - http://pickup1988.livejournal.com/514.html

PART II: THE QUESTIONABLE MORALITY OF HELL, AMONG OTHER THINGS - http://pickup1988.livejournal.com/768.html (1 OF 2),

PART III: THE QUESTIONABLE MORALITY OF ATONEMENT - http://pickup1988.livejournal.com/1365.html


If anyone can offer me a sufficient response to these moral dilemmas within the Christian faith, I will sincerely re-examine my current attitudes towards the Bible's version of God.
seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #2 

I'm surprised to find not a single Christian willing to take up this challenge. Then again, I probably wouldn't feel too inclined to defend genocide either.

Composer
Reply with quote  #3 
I've been searching virtually all my life for a genuine christian, no luck there either!


seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #4 

I guess even Christians must know that their faith is morally indefensible in light of modern ethics (as opposed to, you know, killing a goat to cleanse yourself from evil).

troyjs
Reply with quote  #5 

It is difficult to take your initial post seriously, as you make certain errors in your understanding of Christianity. Yahweh does not refer to the Father, but to the Trinity. Nevertheless, on the topic of your post, your claim to neutrality, or 'not espousing a worldview', is erroneous..

Quote:
I guess even Christians must know that their faith is morally indefensible in light of modern ethics (as opposed to, you know, killing a goat to cleanse yourself from evil).


When critiquing a system of thought, of which Christianity is, it is necessary to provide an internal critique, whereby one demonstrates the inconsistency of certain propositions or axioms affirmed by the system. This is because any external critique would be to presuppose the truth of the external criterion of truth, which is to beg the question.  If Christianity does not affirm a positive truth-value to modern ethics, then whatever is prescribed by modern ethics is irrelevant. It is logically prior to demonstrate why modern ethics is true or valid, and why other ethical systems are invalid or false. Then we can use the standards of modern ethics to determine whether something is unethical or not.

Granted, according to modern ethics, Christianity is immoral, but why should Christians affirm modern ethics in the first place? Christianity has it's own ethical system, and in order not to be speaking past each other by providing an external critique, we need to demonstrate why the opposing system is internally inconsistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding genocide, it is important to note that according to Christianity, every single person is a sinner, and it is immoral for God to allow or provide a sinful being with a pleasurable existence, in any respect. But it so happens that God has decided to spare the human race. For Christians, the amazing thing is not that people go to Hell, but that any person can go to Heaven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for modern ethics, it comes against serious philososphical problems.

All propositions  can be distinctly divided into two categories -- analytic, and synthetic.

An analytic proposition is any proposition which is self-contradictory to deny.
eg, All bachelors are unmarried men.
In other words, Analytic propositions are true by virtue of semantic rule, or definition.

A synthetic proposition is any proposition which is true or false, by virtue of fact, as learned through experience/observation.
eg, My house is on fire.

Given that it is not analytic to assert, 'Modern ethics is the true system of ethics', it can only be true by virtue of fact, and not meaning.

However, since the is-ought distinction, it is impossible to determine whether an act commited by any possible entity is moral or immoral, by observation. Science and empiricism deal with descriptive propositions, not prescriptive propositions w.r.t morality.

Not only is it question begging to judge a competing ethical system with one's own, but in the case of someone who does not affirm any Scriptural/Revelatory epistemology as regards morality, ethics can be neither verified analytically, nor synthetically. It becomes either arbitrary or meaningless.


kind regards

seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #6 
Clearly Jesus referred to Yahweh as the Father, but as my essay had nothing to do with the Trinity (which I lack all interest in discussing as it is a nonsensical idea), it is besides the point. As far as I can tell, your logic has basically justified the morality of any Muslim who believes that God uses suicide bombing as a means of judgment on the 'infidel.' Not to sound rude, but I'm not interested in your philosophical banter which you're clearly using as a means to justify sadistic behavior, including the awful actions humans were allegedly commanded to do by your Good Lord. To say that one cannot condemn child rape unless God has sent a revelation stating as much is both laughable and sad, but the irony is only secondary to the danger your views suggest for the world. Morality, in my view, is a constantly evolving statement on the behaviors that effect human flourishing and suffering, and as humanity progresses by standing on the giants of those who came prior, a more clearer understanding of morality based in reason and experience is revealed-- contrary to your beliefs in the objective morality of ancient texts, which are clearly inferior to the modern ethics of millions of human beings. I guess you could say that if there is a God, our brains have developed with an ability to analyze situations and view other's hardships from a perspective as if they were our own-- hence we recognize morality. It is determined by the brain, which is continually learning, and in turn determines whether Allah, Yahweh, or anyone else's deity truly claims a law of morality or not. I'm shocked that you do not seem to consider this in light of your intelligence.
troyjs
Reply with quote  #7 

Quote:
 Morality, in my view, is a constantly evolving statement on the behaviors that effect human flourishing and suffering, and as humanity progresses by standing on the giants of those who came prior, a more clearer understanding of morality based in reason and experience is revealed

Yes, this morality in your view. Please provide good reasons why it is true.

Quote:
contrary to your beliefs in the objective morality of ancient texts, which are clearly inferior to the modern ethics of millions of human beings. 

I assume by 'clearly inferior' you mean to say self-evidently false. Please clarify what you mean by clearly inferior, as this is important to the epistemological foundations for determining whether a moral system is true or not. Clearly inferior, according to what standard?

Quote:
To say that one cannot condemn child rape unless God has sent a revelation stating as much is both laughable and sad,  

To make a claim, is not to justify it. Please provide good reasons for why your statement is true. We don't want to affirm propositions based on emotion.

Quote:
I guess you could say that if there is a God, our brains have developed with an ability to analyze situations and view other's hardships from a perspective as if they were our own-- hence we recognize morality. 

Psychological phenomenon does not determine the moral imperative. One must provide good reasons for why any moral system should be affirmed, or it is either arbitrary or meaningless.

Quote:
It is determined by the brain, which is continually learning, and in turn determines whether Allah, Yahweh, or anyone else's deity truly claims a law of morality or not.

This presupposes that our personal moral inclinations are normative, rather than just descriptive. Once again, please provide a justification for why our mental inclinations regarding ethics, are true, rather than arbitrary or meaningless.

As regards Jesus calling the Father, Yahweh, He also calls the Father God or Theos, even though Jesus is also described as Theos or God, and also described as Yahweh. Nevertheless, the Trinity is not the topic of this thread, and I will address your arguments on ethics with respect to Christianity.


All that is required of you to prove that Christian morality is false, is to demonstrate that is it self-referentially incoherent. Showing how it is inconsistent with modern ethics is irrelevant, until modern ethics is established as true. In order for you to show that Christian morality is false, it is not required of you to prove that any competing ethical system is true.
You give yourself a harder task.

seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #8 

By clearly inferior, I mean that the morality of the Old Testament is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior. True morality corresponds to our human experiences. As much we must derive moral laws from the actual consequences that actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures who exist in an objective world. Thus, we can understand that child rape is morally wrong for reasons which are founded in experience, as it relates to human flourishing for both the individual and the collective society, not because we believe it is written down in a book given by God. For you to say that such and such is wrong because you believe it is a divine mandate does not make it any less arbitrary. It does, however, create a completely baseless moral code by which any action can be deemed "moral" so long as the source of such law is "divine." Hence, science can only be the true source by which humans detemine morality, not religious belief.

Sandspirit
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Thus, we can understand that child rape is morally wrong for reasons which are founded in experience, as it relates to human flourishing


This isn't really how we work is it? We just find child rape repellant. We don't know why, we can if we want relate it to human flourishing in a vague way if we want to, but that's not the motivation. We just know that raping a child is a vile thing to do.
seanstrnad
Reply with quote  #10 

Yes. We know that it is a vile thing to do because it correlates to real experiences felt by human beings in an objective world. Not because someone's God instructs them as such.

Archsage
Reply with quote  #11 
Was the complete capitalization of the topic title an accident? Or are you really that serious that this thread necessitates the internet equivalent of screaming?
troyjs
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
By clearly inferior, I mean that the morality of the Old Testament is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior. 

Do you mean to say that all and every case of the use of the phrase, 'clearly inferior', is equivalent to saying that for any x, x is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior? In other words, do you maintain that it is analytic to assert that:

 Any system of morality which is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior, is clearly inferior.

Or do you maintain that some uses of, 'clearly inferior', do not mean, 'in direct opposition to modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior'?

If you maintain that 'clearly inferior' and ,'in direct opposition...' are not equivalent, then you statement as quoted, can only be true by virtue of fact(synthetic), ie. observation, as opposed to by virtue of meaning(analytic).

Since it is logically impossible to determine whether any act is moral or immoral, by observation,(and you have not rebutted my argument as to this point as yet), then it is impossible to determine whether any system of morality is 'clearly' inferior' to modern ethics.

Quote:
True morality corresponds to our human experiences. As much we must derive moral laws from the actual consequences that actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures who exist in an objective world. 


It seems you believe morality is based on utilitarian principles, 'the well-being of conscious creatures who exist in an objective world'.
This is not how Christians determine whether something is moral or not. Please provide good reasons why this is true, rather than arbitrary or meaningless.

Quote:
Thus, we can understand that child rape is morally wrong for reasons which are founded in experience, as it relates to human flourishing for both the individual and the collective society, 


It looks to me that your argument can be put in the form of the following syllogism/Sorites:

P1) Humans determine whether an act is moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.

A1, P2)Therefore, we can determine whether an act is objectively moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.

P3) Child rape has a negative impact on conscious creatures.

A2) Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will attempt to show why your argument is logically fallacious, then I will attempt to construct a better argument in your favor, then I will attempt show how any argument supporting your position will always be false, in all possible worlds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1) Humans determine whether an act is moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.


Because the purpose of the argument is to demonstrate the correct or best way of determining whether an act is moral or not, P1 must be understood as a descriptive proposition of how humans in the real world, actually in day to day life, judge whether an act is moral. It P1 is taken as prescriptive, that is, telling us how we should determine whether something is moral, rather than how we do in fact judge the morality of an act, then P1 would be to beg the question. Remember that the argument is addressing how we should determine morality, and if P1 is a claim as to how we should, then the argument is question-begging from the beginning. Therefore, it is necessary to understand P1 as a descriptive proposition, rather than prescriptive.

It may be true that some humans do in fact judge an act, by it's impact on conscious or sentient beings. But our question involves how do we determine whether how one person judges morality, as opposed to how another person judges morality. There is a possible world in which all humans judge an act in the way as prescribed by modern ethics, but we do not exist in that state of affairs. The very fact that people have different and often conflicting criterion for morality, is sufficient to refute the idea that practice equals rule, or 'is' is equivalent to 'ought'. Simply though, P1 with P2, commits the genetic fallacy.

A1, P2)Therefore, we can determine whether an act is objectively moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.

 

P2, if affirmed, will cause serious philosophical problems as regards to how any act could be objectively moral or immoral. Objectivity and Subjectivity, are related to the Subject-Object distinction. Objectivity from the human or subjects' perspective, has to do with whether a proposition is true, regardless of whether the human or subject affirms it to be true, or not. Subjectivity from the human or subject's perspective, has to do with a proposition being true or not, depending on whether the subject believes it or not. P1 then is analytically, that is by virtue of definition, subjective and not objective. More on this later.

P3) Child rape has a negative impact on conscious creatures.

(I assume that 'negative impact' means increased unhappiness, in this context.I am not attempting to erect a strawman, and therefore would appreciate clarification as to the meaning of 'negative impact').

 

Because P3 is not analytic to assert, ie. it is not true by virtue of definition, it must be true by virtue of fact. I grant that it is true, for all victims of child rape, including all who know and love the child, and also for the perpetrator who is caught. I also allow for the possibility of increased unhappiness for any persons unaccounted for. P3 will be immoral according to modern ethics, if any of the following options is true:

  1. An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact on all persons who would be negatively impacted by p, where p is child rape.(analytic)
  2. An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact on any existent person, where the sum of all negatively impacted persons is greater than zero.
  3. An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact greater than q, where q is the maximum number of negatively affected persons, of which an act can be considered not immoral.(Or the inverse)

Option 1, if affirmed, will mean that any act which does not affect a person negatively affected by child rape, is not immoral. I don't think seanstrnad is affirming Option 1.

 

Option 2, if affirmed, entails that any act which which increases suffering for any individual, is immoral. This would include acts of charity where the giver experiences loss or pleasure, or any act which may increase stress in the individual, and acts of discipline. I don't believe seanstrnd affirms Option 2.

 

Option 3, if affirmed, will cause an incredible amount of difficulty for any individual who can not determine the number of negatively affected persons, as opposed to the number of positively affected persons. However, the burden of proof is on me to provide good reasons why it is impossible to know the number of negatively affected, versus positively affected persons, and/or the impossibility of knowing an objective number by which to measure an act against.

 

Because the number of persons affect can only be known empirically (by observation), Option 3 can only be possible if there is an answer to Hume's Problem of Induction. What an enormous mountain to climb for the modern-ethicist! Simply put, even if we could count the number of negatively affected, we would have no way of determining that the same number would hold, for the same act in the future. It would be impossible then, to make any objective claim as to any particular act, eg, that child rape is immoral. All one could possibly say, is that given that modern ethics is correct, child rape is immoral in this particular instance. Ofcourse, this is exactly what we find with modern situational ethicists. But directly on the topic of the impossibility of counting, since Heisenberg, we understand that even if we knew all of the physical mechanics and goings-on in the entire universe, it is impossible to predict how any event happening today, will impact all future events. What negative impact we experience today, may very well lead to a great number of positive experiences in the future. But even restricting ourselves to the present, any observation conducted will be susceptible to the same problems of any scientific observation. Apart from the problem of induction, because all observations take time to be done, which is greater than zero units of measurement, since Einstein, we know that it is impossible to measure simultaneity in the physical world. This means that it is impossible to determine if the unhappiness of two or more persons were simultaneous with each other, and were caused by the same event.

 

A2) Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.

 

In order for child rape to be objectively immoral, then it must be immoral to commit an act of child rape in every possible case. It must be true, if Option 3 is affirmed, that there are more negatively affected persons than positively affected persons, in the case of a child rape, in every possible world. Since it is not analytic or self-contradictory to deny that child rape negatively impacts more people it than positively impacts, if modern ethics is true, child rape is not objectively immoral.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Reconstruction Of Your Position

 

Axiom 1)Morality is the system of behaviour, of a society of animals, whereby the individuals ot that society invest in behaviour patterns, in order to attain a perceived greater amount of happiness, in duration and in quality.

 

Axiom2)Happiness is the desired state of being. 'Happiness' is equivalent to 'desired state of being'. (It is analytic).

 

Axiom 3)A rational animal is a material entity, with the capacity to affirm propositions and to engage in acts of behaviour.

 

Axiom 4)The acts of behaviour and the capacity to affirm propositions are the result of the biomechanico-chemical construction of the entity, and the physical world in which it exists.

 

Axiom 5)In the case of morality, the subject and the object are the same entity.

 

 

Child Rape Is Immoral

 

An animal capable of culpability is any animal with the capacity to prefer a state of affairs, as opposed to another.

 

Morality is an objective natural phenomenon, or a biologically developed system of behaviour, where the greatest perceivable and feasible amount of happiness is strived after.

 

There is a possible world where,ie. it is not self-contradictory to assert, that more happiness is experienced if child rape is not committed.

 

Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This system of morality is objective, because the object is not the subject's desire, but the physical phenomenon of all possible rational animals -- the ability to prefer one state of affairs as opposed to another. Culpability is a more reasonable foundation for morality, as tmorality and culpability can not be separated from each other without undermining both. Rational animals are unique as they are the only entities of which culpability and morality can be attached meaningfully.

Understanding the rational animal(human) as a material entity with this capacity, it is therefore reasonable to affirm that morality is a natural-biological phenomenon,ie. the ability to prefer a state of affairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The reason why this variation of ethics does not stand, is because it too is contingent upon our understanding of humans. A society on the verge of destruction may find it very appealing and spend it's last moments engaging in behaviour previously withheld from. Every argument which is not analytic, can only be true by virtue of fact. And the facts are always susceptible to change between societies, and between generations. Objectivity can not be founded upon our understanding of science or the physical world, but only upon necessary truths, ie. analyticity. In my first post, I outlined the fact that there are only two types of propositions: Analytic, and Synthetic.

Modern ethics is not true by virtue of meaning, therefore it is not analytic. Granting that modern ethics is consistent, it can only be true synthetically so. And no proposition which is synthetically true, can possibly be true in all states-of-affairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:
 For you to say that such and such is wrong because you believe it is a divine mandate does not make it any less arbitrary. It does, however, create a completely baseless moral code by which any action can be deemed "moral" so long as the source of such law is "divine." Hence, science can only be the true source by which humans detemine morality, not religious belief. 

 

Christian morality is objective because the character of God is unchanging, and distinct from the imperatives of human-beings. Because God exists necessarily, and God's character and will is unchanging, morality as prescribed by God is objective. Yet it is also subjective from God's perspective. When the object and the subject are the same being, and the being is not subject to change in either will or perogative, then all and any precept derived therefrom is objectively true, and true in all possible worlds. But to make your case easier:

 

Humans have a telos, or a purpose for which God made them.

 

Part of that telos is to love God, and to love our neighbour.

 

An act is immoral where it is not committed in accordance to the purpose of our existence.

 

God provides us with the information to know whether an act is immoral or not.

 

God has the capacity to provide us with knowledge unfailingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very fact that your system of morality is based on our understanding of the physical world, makes it philosophically weak. Science has long disregarded the verification and falsification principles. Subjectivism and pragmaticism have replaced them. All attempts to make science an objectively valid endeavour are based upon probability theory, much like the falsification principle was in later stages.

 

If you could provide a syllogism which argues your position, I would be most appreciative.

neilmeyerza
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Yes. We know that it is a vile thing to do because it correlates to real experiences felt by human beings in an objective world. Not because someone's God instructs them as such.


Your feelings told you its bad. That is a lot less abstract than a God. A grade stuff their pal.

Just a quick question what  do you think Ted Manson's feelings told him when he murdered? Oh moral relativism you are the greatest deceiver of the modern day.

Quote:
For you to say that such and such is wrong because you believe it is a divine mandate does not make it any less arbitrary. It does, however, create a completely baseless moral code by which any action can be deemed "moral" so long as the source of such law is "divine." Hence, science can only be the true source by which humans detemine morality, not religious belief.


Tell me are you willing to accept the moral code that the German doctors upheld during WW2? Or are doctors not scientist. Real world examples are much more scary

And just by the way atheist should remember that people (not God) send themselves to hell for refusing to acknowledged God's existence. Their has always been consequences to sin and in the end whether a person goes to hell or heaven is entirely up to him / her.

We who live in modern western society are entirely without excuse

A pertinent bible verse

Romans 1

Quote:

God's Wrath Against Mankind

                        18                                 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,                                                                                         19                                 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.                                                                                         20                                 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.                                                                                         21                                 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.                                                                                         22                                 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools                                                                                         23                                 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.                                                                                         24                                 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.                                                                                         25                                 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.                                                                                         26                                 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.                                                                                         27                                 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.                                                                                         28                                 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.                                                                                         29                                 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,                                                                                         30                                 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;                                                                                         31                                 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.                                                                                         32                                 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.                        
 
Composer
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmeyerza
  And just by the way atheist should remember that people (not God) send themselves to hell for refusing to acknowledged God's existence.

Apart from your emmotional pleas for the literal existence of any god(s) what you failed to legitimately provide was actual evidence
 
1. Any such god(s) literally exists
 
2. What denomination your god(s) represent?
 
3. That even a single word contained in ANY acclaimed ' holy-scripture ' was given by any such god(s) to man? 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmeyerza
 Their has always been consequences to sin and in the end whether a person goes to hell or heaven is entirely up to him / her.

4. What are you claiming this Hell is and where is it allegedly literally located along with your legitimate evidence?
5. The legitimate evidence inside the biblical Story book of a ' heaven-going for all believers ' is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmeyerza
 We who live in modern western society are entirely without excuse

Let's hear and examine your responses to my questions and then we'll discuss the excuses you will typically make for failing to support your various claims legitimately!

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmeyerza
 
A pertinent bible verse

Romans 1

Quote:

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
 

Your quoting from a 100% man concocted biblical Story book is supposed to do what for your cause?


troyjs
Reply with quote  #15 
Composer,

You have made a number of claims:

  • That it is required of one to have evidence for claims made.
  • That the Bible is not written by inspiration by God.
Where is your evidence that we need evidence?
Where is your evidence that Bible is only concocted by man?
Assuming you have evidence for these two claims made, where is your evidence in support of the reliability of your evidence, ad infinitum?
Or do you believe that you do not need to provide evidence for your evidence, ad infinitum?

If you have made claims, then according to you, it is required of yourself to provide evidence in support of those claims.

If you have not made claims, it is not required of us to respond to you.

Quote:
Let's hear and examine your responses to my questions and then we'll discuss the excuses you will typically make for failing to support your various claims legitimately!

Do you mean to say that even before we provide you with answers, that you are going to reject them before knowing what we are going to say? Or do you maintain an open mind and a free-thinking attitude by allowing for the possibility that we may just have answers to your questions?

You want evidence. Please define what evidence is and then we can discuss whether it is important in determining what is true. If after having come to the conclusion that evidence, as defined by yourself, is required for determining what is true, we can proceed to analyse the available proposed evidence in support of both of our claims. Rather than attempting a superficial treatment of what may be regarded as evidence, let us reason together, and delve deep into the logic and metaphysical reality of such, and our underlying epistemologies. Before we can do such, we must answer these two primary questions: What is truth, and how can we know it?

Classically, people have fallen into either of these three categories -- 1) Rationalism; 2) Empiricism; 3) Revelation.

Shall we learn what is truth through logic alone, like the Rationalists, or shall we use empirical observation as the means of knowledge like the Empiricists? Or may we seek truth in Revelation, like the Christians?

Let us answer these questions first, as before we do so, any preference is arbitrary or unjustified. As I do not wish to erect a straw-man, I will suppose that you will wish to find the truth, or defend it as you see it, and will be pleased to discuss this matter.


kind regards
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.