Thought Experiment

Most likely because they too like me and the first guy have personally experienced the God of the Bible, but like me and your first guy have NOT personally experience Allah or Shiva.
Although satan is NOT without power!! Look at the phony satanic phantasms of Mary he's whomped up to lead Roman Catholics astray!!!

SO producing a phony "Shiva", or "Allah" for people to "Experience" shouldn't be much of a problem for him.
 
You have no other basis for morality. Do you?
Yes. Fairness is one basis for morality. If something is unfair it can be immoral. For example, If someone forces you off of your farm that you've worked hard on all year and reaps the benefit of your hard work, that is grossly unfair and immoral.

It's not hard to see the unfairness of this situation, and no God is needed to point it out.
 
Yes. Fairness is one basis for morality. If something is unfair it can be immoral. For example, If someone forces you off of your farm that you've worked hard on all year and reaps the benefit of your hard work, that is grossly unfair and immoral.

It's not hard to see the unfairness of this situation, and no God is needed to point it out.
Of course you don't need God to point it unfairness and wrongs. He has made us to recognize those things. And even if we don't see justice in this life, everyone will pay one way or another for all the deeds done in their bodies while on the earth. Everyone will meet their maker in judgment, even Christians.
 
The only way that we even know right from wrong is by the conscience that was given to us by God.
It justifies us when we do what is right and convicts us when we do what is wrong.
1. People's consciences connote an opinion of right and wrong, but not necessarily some factual basis for those opinions.
For example, our consciences disagree on the subject of abortion - how do we tell which of them is "correct"?
It justifies us when we do what is right and convicts us when we do what is wrong.
What we think is right, and what we think is wrong.
An abortion doctor's conscience justifies them, but you would think that they were acting immorally, yes?
You sense of right and wrong can get tainted by how you are brought up and the society you live in if you haven't developed a relationship with your Maker.
And how would you prove that a departure from the "Maker's" morality constitutes objective immorality?
Prove; not assert, or define.
Your either righteous or not righteous. There is not in between. Is your angel a God-seeker?
Oh - your definition of righteous entails belief in Jesus. I was using a generic one.

I'm not interested in people's righteousness, as you define it; I'm only interested in whether or not they are good or evil, and "one or the other" is a gross over-simplification.
You have no other basis for morality. Do you?
Yep.
And it's very simple: if I think that a thing is intended to cause unjustified harm, I consider it to be immoral.
 
Of course you don't need God to point it unfairness and wrongs. He has made us to recognize those things. And even if we don't see justice in this life, everyone will pay one way or another for all the deeds done in their bodies while on the earth. Everyone will meet their maker in judgment, even Christians.
Evolved empathy is not a difficult concept. We are social animals and reap benefits when we take care of each other and suffer the consequences when we don't. It's quite bizarre to hear about 'morality' from people who follow a god thing whose 'moral' solution to kids teasing a bald man was to have them slaughtered by bears. The fact is that subjective morality is all that exists. Any claim to an objective morality falls flat in the face of reality. Your own god thing - that I'm told has morals that never change - has changed its morals. Happily, there have been people through the ages that have done the difficult and honest work of getting together and developing and refining what we think is moral and not. Slavery was considered just fine by barbaric, bronze age goatherders. Today, not so much. It's almost like people evolve..... :cool:
 
1. People's consciences connote an opinion of right and wrong, but not necessarily some factual basis for those opinions.
For example, our consciences disagree on the subject of abortion - how do we tell which of them is "correct"?
From my point of view, our consciences are given to us from God. Knowing God is how we tell which of them is correct.
What we think is right, and what we think is wrong.
An abortion doctor's conscience justifies them, but you would think that they were acting immorally, yes?
Yes, I'm not sure how they cannot feel twinges of guilt as they destroy that tiny human.
And how would you prove that a departure from the "Maker's" morality constitutes objective immorality?
Prove; not assert, or define.
I should have said a departure from the Maker's morality would constitute a subjective morality. Everyone does what is right in their own mind with nothing absolute (objective) morality with which to base it on.
Yep.
And it's very simple: if I think that a thing is intended to cause unjustified harm, I consider it to be immoral.
Then how can you believe that abortion does not cause unjustified harm since a human is being harmed in the process?
 
From my point of view, our consciences are given to us from God. Knowing God is how we tell which of them is correct.
Yes, I understand that this is your point of view, but I am interested in what can be proven.
Yes, I'm not sure how they cannot feel twinges of guilt as they destroy that tiny human.
Then this is evidence that the conscience is not an indicator of objective morality.

The fact that we all have films that we like, and even that there is a great deal of agreement on what constitutes a good film, does not connote some objective, out-there-somewhere, good/bad assignation of films.
Then how can you believe that abortion does not cause unjustified harm since a human is being harmed in the process?
Because I see that the harm is justified.
 
Yes, I understand that this is your point of view, but I am interested in what can be proven.
You knew what my response would be and that I cannot prove the existence of God. I was wondering why you asked that question but I answered it anyways. 🤔
Then this is evidence that the conscience is not an indicator of objective morality.
For the non christian.
The fact that we all have films that we like, and even that there is a great deal of agreement on what constitutes a good film, does not connote some objective, out-there-somewhere, good/bad assignation of films.
One's taste in films doesn't have anything to do with morality. It's a subjective opinion.
Because I see that the harm is justified.
I don't. Stalemate as usual.
 
You would tell the church leaders and other apostles so that Paul would be excommunicated for lying.
I tell them what, exactly? "I never saw Jesus appear to 500 people, and I never even heard anybody claim that he did"? And the Christian leaders of 55 C.E. immediately conclude that if I didn't see it or hear about it, it didn't happen? And they immediately accept at face value the mere word of a non-Christian that I'm telling the truth, and therefore Paul was not telling the truth? You can't really believe this, can you?
No, I am referring to a fellow Christian making those statements. If a fellow Christian made those statements especially if it at least two fellow Christians make that statement, it cause great doubt to the truthfulness of Pauls story. Using the Jewish principle of two or more witnesses would give them great credibility.
 
Evolved empathy is not a difficult concept. We are social animals and reap benefits when we take care of each other and suffer the consequences when we don't. It's quite bizarre to hear about 'morality' from people who follow a god thing whose 'moral' solution to kids teasing a bald man was to have them slaughtered by bears. The fact is that subjective morality is all that exists. Any claim to an objective morality falls flat in the face of reality. Your own god thing - that I'm told has morals that never change - has changed its morals. Happily, there have been people through the ages that have done the difficult and honest work of getting together and developing and refining what we think is moral and not. Slavery was considered just fine by barbaric, bronze age goatherders. Today, not so much. It's almost like people evolve..... :cool:
There's nothing new under the sun. It may not be legal but slavery still exists in our modern society. Are you saying there is a genetic basis for empathy in man that has evolved?
You think God sent those bears to attack 42 boys because a prophet cursed them? I don't.
God didn't change his morals from the NT to the OT. Jesus is the true revelation of what God is like. Whatever one believes about God has to be consistent with the character of Jesus Christ.
Who are these "honest people" throughout the ages? There has always been good people but there has always been evil people as well. I don't see much of a change.
 
You think God sent those bears to attack 42 boys because a prophet cursed them? I don't.
... yes - the prophet is mocked, curses the boys, and the very next thing that happens is the she-bear attack.

Apologists will infer extra details - "those weren't just boys; they were evil louts who did loads of other bad stuff" - but if it's not in the text, it's not a justification.
 
... yes - the prophet is mocked, curses the boys, and the very next thing that happens is the she-bear attack.

Apologists will infer extra details - "those weren't just boys; they were evil louts who did loads of other bad stuff" - but if it's not in the text, it's not a justification.
Or the bears attacked those 42 boys because they were doing something to irritate the bears just like their behavior towards the prophet. They simply reaped what they sowed.
 
Or the bears attacked those 42 boys because they were doing something to irritate the bears just like their behavior towards the prophet.
Not mentioned in the story.

Your god had some bears kill forty-two boys because they mocked a prophet - if you can't deal with that, that's a you-problem, but stop making excuses.
 
There's nothing new under the sun. It may not be legal but slavery still exists in our modern society. Are you saying there is a genetic basis for empathy in man that has evolved?
You think God sent those bears to attack 42 boys because a prophet cursed them? I don't.
God didn't change his morals from the NT to the OT. Jesus is the true revelation of what God is like. Whatever one believes about God has to be consistent with the character of Jesus Christ.
Who are these "honest people" throughout the ages? There has always been good people but there has always been evil people as well. I don't see much of a change.
Your god in the OT was a psychopathic, child slaughtering barbarian - almost like its 'morals' at that time were identical to the iron age goatherders that wrote about it. But in the NT, his morals changed to 'Love your Enemy'. In fact, Jesus himself says "...you have heard it said.." which means nothing else but "this is gods old moral". So unless you can present a verse in the OT that expresses that same moral, the claim stands.
 
@Veritas

I don't have answer for you as to why the God of the OT looks so different from the God of the NT that we see in Jesus Christ.

There is a Christian preacher and scholar who published a couple books on the subject in 2017, one academically inclined and the other for laypersons. His name is Greg Boyd. The book is called "Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence."
Greg has a blog with articles about his view. He might surprise you. I have the book (for layman's version) but haven't read it yet. My loss, otherwise I could have given you an answer immediately.

Here are a couple of links in his blog on the subject:

If you aren't interested in reading these articles, then you will have to wait for my answer when I finish reading his book.
 
Last edited:
Your god had some bears kill forty-two boys because they mocked a prophet - if you can't deal with that, that's a you-problem, but stop making excuses.
I think there is more to it than meets the eye. If you're not interested in going there but would rather mistakenly attack God, that's a "you" problem.
I see God as looking like Jesus Christ on the cross, a God of love, self-sacrificial and other oriented. You have a different portrait of God in your mind.

The second principle in this article is the one I would use to explain this story of the prophet and the mocking boys:


The Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal​

The second principle is that the cross reveals the way that Jesus suffered the “wrath” that we deserved. To bring about judgment of sin, the Father did not need to become angry with Jesus or to act violently toward Jesus. Nor did he need to cause anyone else to act violently toward Jesus. Instead, the Father merely withdrew his protective presence, thereby delivering Jesus over to wicked people and fallen powers that were already “bent on destruction” (Isa 51:13). God wisely used the self-acquired evil character of Satan and other fallen powers against them, causing the kingdom of darkness to self-implode.

We see this principle at work as biblical authors reflect the understanding that punishment is related to sin in the same way that effects are related to causes. The punishment for sin is intrinsic to the sin that is being punished, which is precisely why God need not act violently when he allowed intractable sinners to fall under judgment. When God sees that his merciful protection of people from the destructive consequences of their choices is only serving to further harden these people in their sin, God has no choice but to withdraw his protection and allow their sin to ricochet back on them as a divine judgment.

Judgment is not God’s last word, however. When the Father allowed his Son to suffer the death-consequences of our sin, it was with a view toward his resurrection and the ultimate restoration of humanity and the whole creation. Whenever God sees he must withdraw his protective presence to allow people to suffer the destructive consequences of their choices, he does so with a grieving heart and with redemptive rather than vengeful motives.
 
@Veritas

I don't have answer for you as to why the God of the OT looks so different from the God of the NT that we see in Jesus Christ.

There is a Christian preacher and scholar who published a couple books on the subject in 2017, one academically inclined and the other for laypersons. His name is Greg Boyd. The book is called "Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence."
Greg has blog with articles about his view. He might surprise you. I have the book (for layman's version) but haven't read it yet. My loss, otherwise I could have given you an answer immediately.

Here are a couple of links in his blog on the subject:

If you aren't interested in reading these articles, then you will have to wait for my answer when I finish reading his book.
But you now seem to admit that OT god has different morals from NT god. You couldn't find OT god asking anyone to love their enemies. This fact makes it hard to take seriously the common claim that all of your gods moral atrocities are somehow obviated because ".... we are under a new covenant now." The NC did not change the unchanging Moral Laws, did it? Jesus himself claimed - every single time he was asked - that the Law, every whit and tittle, must be followed until the end of time. Yes, Paul was a smart enough salesman to recognize that he couldn't sell his new religion to pagans if all 613 mitzvot had to be followed. So - poof! A new covenant! Plus we have a triune godhead that will remind you of the gods you worship now! And.... don't forget how you'll get to see grandma after you die!

So these appeals to the crucifixion as an explanation of your gods violent past carry no weight in explaining why his unchanging morals...... changed. It's hurts the Christian position not to admit this obvious fact.
 
I think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Of course you do, because - to your credit - the most parsimonious interpretation is uncomfortable for you.

If your god had sent the bears to kill the boys merely for mocking Elijah, would you be OK with that?
Some are - a number of people I've asked have simply said "yes, because anything he does is correct by definition".
 
But you now seem to admit that OT god has different morals from NT god.
Not exactly. On the surface it may look that way.
The God of the OT is the same exact God of the NT. His perfect and most complete representation of himself is Jesus Christ dying on the cross in our place.
You couldn't find OT god asking anyone to love their enemies.
I didn't have to look. I know it is there. The OT was a different way in which God dealt with mankind. The nation of Israel failed him miserably.
This fact makes it hard to take seriously the common claim that all of your gods moral atrocities are somehow obviated because ".... we are under a new covenant now."
I've never asserted that. Who are you quoting?
The NC did not change the unchanging Moral Laws, did it?
Of course, it did to a certain extent. You seem to know enough that you must know what Paul wrote about the relation of the law of Moses to the death of Christ (in Romans, Galatians and the sermon on the mount.
Jesus himself claimed - every single time he was asked - that the Law, every whit and tittle, must be followed until the end of time.
Did he? please show me?
Yes, Paul was a smart enough salesman to recognize that he couldn't sell his new religion to pagans if all 613 mitzvot had to be followed. So - poof! A new covenant!
The apostles in Jerusalem agreed with the message Paul preached to the gentiles (non Jews). They gathered together to discuss it in Acts 15. Do you really know what you are talking about?
Plus we have a triune godhead that will remind you of the gods you worship now!
I'm not a trinitarian.
And.... don't forget how you'll get to see grandma after you die!
Now you are just being ridiculous.
So these appeals to the crucifixion as an explanation of your gods violent past carry no weight in explaining why his unchanging morals...... changed.
Did you read the article? Let's discuss it more in depth.
It's hurts the Christian position not to admit this obvious fact.
I'm willing to discuss it with you. I don't have all of the answers. Whatever parts of the OT in which YHWH doesn't look like the God we see hanging on the cross for our sins, then something isn't right. We have to dig deeper to find out why.
 
Your god in the OT was a psychopathic, child slaughtering barbarian - almost like its 'morals' at that time were identical to the iron age goatherders that wrote about it. But in the NT, his morals changed to 'Love your Enemy'. In fact, Jesus himself says "...you have heard it said.." which means nothing else but "this is gods old moral". So unless you can present a verse in the OT that expresses that same moral, the claim stands.
What's with all the angst?
 
Back
Top