Right and wrong

Your two statements contradict each other. Statement 1 says majority does not determine morality. Statement 2 says the majority DOES determine it. Well which one is it?


That makes no sense. Charles Manson was true to his moral values so does that mean he did nothing wrong?
You are confusing legality and morality. In a democracy the majority view on morality will, eventually, lead to changes in law. An example would be same sex marriage. Manson did nothing wrong as far as he was concerned, but it was wrong as far as the rest of society, and more importantly the law, was concerned.
 
Have you ever met or spoken to a trans person, or listened to them explaining their life story? I'm guessing not, since your sweeping generalisation is completely inaccurate as well as derogatory.
I have watched and read several interviews with them.
 
I've spent the better part of 40 years talking to Christians, asking them to justify their beliefs. If your above sentence were remotely true, you'd be the only Christian to have successfully answered me.

At the risk of dismissing the only successful answer, no such evidence exists. Moreover, you will not be able to challenge my claim in a substantial way.
The origin of the universe and its characteristics utilizing a basic law of logic, the law of sufficient causality.
 
The origin of the universe and its characteristics utilizing a basic law of logic, the law of sufficient causality.
First off, I've long-recognized you as a Christian who is civil and polite even when disagreeing with skeptics. We haven't interacted too much, but still, I've read your posts many times, which has positively shaped my opinion of you. I feel my post (the one your responded to above) was too brusque or maybe obnoxious - and I appreciate the way you responded to it in a measured tone.

Thanks, and I apologize if I was impolite.

---

With that said, nothing you listed above points specifically to the Christian God. It could point to the god of the deists or some other monotheistic deity. You can claim it points to your God, but that's an opinion which ignores the opinions of theists from other religions - most of whom would say it points to their gods too.

I reiterate that I've never found "strong evidence the Christian God exists". Weakly-vague evidence, maybe.
 
The origin of the universe and its characteristics utilizing a basic law of logic, the law of sufficient causality.
That our current iteration of the Universe had a cause is one thing. To know what that cause was is another. At present we don't know.
To assume that cause was a God and to take the further step to it being the Christian God is just applying a God of the gaps solution.
The Christian God is said to be an interventionist God. Show me evidence of God intervening today, in this day and age not just a God that starting the ball rolling?
 
The Roman empire did the reverse of that. They went into collapse (relatively) shortly after becoming Christian.
No, the democratic republic collapsed long before Christianity even existed. It went to the next stage tyranny under the Caesars. Then when it became the state religion, God had to collapse it because Christianity teaches separation of church and state. But it still eventually changed the governments in the Western part of the empire, ie Western Europe began to actually incorporate Christian principles into their governments.
 
No, the democratic republic collapsed long before Christianity even existed. It went to the next stage tyranny under the Caesars.
The fact remains that the empire went into collapse (relatively) shortly after becoming Christian, as I said.

Then when it became the state religion, God had to collapse it because Christianity teaches separation of church and state.
Where does it teach that? Certainly not in the Bible! The Jewish messiah was the king of the Jews; that is literally what it meant. You might also want to look at the idea of Divine Right, which was also popular in Christianity for many centuries - the monarchs of Europe used Christianity to justify their rule.

The idea of separation of church and state is very much a part of American Christianity, and was not even devised until the reformation, arguably 1636.
 
Over time if you dont repent, then you DO start not to recognize the difference. This can be seen in history as a society abandons Gods moral laws, the society becomes more corrupt over time and goes into tyranny and eventual collapse.
Really? I don't consider anything moral now that I didn't always consider moral.
Really? Your morals have not changed since you were a child? That is unusual I think most people change at least on some things.
What society has collapsed due to moral corruption rather than any other reason?
Rome, Germany, Soviet Union, and I could name others.
No, as is seen in the Garden God taught them many things. Adam learned how to name the animals for one example. But going forward to when they would eventually leave the Garden and start exploring the rest of the world God wanted them to trust in Him as they learned new things.
Where does the Bible tell us that God taught Adam anything?
It is implied that he learned how to name the animals among other things such as taking care of the Garden.
What were God's directions for how to name animals?
We dont know.
They left the Garden because they were evicted. They didn't go because they were curious about the rest of the world.
I am referring to before they sinned. We dont know how long a period there was between their creation and when they were thrown out of the Garden. I am sure it took a pretty long time to name all the mammals and birds. Some scholars have estimated it would have taken him at least a year. But he also may have at least took a short trip outside the garden.
Since God is a non-physical being, the term "image of God" cannot mean a physical resemblance to God, so the most likely interpretation is that we were created with his nonphysical intrinsic characteristic, His personhood.
The ancient Hebrews thought he was a physical being. Genesis 3:8 has God walking in the garden.
Not all of them there is evidence that some of the prophets knew He was a Spirit. Gen. 3:8 is anthropomorphic language.
From Wikipedia: A person (pl.: people or persons, depending on context) is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness,
If Adam and Eve had "at least had a basic moral conscience when they were created". What knowledge, exactly, did the "tree of knowledge" provide them?
What the knowledge was was irrelevant. It was primarily a test to see if they would obey God. And they failed it and then realized their guilt.
Are you saying they had some sense that things were right or wrong, but they didn't know why?
They knew that God was the good and the right and quickly learned that they had rejected Him and felt the guilt and knew that they would eventually die for doing what they did.
 
Really? Your morals have not changed since you were a child? That is unusual I think most people change at least on some things.
They may have expanded. There were a lot of things I wasn't aware of as a child.
Of those things I was aware of I don't think I've changed. I may be wrong.

Rome, Germany, Soviet Union, and I could name others.
Really?
Rome was ostensibly Christian when it collapsed. Was that the moral shift that lead to it's downfall. Germany didn't collapse it was defeated.
The Soviet Union "collapsed" due to mismanagement. You could label that morality.

It is implied that he learned how to name the animals among other things such as taking care of the Garden.
That's your claim.

I am referring to before they sinned. We dont know how long a period there was between their creation and when they were thrown out of the Garden. I am sure it took a pretty long time to name all the mammals and birds. Some scholars have estimated it would have taken him at least a year. But he also may have at least took a short trip outside the garden.
There's no mention they ventured outside the garden. It is just your assumption.
Naming all the animals in one year wouldn't have given him time to go exploring.

Not all of them there is evidence that some of the prophets knew He was a Spirit. Gen. 3:8 is anthropomorphic language.
That shows a development in their idea of God over time.

What the knowledge was was irrelevant. It was primarily a test to see if they would obey God. And they failed it and then realized their guilt.
Sure, but not knowing their understanding at the time of that disobedience leaves questions regarding the level of their culpability.

They knew that God was the good and the right and quickly learned that they had rejected Him and felt the guilt and knew that they would eventually die for doing what they did.
Again you are just assuming their level of understanding, in order to excuse God.
It is quite a poorly thought out story.
 
So you are saying that what is moral is a majority vote?
No. People don’t vote on whether they enjoy and would like to maintain the facility of one's arm, or possessions, or life without sufficient reason to sacrifice them. That is universal.
No, it is not universal. Both transgenders and certain Muslims believe that genital mutilation is an actual good. How do you determine that what they are doing is wrong if they believe it is good.
As a result of you not delineating the difference between objective physical realities that become intrinsic biological facts of one’s own life and intellectual subjective choices over other's lives makes the rest of your post moot. You need to acknowledge the difference or add another great weakness/oversight of discernment in your moral philosophy.
Without God there is no objective moral obligation to protect your life or others lives.
Well the majority of Germans voted for Hitler. Does that make Hitler ok? What objective truths about our condition reveal what is right or normal? Is killing your unborn child right or normal? Is so how do you know? 50 years ago most women believed that killing your unborn child was evil and wrong. Look at today, that has changed. Which view is right? Whatever the majority is at a given period in time?
I notice you did not even try to answer any of these questions. I will take that as an unable to.
 
No, the democratic republic collapsed long before Christianity even existed.
That is a rather simplistic comment given the decades prior to Actium. Nor was the republic democratic in our understanding of that term.
It went to the next stage tyranny under the Caesars.
In what respect?
Then when it became the state religion,
Some four hundred years later.
God had to collapse it because Christianity teaches separation of church and state. But it still eventually changed the governments in the Western part of the empire, ie Western Europe began to actually incorporate Christian principles into their governments.
Again this is a rather over generalised comment on a very complex topic
 
No it did not. That is a gross over-simplification of a very complex period in history.
Rome became officially Christian in AD 380, and fell in AD 476. I would consider that a relatively short time given Rome was founded over 1000 years earlier.

I am not saying one caused the other. Nevertheless it stands against El Cid's claim "This can be seen in history as a society abandons Gods moral laws, the society becomes more corrupt over time and goes into tyranny and eventual collapse." In that example, the society adopted God's moral laws, and not long after collapsed.
 
Rome became officially Christian in AD 380, and fell in AD 476. I would consider that a relatively short time given Rome was founded over 1000 years earlier.

I am not saying one caused the other. Nevertheless it stands against El Cid's claim "This can be seen in history as a society abandons Gods moral laws, the society becomes more corrupt over time and goes into tyranny and eventual collapse." In that example, the society adopted God's moral laws, and not long after collapsed.

In early 380 Theodosius I issued a formal letter which announced that the only acceptable form of Christianity centred on a Triune deity with each entity as equal. That prohibited and excluded other versions of Christianity. During that decade the law was extended across all of the eastern empire and then into the west..

The empire i.e. Rome did not fall in 476 CE and even the events in the West have been reconsidered and re-assessed. However, the Roman empire in the east continued on for quite some time until Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453.
 
In early 380 Theodosius I issued a formal letter which announced that the only acceptable form of Christianity centred on a Triune deity with each entity as equal. That prohibited and excluded other versions of Christianity. During that decade the law was extended across all of the eastern empire and then into the west..

The empire i.e. Rome did not fall in 476 CE and even the events in the West have been reconsidered and re-assessed. However, the Roman empire in the east continued on for quite some time until Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453.
But Rome was invaded and conquered in the fifth century and subsequently declined. Therefore, the “fall” of Rome to foreign invaders marks a point in time when the western Roman state irreversibly declined.

Per wikipedia,
The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 after the city was conquered by the Ostrogothic Kingdom. Consequently Rome's power declined, and it eventually became part of the Eastern Roman Empire, as the Duchy of Rome, from the 6th to 8th centuries.
 
Last edited:
Rome became officially Christian in AD 380, and fell in AD 476. I would consider that a relatively short time given Rome was founded over 1000 years earlier.

I am not saying one caused the other. Nevertheless it stands against El Cid's claim "This can be seen in history as a society abandons Gods moral laws, the society becomes more corrupt over time and goes into tyranny and eventual collapse." In that example, the society adopted God's moral laws, and not long after collapsed.
El Cids characterization of history is tainted by personal bias. Was their moral decline in the Roman state? Of course there was and stoics like Seneca were documenting it in the first century. But stoics were moral philosophers, not christians. So El Cid has narrowly applied the historical moral decline of Rome to be against the christian God only when it was originally claimed to be against the Platonic Good One. It is interesting how different religions assimilate history for their own benefit to promote their own bias. I have no doubt that somewhere in the Talmud Romes fall was attributed to God’s wrath for Rome destroying Jerusalem. And so the merry go round goes.

It is not just religion but politics too. Russia says it invaded Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a Nato vassal state. The west says it is fighting Russia because it invaded Ukraine. Who is justified in their action? Depends which propaganda one reads and believes.
 
Last edited:
You claimed earlier that our moral conscious is from your god. Where else can it come from?
Yes, but our moral standard is Gods objectively existing moral CHARACTER. Our moral conscience was damaged at the Fall, so we still need a standard to aim for and keep us on the right track.
 
Yes, but our moral standard is Gods objectively existing moral CHARACTER. Our moral conscience was damaged at the Fall, so we still need a standard to aim for and keep us on the right track.
That doesn’t require a god.
 
Yes, but our moral standard is Gods objectively existing moral CHARACTER. Our moral conscience was damaged at the Fall, so we still need a standard to aim for and keep us on the right track.
So our moral standard is a God who drowned countless people, including children and babies, in a great flood; who tells us chattel slavery is okay (as long as the slave is a gentile); and that anyone picking up sticks on a Saturday should be stoned to death...
 
Back
Top