Are the concepts of right and wrong a human creation?SInce "Morality" is a 100% situational HUMAN creation, the FACT that this or that "Christian organization" displays normal HUMAN flixibility, has nothing to do with Biblical absolutes. The SBC isn't "the Church" It's a BUSINESS that maintains facilities wher THE CHURCH meets.
Not trying to be a pain here - are you now venturing into morality? If so then yes, I think we've identified many morals that I think should be enforced as rights. Freedom of the press, of religious belief (not necessarily practice), etc.I think it germane in that I keep the question generic and not so specific in the realm of rights. Not looking for an itemization. I accept that you believe rights are artificial enforcements of power not necessarily attached to common moral considerations - no problem. I am asking whether you believe there exists any perennial criteria for common moral considerations - or "good ideas" - for humanity that should be enforced as rights? Have we discovered any even if by accident in our fumblings with one another over the millennia?
There is no "atheist subjective morality". Many atheists hold that morality is not subjective. And no, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it to you.According to what objective standard? You contradict your own atheist subjective morality with this claim .
So you just bleat it with no evidence. Whoopee.I have always agreed with the concept of Ethical Realism which proposes that morality has its basis in objective common realities found in human nature. The concept of a common nature is not controversial to a Christian. You just attribute it to God when its good and conveniently attribute it to us when its bad.
You've yet to show us any credible theory on how you make some magical delineation within yourself categorizing what you do that is attributable to God and what you do that is attributable to us. It is all made up to maintain some fabricated supernatural weave of belief whose affects only await us in the hereafter - which is also a convenience of faith. Why accept this reality? Just make up some other reality but make sure that the rules of this other-reality are adhered to in this one even though you'll never see any tangible result of your faith in it. Its a scam on its very surface.
Lol, so you are saying the almighty socially evolved moral Europeans saved the Amerindians from their socially immoral selves? Your History proves different HEREYou certainly don't realize that left to their own social evolution that the Iroquois nation would have created a hegemony as far as their battle-axes could reach, and that reach included genocide, slavery, rape, and torture.
The Europeans killed or corraled them on a reservation, that is what happened to the Indians. That is European evolved morality. Have you not heard about wounded knee?So instead of you looking around asking "where are all the Indians?" you'd be asking "What happened to the Algonquin, the Cherokee, the Fox, and the Sioux?"
Rulers have subjects much like slaves have masters. Rulers satisfy themselves at the expense of others.Rulership takes on many responsibilities of expressing and attempting to satisfy the human condition.
Show me such a moral system without the concept of a supreme being.Creating systems that express the landscape of human morality is one of them.
So to support your position show which culture was atheists.Such moral codes show up in cultures that don't even know of your Moses or your Jesus.
that is your personal position, but historically all the cultures believe in a creator or Gods from who comes their moral standards.I don't need to follow them to be moral. In fact it helps me be moral that I don't.
you are conflating...if you are discussing morality in the social structure, which is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Belief and worship could be either right or wrong.God did..... I think you forget your commandments.
Correct therefore not rules of moralityThe first 3 commandments in your Decalogue are not ethical dictates at all but are injunctions of worship.
Your point being?#'s 4, 9 and 10 are merely thought crimes.
I don't see how that proves anything...there are societies that depend on aeroplanes for their survival but never heard of the Wright brothers.It seems only 4 rules are against non-ethical actions, actions that no one needed Moses to tell them were not good societal practice as is evidenced by moral codes that arose in societies that knew nothing of Yahweh, Moses, or Jesus.
I am not claiming anything...history shows who they are, however with regards to morality you are advocating...European morality is superior to Amerindian moralityAre you claiming that the folks that came over and instigated the American land grab from the American Indian were not reformed Christians?
Actually, I am not a historian. So you can correct me if I am wrong. Just bring your historical data. Is it correct to say that European diseases killed a very high percentage of Amerindians?Not only are you blind to American history but you are also blind to your own.
Slavery was accepted as a norm in all cultures. If you are claiming morality evolved the slavery also evolved.(from $0 maximum wage to $7.50 minimum wahe) Europeans misused the slavery that was the norm and made it a horrific experience for fellow humans. That would be a part of the moral evolution you speak about. Just to make it clear what you call Christianity and who you call Christians were not followers of the scripture. The European monarchy used the cover of Christianity to rape and pillage the newfound lands. So the term American Christians do not hold. Those were Europeans hiding under the cover of Christianity.I didn't. The Bible's acceptance of slavery stands on it's own damnable right without reference to how American Christians used scripture to justify their treatment of blacks as well.
They are not the same thing...Two things called by the same name are not always the same things.No need to... see above...
Lol, can you send me some time? If time were real you would be able to go back in time. A clock is an instrument you use to measure time. Time itself is not a measurement.Time is a real measurement, not a concept.
Time is the concept, one does not measure the concept. The concept measures a known period. 24 hours is the time allocated to one day and night. Each hour is further divided into minutes and seconds. Hours minutes and seconds are not things that you can see or touch.Time is a measurable factor in all physics as well as social and physical evolution.
No one said it wasChristianity is not my argument.
You feel that way because your brain is not processing.You are making less and less sense as we go.
You feel that way because you lack understandingIt betrays a desperation in you to just make comments without being germane.
LOL - oh just like your implication there is no law of causalityThere is no "atheist subjective morality".
LOL- I now have them trained to admit they are liars when they begin lying - LOL - I guess I have destroyed their nonsense so often they now know its nonsenseMany atheists hold that morality is not subjective. And no, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it to you.
Since "inherited original SIN" is only a CATHOLIC theological HERESY, then I'm confident that I'll meet Angeline (our Firstborn that didn't make it past 10 hours) on the other side.Try to keep your story straight. Please decide one way or another if new born babies deserve to go to hell.
The difference is that ONE is a Fundamental change in the positional status of a person. That's to say that for the one BORN AGAIN, they are indwelled now by the Holy Spirit, and The SIN OFFERING of Jesus has been applied to them, eliminating (not just covering) their SIN, and making them PERFECT positionally before God. whether you "Love Him" or not isn't an issue. HE sees the proof of "Love" as being obedient to his leadership - not an "emotional state".We can say his criterium is whether you are born again of the Holy Spirit or we can say it is whether or not you love him, but I am not seeing a real difference.
By George, I think you've got it!!!!get born again, and you go to heaven, fail to do that and you go to hell.
Nope, God agrees with you about that. There's no problem with your "standards" matching his. If your "Standard" is that a baby less than 2 trimesters old can be murdered with impunity, then HE wouldn't agree with your "Standard". In either case your "Standards are unimportant, and ONLY HIS STANDARDS are valid in the absolute.my opinion that rape is wrong does not mean "spit" to God?
Absolutely, and people WERE FREE to practice religion in Communist Russia (and did). That the government made it "unpleasant" for them isn't important.But then you are using the word to mean something else. You were "free" to practice religion in communist Russia,
(Chuckle), and When GOD told his people to murder - it was a requirement that they did.So in your view murder is only wrong because God said it is? If he had chosen otherwise, then murder would be okay.
AH - the 'ol "Clean / Unclean" controversy. Read Romans 14 for an insight.What about eating shellfish? God said that that is not okay, and yet Christians still do it.
And the Bible provides guidelines for that. we no longer LIVE in the "Old Covenant", and while the LAW is eternal, the Christians (having been judged by it already are free from its curse).It is curious how Christians say that God gets to choose what is right and wrong, but then Christians get to choose which bits of what God said to keep and which to ignore.
Since "inherited original SIN" is only a CATHOLIC theological HERESY, then I'm confident that I'll meet Angeline (our Firstborn that didn't make it past 10 hours) on the other side.
The difference is that ONE is a Fundamental change in the positional status of a person. That's to say that for the one BORN AGAIN, they are indwelled now by the Holy Spirit, and The SIN OFFERING of Jesus has been applied to them, eliminating (not just covering) their SIN, and making them PERFECT positionally before God. whether you "Love Him" or not isn't an issue. HE sees the proof of "Love" as being obedient to his leadership - not an "emotional state".
By George, I think you've got it!!!!
Nope, God agrees with you about that. There's no problem with your "standards" matching his. If your "Standard" is that a baby less than 2 trimesters old can be murdered with impunity, then HE wouldn't agree with your "Standard". In either case your "Standards are unimportant, and ONLY HIS STANDARDS are valid in the absolute.
Absolutely, and people WERE FREE to practice religion in Communist Russia (and did). That the government made it "unpleasant" for them isn't important.
(Chuckle), and When GOD told his people to murder - it was a requirement that they did.
AH - the 'ol "Clean / Unclean" controversy. Read Romans 14 for an insight.
And the Bible provides guidelines for that. we no longer LIVE in the "Old Covenant", and while the LAW is eternal, the Christians (having been judged by it already are free from its curse).
Why does what I think matter?So, you don't think murder and rape are obviously wrong?
The implication from you was you don't think murder and rape are wrong. I think they are, because of the harm they cause. What about you?Why does what I think matter?
It's obvious that these things cause harm.It's a question of what can be proven. We would all agree, but that doesn't settle it.
It's not an opinion that rape and murder cause harm and is wrong because of it. Do you not think so?There is just nothing in this universe that gives any opinion on it whatsoever.
Stars, planets, animals.....all silent.
So what are you left with?
A bunch of humans standing around trying to declare truths upon the whole universe.
But according to you there is a creator, and I still see the sorts of consequencies you imply if there wasn't.Just like elections have consequences, a universe with no Creator has consequences.
And visa versa, all too easily said.I await an atheist who can engage me in the reality of atheism.