apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
All those astronauts, engineers, specialists, astronomers scientists, mathematicians, navy personnel etc and in all those decades not one of them broke ranks. Literally thousands of the most intelligent and independently minded people in modern history.
The depth of conspiracy to maintain the lie about our journey to the moon would be far far more unlikely than the simple verifiable fact that we really did go there.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Perhaps the fact that the OT was written to a people who, although were God's chosen people, were not ready for the teachings of Christ. They were taught the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. That may explain a bit. - TTWSYF
God instructed his people to take slaves as possessions. He invited them to kidnap virgins as sex slaves. He ordered his people to hack thousands of women and babies to death in cold blood. That is the letter of the law, god's law. The law of the god and father of Jesus.
Are you really suggesting that god's chosen people were not ready to be told not to murder babies wholesale and rape virgins? If god had said, "you will not take another human being as a possession" would it really have been too much for them to comprehend? That is a bizarre explanation.
You have no option but to declare rape, slavery and infanticide to be acts of perfect morality. That is the inevitable consequence of appealing to god as the ultimate standard of objective morality.
I certainly would not expect an atheist to understand the diff.I was a christian for almost a decade after I left the cult. I understand very well.
These are reasons why Christianity is true and atheism is false and never gave anything good to the people of the world.
You have all your work ahead of you to explain why christianity is true. You might persuade me it is useful but certainly not true. Atheism is nothing more than the honest confession that the claims of christianity are unconvincing. Science, rationality and humanism is responsible for all of the progress in society since the Enlightenment. Religion had centuries and failed. The hungry are being fed, the sick are being cured and its all thanks to abandoning old superstitions.
I refuse to approve of rape, slavery and infanticide. You have no such option without condemning your god.
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
I used to believe that the British Monarchy was an anachronism.
God save the Queen.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
There were two separate sets of laws regarding slavery. Those that you referred to involve fellow Israelites. I am not objecting to that arrangement in this thread. I am only concerned with god's commands to take slaves as permanent possessions from non-Israelite nations.
An Israelite was instructed to take slaves by force. To own them as part of their personal possessions. To pass them on as part of their estate. If the save owner beat the slave to death there was no punishment as long as the slave did not die on the same day. The justification for this cruelty was the according to god "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
God also instructed Israelite soldiers to kidnap sex slaves. These young virgins had no choice but to be married of to their captors.
During their campaigns god also instructed his army to specifically target women and babies to be hacked to death after the enemy army had been defeated.
The deity who did these things was the god and father of Jesus.
According to your claims about objective morality you are forced to declare all of these actions to be morally perfect. If you would like me to supply biblical references for all of these incidents please ask, it's no problem.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Why not choose the third option
You didn't choose a third option. Logically there is no third option. You just don't understand the question. You chose Divine Command Theory which is one of the two options. That means that when god commands his people to take slaves and commit infanticide you are obliged to declare such actions as morally perfect.
So much for objective morality.
I will explain more about slavery and infanticide shortly. You have totally missed the point.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
There is a third alternative, namely God wills something because He is good. - TWM
You haven't solved the dilemma at all. You have chosen Divine Command Theory and called it a third option.
When god commands slavery and infanticide is that because those things are morally good or are we forced to call them good because god commands them?
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Nietzsche said if God does not exist everything is permissible. - TWM
Actually he didn't. It is a line wrongly attributed to one of the characters in the book "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
Of course it isn't true. If god is the ultimate source of morality then anything is permissible. Morals becomes a matter of divine fiat. When god says that slavery and infanticide are morally good, who can argue?
Are you familiar with The Euthyphro Dilemma?
If on the other hand we base morals on an objective foundation like the well-being of conscious creatures then we have a basis to judge actions that doesn't depend on personal preference or subjective opinion.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
No that didn't help at all. I gave up proof-texting years ago.
But I did suggest we don't get distracted with a debate about the conflicting versions of the so-called ten commandments. I'm much more interested in discussing your assertions about the need for god to root objective morality.
i am just curious.. i have a cousin who is a baptist and his church streams their sunday services and i've been checking them out before i go to meeting with my jw wife.. i haven’t been to a church except for the occasional funeral and wedding and the only sermons i had heard were the tel-evangelist type.
anyway, all the church bashing by jws over the years made me unsure what to expect and i was pleasantly surprised.
they do use the bible and they don't spend the whole time begging for money.
Yes I was a Baptist for 9 years. In UK not as strict and conservative as US Baptist but still Bible believing.
