Good, bad, right, wrong [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Good, bad, right, wrong


Animal Mother
09-02-2012, 23:02
The story so far:

Atheists amaze me, on their convictions. One thing i never really understood maybe you can help me. Answer this...

If one believes that there is evil and it does exist, then they must also assume that there is "good". If there is "good" (stay with me now) there must be a moral law to determine what is good. If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.

An atheist viciously believes that he is right, and must then believe that others are "wrong". That his belief is good/right and that others are bad/wrong. This to me is absurd and extraordinary self defeating and illogical. Surely an atheist would believe that there is evil and therefore "good".

While I'm hesitant to extend this thread any further, I do feel compelled to ask, in the case of nebulous concepts like religion, how do you identify "right" or "good" in any terms other than the most basic concepts?

An atheist believing that gods don't exist isn't making a value judgement (such as good or bad). Instead they're advancing a truth proposition, absent any attached values in the moral or ethical sense.


How basic? I'll bet you have a firm grasp of what is "good" and "bad". Don't sell yourself to short. I have never met anyone that did not have a "basic concept" of what they consider right and wrong. You do have values - i assure you that you do.

Of course I do. ASU is good. UofA is bad. But those are value judgements, not objective evaluations. This is my point, you can't say that atheists are making that kind of value judgement, because they aren't. They're making a truth proposition. If an atheist advances the position that believing in a god is a bad thing, that would be a value judgement and many atheists certainly do exactly that but taking such a position is not required to be an atheist.

I never claimed that I didn't have values, did I? But even, as you say, we all have concepts of "good" and "bad" those concepts are not consistent between or even within cultural groups and also change over time within any identifiable population, so how can you set them up as objective truths?

packsaddle
09-03-2012, 02:58
But even, as you say, we all have concepts of "good" and "bad" those concepts are consistent between or even within cultural groups and also change over time within any identifiable population, so how can you set them up as objective truths?

If you are stating that nothing is ever absolutely true, then your statement "nothing is ever absolutely true" is self-refuting and necessarily false.

the real truth is that there are things (logic, mathematics, etc.) that are universal, certain, timeless, unchanging, and absolutely true.

deny it at your own peril.

Animal Mother
09-03-2012, 03:33
If you are stating that nothing is ever absolutely true, then your statement "nothing is ever absolutely true" is self-refuting and necessarily false. Where did I say that?
the real truth is that there are things (logic, mathematics, etc.) that are universal, certain, timeless, unchanging, and absolutely true.

deny it at your own peril.Where did I deny that mathematical constants are constant within a given frame of reference? That's significantly different than the definitions of what constitute good things and bad things.

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 05:57
The store so far:








Of course I do. ASU is good. UofA is bad. But those are value judgements, not objective evaluations. This is my point, you can't say that atheists are making that kind of value judgement, because they aren't. They're making a truth proposition. If an atheist advances the position that believing in a god is a bad thing, that would be a value judgement and many atheists certainly do exactly that but taking such a position is not required to be an atheist.

I never claimed that I didn't have values, did I? But even, as you say, we all have concepts of "good" and "bad" those concepts are not consistent between or even within cultural groups and also change over time within any identifiable population, so how can you set them up as objective truths?

If there is no objective morality, where do your values come from? As you point out we live in a pluralistic society. But, there is no logical reason for you to have a concept of "good" and "bad". You have made a presuposition that there is no God. Therefere, there cannot be a revelation from that God, therefore there is no meaning, purpose, morality, or ethics. So, it mystifies me when Atheists speak of "good" or "evil". There should be no logical reason at all for doing so.

Unless, of course, there is a God, there is a revelation, and it means what it says:

Jeremiah 31:31-33, “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant<sup class="crossreference" value='(CN (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19723CN))'></sup>
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
<sup class="versenum">32 </sup>It will not be like the covenant<sup class="crossreference" value='(CO (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19724CO))'></sup>
I made with their ancestors<sup class="crossreference" value='(CP (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19724CP))'></sup>
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,<sup class="crossreference" value='(CQ (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19724CQ))'></sup>
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband<sup class="crossreference" value='(CR (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19724CR))'></sup> to<sup class="footnote" value='[d (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-19724d)]'>[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31&version=NIV#fen-NIV-19724d)]</sup> them,<sup class="footnote" value='[e (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-19724e)]'>[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31&version=NIV#fen-NIV-19724e)]</sup>”
declares the Lord.
<sup class="versenum">33 </sup>“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds<sup class="crossreference" value='(CS (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19725CS))'></sup>
and write it on their hearts.<sup class="crossreference" value='(CT (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19725CT))'></sup>
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.<sup class="crossreference" value='(CU (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19725CU))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">34 </sup>No longer will they teach<sup class="crossreference" value='(CV (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19726CV))'></sup> their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know<sup class="crossreference" value='(CW (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19726CW))'></sup> me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive<sup class="crossreference" value='(CX (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19726CX))'></sup> their wickedness
and will remember their sins<sup class="crossreference" value='(CY (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-19726CY))'></sup> no more.”

Hebrews 10:15-17, "
<sup class="versenum">15 </sup>The Holy Spirit also testifies<sup class="crossreference" value='(Z (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30149Z))'></sup> to us about this. First he says:

<sup class="versenum">16 </sup>“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-30150b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30150b)]</sup><sup class="crossreference" value='(AA (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30150AA))'></sup>


<sup class="versenum">17 </sup>Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”
<sup></sup>
<sup></sup>
<sup>Romans 2:12-15, "</sup>All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. <sup>13 </sup>For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. <sup>14 </sup>(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. <sup>15 </sup>They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)<sup>16 </sup>This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

So, you see, there is a God, there is an independant morality, that is why you use terms like right and wrong, "good" and "evil". Otherwise, you say, whatever you want to do, it really doesn't matter.

Animal Mother
09-03-2012, 06:54
If there is no objective morality, where do your values come from? The same place as everyone else: the society we inhabit and the people who influence us.
As you point out we live in a pluralistic society. But, there is no logical reason for you to have a concept of "good" and "bad". Of course there is, someone taught it to me.
You have made a presuposition that there is no God. Where did I do that?
Therefere, there cannot be a revelation from that God, therefore there is no meaning, purpose, morality, or ethics. You have that backwards. There's no evidence of a revelation from God, therefore identifying God as the source of morality is not justified.
So, it mystifies me when Atheists speak of "good" or "evil". There should be no logical reason at all for doing so. Your argument is faulty. That the definitions of the concepts of good and evil are learned, not handed down by an omnipotent deity, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Unless, of course, there is a God, Demonstrate that there is a god and you'll have taken the first step in validating this argument.

Lone Wolf8634
09-03-2012, 07:03
Atheists amaze me, on their convictions. One thing i never really understood maybe you can help me. Answer this...

If one believes that there is evil and it does exist, then they must also assume that there is "good". If there is "good" (stay with me now) there must be a moral law to determine what is good. If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.



I can help you understand that, if your willing to step back and see things from a different perspective for a moment. At least from the viewpoint of one Atheist.

I do not believe in "good" or "evil". And certainly not in the capitalized versions of them.

These are human abstract ideals that we learned from our environment. Each society has its own version of them, from when it's ok to kill, and whom, to just how much you may mutilate a baby. From when its wrong to steal to when its ok to take your neighbors stuff.

Humans are animals, but we have one thing no other animal can match, abstract thought, so the instincts that all the other pack or herd animals use to live together semi peacefully were codified and given an abstract meaning and the names "good" and "evil", or "wrong" and "right".

No one can even define them, because for whatever you deem "good" and "moral" other societies do, or have felt just the opposite.

The definitions change from culture to culture and from over time. There is no concrete explanation of them except : Whatever your society accepts at the time you live in it.

Brucev
09-03-2012, 07:11
Re: Good/Bad. Sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder... like a sharp stick. Some might argue nothing happened if a tree falls and no one saw/heard it. Most folks would consider such persons very much challenged by the truth. But as to good/bad, even those who would discount the idea of evil and argue the nuances of grey rapidly convert to a black and white perspective when it is their eye that is confronted with the sharp stick. But, from the comfort of a armchair those with no skin in the game can opine till the cows come home about evil, etc., etc., etc.

NMG26
09-03-2012, 09:27
The definitions change from culture to culture and from over time. There is no concrete explanation of them except : Whatever your society accepts at the time you live in it.

Good point. God in the Bible seems perfectly alright with slavery. We have decided that tyranny over any human being is "wrong". Liberty is an inalienable right(double entendre not intended but there.). Time and culture have changed right and wrong for the better of humanity.



.

steveksux
09-03-2012, 10:27
Good point. God in the Bible seems perfectly alright with slavery. We have decided that tyranny over any human being is "wrong". Liberty is an inalienable right(double entendre not intended but there.). Time and culture have changed right and wrong for the better of humanity.



.Cue the "No True Scotsman Slave" argument...

Randy

Backfire_Tx
09-03-2012, 11:17
I can help you understand that, if your willing to step back and see things from a different perspective for a moment. At least from the viewpoint of one Atheist.

I do not believe in "good" or "evil". And certainly not in the capitalized versions of them.

These are human abstract ideals that we learned from our environment. Each society has its own version of them, from when it's ok to kill, and whom, to just how much you may mutilate a baby. From when its wrong to steal to when its ok to take your neighbors stuff.

Humans are animals, but we have one thing no other animal can match, abstract thought, so the instincts that all the other pack or herd animals use to live together semi peacefully were codified and given an abstract meaning and the names "good" and "evil", or "wrong" and "right".

No one can even define them, because for whatever you deem "good" and "moral" other societies do, or have felt just the opposite.

The definitions change from culture to culture and from over time. There is no concrete explanation of them except : Whatever your society accepts at the time you live in it.

Well, i am really trying to understand but that would depend on what the meaning of "is is". ~ Bill Clinton.

Here is something to think about, again from CS Lewis when he was working through the issues of moral law on his way to Christianity from being an atheist.

The moral teaching of other cultures have no doubt differences. But they are not total differences. Is there a country where people are "admired" for running away in battle? Or being a "coward" was rewarded as good behavior? Or how about this. Is there a place where a person feels "proud" or "good" where he dumps on people who are kind to him? Selfishness has never in any culture been "admired" that you should not put yourself 1st. Cultures have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you wanted.

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’.

My take on this is that yes there are cultural differences in morality - but there is core morality that is very much common across nations and within people. Also, if i owed you money for a Glock i purchased from you - then refused to pay you, you would be incensed that i screwed you and was not fair. Well what is fair? What is right? You know darn well what is right and wrong. Where does that come from? Questions like that haunted Lewis until he worked it through, that their must be a law giver - it weights on the heart of people.

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 13:18
The same place as everyone else: the society we inhabit and the people who influence us.

So, your morality is to simply "go with the flow". So, it torturing babies became a socially accepted practice in the United States, how many would you torture?


Of course there is, someone taught it to me.

Did someone teach you Atheism?


You have that backwards. There's no evidence of a revelation from God, therefore identifying God as the source of morality is not justified.

Well, let's examine that claim. We know the bible is historically and archaeologically accurate. We know that just about everyone can agree that the last 6 commandments of Exodus 20 are good for a working society, and we do not find them codified anywhere else.

So, knowing all these things. Why would it not be deductively logical that there is in fact a God, and the Bible is His revelation to us?


Your argument is faulty. That the definitions of the concepts of good and evil are learned, not handed down by an omnipotent deity, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Demonstrate that there is a god and you'll have taken the first step in validating this argument.

How were they learned? Because, there were handed down from an omnipotent diety and then taught. And now everyone who doesn't have a seared conscience can agree that these commandments are a "good" thing. I had a conversation with a Palestinian one day. It turns out that he had no problem with these 6 commandments either. Interesting.

I have deductively reasoned this argument. Your response to the argument is you don't agree with it. That is not a thoughtful response to the material presented, rather it is an emotive response.

NMG26
09-03-2012, 13:51
Cue the "No True Scotsman Slave" argument...

Randy

Could you give the example.

Thanks.


.

steveksux
09-03-2012, 14:54
Could you give the example.

Thanks.


.
Someone coming along and saying the slaves in the Bible were different, not real slaves, not the kind of slaves the US had for years, pre-civil war. A take on the no true scotsman fallacy. Used to justify biblical slavery by Christian apologists rather than admit any error on the part of their Church.

Randy

NMG26
09-03-2012, 15:13
Someone coming along and saying the slaves in the Bible were different, not real slaves, not the kind of slaves the US had for years, pre-civil war. A take on the no true scotsman fallacy. Used to justify biblical slavery by Christian apologists rather than admit any error on the part of their Church.

Randy

Got it.

Thanks.

I downloaded 42 Fallacies to my kindle some time ago, but have not taken the time to read it.



.

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 15:27
Someone coming along and saying the slaves in the Bible were different, not real slaves, not the kind of slaves the US had for years, pre-civil war. A take on the no true scotsman fallacy. Used to justify biblical slavery by Christian apologists rather than admit any error on the part of their Church.

Randy

Tell us about the nature of slaves in the United States. What was their origin, and who sold them to the slave traders?

steveksux
09-03-2012, 15:32
Tell us about the nature of slaves in the United States. What was their origin, and who sold them to the slave traders?That would be the slaveholder apologist argument that it was ok to own slaves because it was their fellow Africans who sold them to the US.

Not sure offhand which logical fallacy that is, something along the lines of two wrongs don't make a right.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 15:37
That would be the slaveholder apologist argument that it was ok to own slaves because it was their fellow Africans who sold them to the US.

Not sure offhand which logical fallacy that is, something along the lines of two wrongs don't make a right.

Randy

So, wait a minue, Africans wared with other Africans and then took them into bondage and sold them to slave traders, yet the slave traders are vile and the African wholesalers were just doing what came natural?

Lone Wolf8634
09-03-2012, 15:52
Well, i am really trying to understand but that would depend on what the meaning of "is is". ~ Bill Clinton.

Here is something to think about, again from CS Lewis when he was working through the issues of moral law on his way to Christianity from being an atheist.

The moral teaching of other cultures have no doubt differences. But they are not total differences. Is there a country where people are "admired" for running away in battle? Or being a "coward" was rewarded as good behavior? Or how about this. Is there a place where a person feels "proud" or "good" where he dumps on people who are kind to him? Selfishness has never in any culture been "admired" that you should not put yourself 1st. Cultures have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you wanted.

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’.

My take on this is that yes there are cultural differences in morality - but there is core morality that is very much common across nations and within people. Also, if i owed you money for a Glock i purchased from you - then refused to pay you, you would be incensed that i screwed you and was not fair. Well what is fair? What is right? You know darn well what is right and wrong. Where does that come from? Questions like that haunted Lewis until he worked it through, that their must be a law giver - it weights on the heart of people.

Your still thinking abstractly. Words like coward, theft and rape are human abstract concepts that only apply to us. They are meaningless anywhere else in nature.

And subjecting me to something I don't much like (Stealing from me etc.) doesn't really show you what I consider right or wrong, all it shows is what I don't want you to do to me.

steveksux
09-03-2012, 16:01
So, wait a minue, Africans wared with other Africans and then took them into bondage and sold them to slave traders, yet the slave traders are vile and the African wholesalers were just doing what came natural?
Not sure where you got that from my post... I clearly mentioned two wrongs don't make a right.

Both parties are clearly in the wrong.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 16:04
Not sure where you got that from my post... I clearly mentioned two wrongs don't make a right.

Both parties are clearly in the wrong.

Randy

Alright, by what standard do you judge both to be wrong?

Backfire_Tx
09-03-2012, 16:06
Your still thinking abstractly. Words like coward, theft and rape are human abstract concepts that only apply to us. They are meaningless anywhere else in nature.

And subjecting me to something I don't much like (Stealing from me etc.) doesn't really show you what I consider right or wrong, all it shows is what I don't want you to do to me.

You have accomplished the abstract thought very well, i have no idea what you are talking about. Morality is an abstract concept? Sounds like eastern mysticism. Youll have to explain what you are driving at.

But you are correct humans are created in the image of God (tho at times this is hard for me to understand). You and I are different than an animal, we have his law within. The law of human nature. The law written into our heart. You know Good and Evil and the difference.

steveksux
09-03-2012, 16:28
Alright, by what standard do you judge both to be wrong?A majestic mystical unicorn told me? :tongueout:

Once you have populations to the point where people are bumping into each other, you either treat everyone fairly, and equally, or you go with might makes right.

One leads to inevitable conflict and bloodshed. The other is obviously fair, by the definition of "fair".

Its not rocket science. Doesn't require an omniscient being to point out the obvious. If everyone deserves the same access to freedom, slavery is wrong.

How can you justify slavery? I can't think of a way.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 16:41
A majestic mystical unicorn told me? :tongueout:

Once you have populations to the point where people are bumping into each other, you either treat everyone fairly, and equally, or you go with might makes right.

One leads to inevitable conflict and bloodshed. The other is obviously fair, by the definition of "fair".

Its not rocket science. Doesn't require an omniscient being to point out the obvious. If everyone deserves the same access to freedom, slavery is wrong.

How can you justify slavery? I can't think of a way.

Randy

I am not attempting to justify slavery. However, I am trying to understand how you justify your morality. Are you telling me it boils down to mere Utilitarianism for you?

Lone Wolf8634
09-03-2012, 16:46
You have accomplished the abstract thought very well, i have no idea what you are talking about. Morality is an abstract concept? Sounds like eastern mysticism. Youll have to explain what you are driving at.

But you are correct humans are created in the image of God (tho at times this is hard for me to understand). You and I are different than an animal, we have his law within. The law of human nature. The law written into our heart. You know Good and Evil and the difference.

What I'm getting at: We made it all up. Good, evil, right and wrong. All of it. Kinda like our monetary system, it works because everyone believes it works, otherwise its nonsense.

I never said humans are created, much less in the image of God. And I know our concept of good and evil, for now.

Backfire_Tx
09-03-2012, 17:04
A majestic mystical unicorn told me? :tongueout:

Once you have populations to the point where people are bumping into each other, you either treat everyone fairly, and equally, or you go with might makes right.

One leads to inevitable conflict and bloodshed. The other is obviously fair, by the definition of "fair".

Its not rocket science. Doesn't require an omniscient being to point out the obvious. If everyone deserves the same access to freedom, slavery is wrong.

How can you justify slavery? I can't think of a way.

Randy

I get it. If the God condones slavery therefore he is morally wrong - and of course you are superior and morally correct (good luck with that as you stand before Him one day).

This is where free will or freedom to choose comes in. God allows man to choose between God's ways and his. Guess what? Most of the time man suffers badly as a result of his bent toward darkness and evil. I.e. See WWII and 50 million killed under Hitler. His own chosen people - Israel - were slaves for hundreds of years under Egyptian rule.

Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed - it is a man made thing and not a God made thing. You blame mans evil on God, even when God set rules of conduct for people who owned them. BTW almost the entire world at one point where slaves - not just the blacks . Slavery is an awful thing - God did not invent that bucko man did. What he set forth in the law was privileges and rights to them. Same deal for divorce. Most nations treated slaves rotten, God set behavior boundaries on their treatment.

steveksux
09-03-2012, 17:47
I am not attempting to justify slaveryYet it was AOK in the Bible. Wondering how you justify claiming a morality from a lawgiver that includes that? Are you giving the Bible a Mulligan? :supergrin:

However, I am trying to understand how you justify your morality. Are you telling me it boils down to mere Utilitarianism for you?The simple concept that your right to fling your arms ends at my nose. That everyone deserves to be equal before the law. Is that utilitarianism? Simple fairness solves most moral dilemnas.

Can't kill me, I have a right to live. I worked for my stuff, so you can't just steal it, I have the right to keep the stuff I earned, as does anyone else.

Randy

NMG26
09-03-2012, 17:48
Questions like that haunted Lewis until he worked it through, that their must be a law giver - it weights on the heart of people.

Well said.

C.S Lewis I take it? I don't know his work.

I am theist by choice and believe that God is in all humanity. This "law giver" transcends all religions. Christianity is not inclusive because they believe that their doctrine is the only way to God and not that God is in all humanity. Christianity is exclusive. Israel is the "chosen" people of God. Doctrine separates.

God is even at work in the atheist even though the atheist does not believe it.

Atheist can attribute good and bad to pleasure and pain. Murder causes pain; Giving is pleasurable.

Every man finds his own truth. In each religion. In each culture. Could this be God's design?

In both the theist, and the atheist, the fight against strict dogmatic religion is a good thing.



.

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 18:14
Yet it was AOK in the Bible. Wondering how you justify claiming a morality from a lawgiver that includes that? Are you giving the Bible a Mulligan? :supergrin:

There were a lot of things that were not "AOK" but were overlooked due to humanity:

Acts 17:29-31, "Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.<sup class="crossreference" value='(AT (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27553AT))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">30 </sup>In the past God overlooked<sup class="crossreference" value='(AU (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27554AU))'></sup> such ignorance,<sup class="crossreference" value='(AV (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27554AV))'></sup> but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.<sup class="crossreference" value='(AW (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27554AW))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">31 </sup>For he has set a day when he will judge<sup class="crossreference" value='(AX (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27555AX))'></sup> the world with justice<sup class="crossreference" value='(AY (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27555AY))'></sup> by the man he has appointed.<sup class="crossreference" value='(AZ (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27555AZ))'></sup> He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

<sup class="crossreference" value='(BA (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-27555BA))'></sup>
<sup>Mark 10:1-9, "</sup>Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
<sup>2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”</sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup>3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.</sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup>4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”</sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup>5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24595a)] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24596b)] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24597c)] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”</sup>
So, I don't belive God is a proponet of slavery, but overlooked things men did due to the hardness of their hearts or ignorance.


The simple concept that your right to fling your arms ends at my nose. That everyone deserves to be equal before the law. Is that utilitarianism? Simple fairness solves most moral dilemnas.

How do you determine what is fair? Is life on this earth by its very nature fair?


Can't kill me, I have a right to live. I worked for my stuff, so you can't just steal it, I have the right to keep the stuff I earned, as does anyone else.

So you subscribe to the last 6 commandments of Exodus 20, you just don't care for the first four?

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 18:16
Well said.

C.S Lewis I take it? I don't know his work.

I am a theist by choice and believe that God is in all humanity. This "law giver" transcends all religions. Christianity is not inclusive because they believe that their doctrine is the only way to God and not that God is in all humanity. Christianity is exclusive. Israel is a "chosen" people of God. Doctrine separates.

God is even at work in the atheist even though the atheist does not believe it.

Atheist can attribute good and bad to pleasure and pain. Murder causes pain; Giving is pleasurable.

Every man finds his own truth. In each religion. In each culture. Could this be God's design?

In the theist and the atheist the fight against strict dogmatic religion is a good thing.

Then where is truth?

Altaris
09-03-2012, 18:47
Is stoning a woman to death good or bad? Is her having sex before marriage bad/wrong? Bad/wrong enough to murder her?


Deuteronomy 22:13-21
King James Version (KJV)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Backfire_Tx
09-03-2012, 19:05
Well said.

C.S Lewis I take it? I don't know his work.

I am theist by choice and believe that God is in all humanity. This "law giver" transcends all religions. Christianity is not inclusive because they believe that their doctrine is the only way to God and not that God is in all humanity. Christianity is exclusive. Israel is the "chosen" people of God. Doctrine separates.

God is even at work in the atheist even though the atheist does not believe it.

Atheist can attribute good and bad to pleasure and pain. Murder causes pain; Giving is pleasurable.

Every man finds his own truth. In each religion. In each culture. Could this be God's design?

In both the theist, and the atheist, the fight against strict dogmatic religion is a good thing.



.

He is a piece of work. He actually broadcast over the "wireless" in 1942 (war) to the English people, and collected this into a book later. It contains a lot of allegory references to war. I do not agree with everything he said - but his journey was to find Jesus from atheism.

You need to get that book, i got the audio book and had to re-read it (re-hear it) many times to get it - its thick and chewy. But some of his statements are incredible and dead on correct.

He has others called the problem with pain another great.

Kingarthurhk
09-03-2012, 19:16
Is stoning a woman to death good or bad? Is her having sex before marriage bad/wrong? Bad/wrong enough to murder her?


Deuteronomy 22:13-21
King James Version (KJV)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

John 8:2-11, "At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.<sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26384B))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.<sup class="crossreference" value='(C (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26387C))'></sup> Now what do you say?” <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>They were using this question as a trap,<sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26388D))'></sup> in order to have a basis for accusing him.<sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26388E))'></sup>
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone<sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26389F))'></sup> at her.”<sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26389G))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

<sup class="versenum">9 </sup>At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. <sup class="versenum">10 </sup>Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”<sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26393H))'></sup> Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”<sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26393I))'></sup>
<hr>

NMG26
09-03-2012, 21:10
Then where is truth?

Truth is in us by design. We find it as we grow. We instill it in out children. Every person needs to examine the things that they call truth, and test them to see if they line up with "goodness". People change their truth as they live, learn and grow. You and I found truth through the person of Jesus Christ. I grew past that because of the constraints that I no longer found to be "good". I still have respect for Jesus the archetype of love and know that there is good spirituality in the Christian religion. It is the bad part that I have left behind and feel compelled to point out. Good and bad, we all have our own definitions, and define our own truth.

Each man has a personal constitution if he thinks much at all.


.

Animal Mother
09-03-2012, 21:28
So, your morality is to simply "go with the flow". No, my morality is pretty well established at this point, if the morality of the society I inhabit changes radically at this point, I will probably lay outside the "norm".
So, it torturing babies became a socially accepted practice in the United States, how many would you torture? You mean like it was in the Bible? Unlike the Jews, I hope I wouldn't torture any.
Did someone teach you Atheism? No, since atheism is a rejection of a belief. Someone, actually many someones, did teach me critical thinking skills though.
Well, let's examine that claim. Lets.
We know the bible is historically and archaeologically accurate. No we don't, and more to the point that isn't relevant to the question at hand. "King David existed" doesn't prove "YHWH exists".
We know that just about everyone can agree that the last 6 commandments of Exodus 20 are good for a working society, Perhaps, depending on which numbering system you're using.
and we do not find them codified anywhere else. We find them codified in a number of other places. The law code of Hammurabi. The code of Ur-Nammu. The Assyrian Laws.
So, knowing all these things. Why would it not be deductively logical that there is in fact a God, and the Bible is His revelation to us? Not even close. Ignoring the contrary evidence so that you can keep reaching the same erroneous conclusion doesn't strengthen your argument.
How were they learned? The same way everything else is, by teaching and example.
Because, there were handed down from an omnipotent diety and then taught. You've presented no evidence of this omnipotent deity.
And now everyone who doesn't have a seared conscience can agree that these commandments are a "good" thing. I had a conversation with a Palestinian one day. It turns out that he had no problem with these 6 commandments either. Interesting. Not especially, they represent some of the basic standards of almost all human society above the tribal level, that isn't proof of divine revelation.
I have deductively reasoned this argument. No, you haven't. You haven't inductively reasoned it either, for that matter. You've made claims, many of them false and others completely unsupported and then reached a conclusion which wouldn't be valid even if the initial statements had been true.
Your response to the argument is you don't agree with it. That is not a thoughtful response to the material presented, rather it is an emotive response.That isn't my response. My response is that your argument is false, incomplete, and that your conclusion does not logically follow from those premises which can be shown to be true.

Animal Mother
09-03-2012, 21:30
You have accomplished the abstract thought very well, i have no idea what you are talking about. Morality is an abstract concept? Sounds like eastern mysticism. Youll have to explain what you are driving at.

But you are correct humans are created in the image of God (tho at times this is hard for me to understand). You and I are different than an animal, we have his law within. The law of human nature. The law written into our heart. You know Good and Evil and the difference.
Define good and evil.

Animal Mother
09-03-2012, 21:33
I get it. If the God condones slavery therefore he is morally wrong - and of course you are superior and morally correct (good luck with that as you stand before Him one day). Are you taking the position that slavery is morally right?
This is where free will or freedom to choose comes in. God allows man to choose between God's ways and his. Guess what? Most of the time man suffers badly as a result of his bent toward darkness and evil. I.e. See WWII and 50 million killed under Hitler. His own chosen people - Israel - were slaves for hundreds of years under Egyptian rule. God's way includes quite a bit of genocide. If Hitler truly believed he was doing God's work in implementing the Final Solution, would he not be doing the morally right thing?
Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Could you demonstrate this to be true with reference to the Bible?
Instead, it is allowed - it is a man made thing and not a God made thing. Then why did God set down laws governing the practice?
You blame mans evil on God, even when God set rules of conduct for people who owned them. BTW almost the entire world at one point where slaves - not just the blacks . Slavery is an awful thing - God did not invent that bucko man did. What he set forth in the law was privileges and rights to them. Same deal for divorce. Most nations treated slaves rotten, God set behavior boundaries on their treatment. Why didn't God just say, "If you are My people, don't own other human beings"? Was that outside His power?

Harper
09-03-2012, 21:51
The moral teaching of other cultures have no doubt differences. But they are not total differences. Is there a country where people are "admired" for running away in battle? Or being a "coward" was rewarded as good behavior? Or how about this. Is there a place where a person feels "proud" or "good" where he dumps on people who are kind to him? Selfishness has never in any culture been "admired" that you should not put yourself 1st.


Cultures breed certain common beliefs because of the nature of 'being a culture'. These questions are like asking "Name a sports team where the goal of the players is to work in opposition to each other" No country would admire someone running away in battle because running away is antithetical to the goal of the country so it's illogical that the country would admire such behavior, not because there was an intrinsic value placed on such behavior by God. You're not going to find a collective that doesn't value collectiveness to some extent.

Geko45
09-03-2012, 21:59
A copy and paste from the other thread to accommodate CavDoc's OCD.

Give me the "meaningful definition" of good and the source. What is the authority of the source. What person or persons defines good and evil?

I have in this forum before, but I will repeat it once again just for you.

First off, there is no objective source, so no one person defines right and wrong ("good and evil" are your words not mine). In the absence of an objective source, the only option left is subjective to the individual. The individual should be left alone to define their own meanings of right and wrong within the parameters of not preventing someone else from doing likewise.

In other words, right for you (and you alone) is whatever you want it to be and wrong is any action from an individual that prevents someone else from making a similar choice for themselves. Essentially, Libertarianism is the only rational political system that derives from Atheism.

Geko45
09-03-2012, 22:21
Is stoning a woman to death good or bad? Is her having sex before marriage bad/wrong? Bad/wrong enough to murder her?

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Christian side step in 3... 2... 1...

Blast
09-03-2012, 22:43
John 8:2-11, "At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.<sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26384B))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.<sup class="crossreference" value='(C (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26387C))'></sup> Now what do you say?” <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>They were using this question as a trap,<sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26388D))'></sup> in order to have a basis for accusing him.<sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26388E))'></sup>
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone<sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26389F))'></sup> at her.”<sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26389G))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

<sup class="versenum">9 </sup>At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. <sup class="versenum">10 </sup>Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”<sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26393H))'></sup> Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”<sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-26393I))'></sup>
<hr>

Just wasting your time. I've already illustrated that a while back.
Atheists are so fixated on their agenda that they always bring up the old Mosaic laws that were nullified on the cross.
They, like those who corrupted Christian doctrine by picking passages from the ceremonial and punishment Mosaic laws in the early church to justify the atrocities they committed. Not Christian doctrine. Let's see anybody find anything in the NT that says to commit violence and punish to death sinners.

Again it is the human condition that corrupts, not Christian doctrine. Just as the human condition has corrupted science and invented countless ways to destroy life. Just examine secular human history. Far more have died by reason of secular humanism than by all religions combined.

Blast
09-03-2012, 22:47
Christian side step in 3... 2... 1...
Another Mosaic lawyer.:rofl:

LOL that atheists think they know it all. :rofl:

Willful ignorance.:upeyes:

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 00:27
Just wasting your time. I've already illustrated that a while back.
Atheists are so fixated on their agenda that they always bring up the old Mosaic laws that were nullified on the cross. Could you point out which passage of scripture says that any of these laws were nullified?
They, like those who corrupted Christian doctrine by picking passages from the ceremonial and punishment Mosaic laws in the early church to justify the atrocities they committed. Not Christian doctrine. Let's see anybody find anything in the NT that says to commit violence and punish to death sinners. Wasn't Christ part of the Trinity when those laws were given to men?

Again it is the human condition that corrupts, not Christian doctrine. Just as the human condition has corrupted science and invented countless ways to destroy life. Just examine secular human history. Far more have died by reason of secular humanism than by all religions combined.
Where has anyone been killed in the name of secular humanism?

High-Gear
09-04-2012, 01:07
Just wasting your time. I've already illustrated that a while back.
Atheists are so fixated on their agenda that they always bring up the old Mosaic laws that were nullified on the cross.
They, like those who corrupted Christian doctrine by picking passages from the ceremonial and punishment Mosaic laws in the early church to justify the atrocities they committed. Not Christian doctrine. Let's see anybody find anything in the NT that says to commit violence and punish to death sinners.
.

Romans 1:29
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.

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Revelation 2:23
(Speaking about Jezebel, a prophetess and sexualy promiscuous)
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works

Blast
09-04-2012, 02:23
Could you point out which passage of scripture says that any of these laws were nullified?
Wasn't Christ part of the Trinity when those laws were given to men?

Where has anyone been killed in the name of secular humanism?
Read the NT and learn for yourself.


I can't believe you keep playing the fool.:upeyes:
The non religious, secular wars throughout history. Perhaps you choose to ignore that truth.
How many were killed in the 20th century alone by secular people and activity?
How many non religious people are in prison today due to their secular activity of murder, rape, theft, etc.?
And of course the murderers, rapists, and thieves who lived secular lives throughout history.
The math is against you.

Stop wasting my time.:yawn:

http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Blast
09-04-2012, 02:29
Romans 1:29
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.

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Revelation 2:23
(Speaking about Jezebel, a prophetess and sexualy promiscuous)
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works
Try understanding the context as well as the symbolism.:upeyes:
If you can't, too bad.
:yawn:

Bren
09-04-2012, 05:10
Is this another thread about "I have always been taught that the christian bible is the only basis for morality and I'm completely ignorant of the entire filed of philosophy, so now I'm free to instst that you have to believe in the judeo-christian religion to have morality"?

Hint, people - philosophy is an entire field of study you can get a masters or PhD in. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't make you right.

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 05:31
Read the NT and learn for yourself. You made the claim. If you hope to be taken seriously, it's incumbent on you to defend it.
I can't believe you keep playing the fool.:upeyes: I can't believe you still think insults take the place of evidence.
The non religious, secular wars throughout history. Perhaps you choose to ignore that truth. All wars not fought explicitly in the name of religion are in the name of secular humanism?
How many were killed in the 20th century alone by secular people and activity? How many of them were killed explicitly in the name of secular humanism?
How many non religious people are in prison today due to their secular activity of murder, rape, theft, etc.?The vast majority of people in prison claim a religion. Shouldn't we conclude their crimes were in the name of their religion?

And of course the murderers, rapists, and thieves who lived secular lives throughout history.
The math is against you. Only in your badly skewed version of the equation.
Stop wasting my time.:yawn: If you're going to keep inflicting yourself upon us, your errors will continue to draw attention.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 08:00
No, my morality is pretty well established at this point, if the morality of the society I inhabit changes radically at this point, I will probably lay outside the "norm".

That seems quite a bit different that what you asserted before. So, if you have a set morality, where does it come from?


You mean like it was in the Bible? Unlike the Jews, I hope I wouldn't torture any.

So, you think Jews torture babies? I guess that is why you are pleased with Islam?


No, since atheism is a rejection of a belief. Someone, actually many someones, did teach me critical thinking skills though.

It is a rejection of one beliefe and the endorsement of another.


No we don't, and more to the point that isn't relevant to the question at hand. "King David existed" doesn't prove "YHWH exists".

It would be a good indication. When a singular book is shown to be accurate above all other religious texts, it would then lead more creedance to its metaphysical claims, would it not?


Perhaps, depending on which numbering system you're using. We find them codified in a number of other places. The law code of Hammurabi. The code of Ur-Nammu. The Assyrian Laws.

Actually, we don't The Hammurabi code was a system of laws and punishments, a civil code. It like stating, that Georgia state code is just like the 10 commandments, it isn't.


Not even close. Ignoring the contrary evidence so that you can keep reaching the same erroneous conclusion doesn't strengthen your argument.

The argument is sound, I suspect you aren't comfortable with the ultimate conclusion is. There is a God, and we have a personal responsibility to God and humanity.


You've presented no evidence of this omnipotent deity.
Not especially, they represent some of the basic standards of almost all human society above the tribal level, that isn't proof of divine revelation.

That is a broad brush considering the whole of the world. I really am not seeing man's kindness to man as I travel the world and explore it. I have witnessed just the oposite. It seems to be the premise of this society, but this society was founded with the intent of Judeo-Christian ethtics. Though, as time goes on, it seems to be lost in the shuffle.

The fact that you have a morality that recognizes the 10 commandments, yet can't clearly explain why, goes to explain the scripture I have posted where God has written His law within all of humanity. It is encoded into everyone, whether they choose to follow it, or themselves, that is heart of the issue.


No, you haven't. You haven't inductively reasoned it either, for that matter. You've made claims, many of them false and others completely unsupported and then reached a conclusion which wouldn't be valid even if the initial statements had been true.

Saying a thing like the above doesn't make something false, because it makes you uncomfortable. I am tryig to make you slightly uncomfortable to see something you may not want to see. But, I am not doing it to be cruel.


That isn't my response. My response is that your argument is false, incomplete, and that your conclusion does not logically follow from those premises which can be shown to be true.

I think it is logically sound. I think you just don't like it.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 08:05
Is this another thread about "I have always been taught that the christian bible is the only basis for morality and I'm completely ignorant of the entire filed of philosophy, so now I'm free to instst that you have to believe in the judeo-christian religion to have morality"?

Hint, people - philosophy is an entire field of study you can get a masters or PhD in. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't make you right.

Yes, you've caught me. I have a degree in Philosophy beside other things. I liked it, it makes you think about what you believe and why. I've studied the world's religions, and come to a singular conclusion. God exists, Jesus walked the earth, and He ws the Son of God.

I think a lot of people don't trully, honestly, ask themselves what they believe and why.

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 12:05
That seems quite a bit different that what you asserted before. How exactly?
So, if you have a set morality, where does it come from? The same place it always has, from the society I inhabit and the people who influenced me as I was growing up.
So, you think Jews torture babies? I guess that is why you are pleased with Islam? Come on, you're better than that, don't sink down to snowbird's level. Do you deny that the Bible recounts a number of stories of infanticide?
It is a rejection of one beliefe and the endorsement of another. No it isn't. Not believing in pixies doesn't imply an anti-pixie belief.
It would be a good indication. No, it wouldn't. The existence of a historical figure doesn't lend credibility to the existence of supernatural beings any more than the historical existence of Leonardo Da Vinci proves that Daleks exist, despite both having met The Doctor.
When a singular book is shown to be accurate above all other religious texts, it would then lead more creedance to its metaphysical claims, would it not? No, and that hasn't been done with the Bible anyway. The historically accurate parts of the Bible, or any book, prove only that they are historically accurate. There is no transitive property of truth or accuracy.
Actually, we don't The Hammurabi code was a system of laws and punishments, a civil code. That's what the last six commandments are, a civil legal code.
It like stating, that Georgia state code is just like the 10 commandments, it isn't. The Georgia state code presumable also outlaws things like murder and theft. In that respect, how does it differ from the last six commandments?
The argument is sound, No, it isn't. The reasons why it isn't have been pointed out a number of times by different people and you haven't bothered to address them. As I said before, simply ignoring the errors in your argument doesn't make it true.
I suspect you aren't comfortable with the ultimate conclusion is. There is a God, and we have a personal responsibility to God and humanity. The only problem I have with that conclusion is that it doesn't logically follow from the premises you set forth.
That is a broad brush considering the whole of the world. I really am not seeing man's kindness to man as I travel the world and explore it. I have witnessed just the oposite. If you're travelling, especially outside the US, you aren't part of the culture and thus may be seen as outside the strictures of their moral boundaries. Even taking that into consideration, I find far more kindness in my travels around the world than I do the opposite.
It seems to be the premise of this society, but this society was founded with the intent of Judeo-Christian ethtics. Though, as time goes on, it seems to be lost in the shuffle. Maybe we should ask some non-Europeans about the kindness of American culture during the time from initial colonization to the 20th century. I suspect the reports would paint a somewhat different picture.
The fact that you have a morality that recognizes the 10 commandments, I don't recognize the ten commandments, that I hold a position which agrees with the majority of the last six is simply due to the reality that their part of the foundation of most functioning societies.
yet can't clearly explain why, I have explained why, repeatedly.
goes to explain the scripture I have posted where God has written His law within all of humanity. It is encoded into everyone, whether they choose to follow it, or themselves, that is heart of the issue. This is another example of you simply ignoring the responses that don't agree with your beliefs and then going on as if they had never been made, without ever bothering to address them. You've assigned me a position I do not hold, which is diametrically opposed to what I've actually said, so that you can continue to assert your conclusions are true. Wouldn't it be more fruitful to actually address and respond to the points I've made?
Saying a thing like the above doesn't make something false, because it makes you uncomfortable. I am tryig to make you slightly uncomfortable to see something you may not want to see. But, I am not doing it to be cruel. My saying it isn't what makes your argument false, if it is false. The fact that your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises is what makes the argument false, the validity of your conclusion can't be determined because it isn't logically valid.
I think it is logically sound. You're wrong, for the reasons that have been explained again and again. If your argument were valid, we'd have to accept things like Rhett and Scarlett, Moby Dick, and The Doctor as real because they arise from works which share exactly the same attributes you assert for the Bible.
I think you just don't like it.You're correct, I don't like your argument, because it is not logically valid.

Gunhaver
09-04-2012, 12:30
I am not attempting to justify slavery. However, I am trying to understand how you justify your morality. Are you telling me it boils down to mere Utilitarianism for you?

For me personally, it simply boils down to the fact that it makes me feel good to be a good person and treat everyone the same way that I would like to be treated. I do it for the same reason that I chase tail and do the occasional bong hit. It makes me feel good. If everyone had the same idea of right and wrong then and only then would you have a case for the argument that god's will was written on the hearts of men. Clearly there are many men and quite a few women who's hearts didn't get god's memo.

NMG26
09-04-2012, 12:47
.... old Mosaic laws were nullified on the cross.

Your position.

How much of the law?

How about the 10 commandments?



Again it is the human condition that corrupts, not Christian doctrine.

Far more have died by reason of secular humanism than by all religions combined.

The human condition is that we choose between right and wrong and live with the consequences of our actions.

The topic is whether of not humanity is qualified to make these choices without a God authority. Christians say that they make their judgment by the authority of God. Atheists need no such authority to judge right and wrong.

Why can't the two get along?

Nobody really can say that they stand for the authority of God. We humans live and die with our judgements. We should not blame God.


.

Ummagumma
09-04-2012, 13:18
While I am not exactly an Atheist, I do believe that morality comes from people, not God.

The morality is ever changing from culture to culture and from past to present. Sometimes very drastically so. All societies were practicing cannibalism, human sacrifices, or slavery at some point or another. To imply that morals were handed down by God is to either say that he didn't care about these things until Moses times, or that he didn't pay any attention. Besides, most people on Earth are not part of the Judeo-Christian belief system yet have some of the same basic morals.

I think the morals are developed by society - they are rules that govern how people should behave in the way that is best both for the society and the individual. Some of the major rules are very basic and stay unchanged for millenia, some are specific to the times. That's why 10th Commandment mentions slaves, oxes and donkeys.

To say that morals come directly from God is a very dangerous thing, in my opinion. This implies that only your particular religion's morals are valid; that all of other people are thus immoral; that the moral commandments should be followed literally to the letter (if they came from God, they better be; does it mean then that slavery is OK ?).

I do believe that there's part of God in all of us, and that humanity as a whole, despite all it's failings, is "in tune" with divine spirit. So the very basic morals are in a way God given. But not literally.

High-Gear
09-04-2012, 14:15
Try understanding the context as well as the symbolism.:upeyes:
If you can't, too bad.
:yawn:

Oh, it "symbolically" says children will be killed? How Convenient! Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to change the law, not one iota?

It seems to me that you, like most religious people take from your holy book what suits your needs at the time, and disregard the rest.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 16:25
For me personally, it simply boils down to the fact that it makes me feel good to be a good person and treat everyone the same way that I would like to be treated. I do it for the same reason that I chase tail and do the occasional bong hit. It makes me feel good. If everyone had the same idea of right and wrong then and only then would you have a case for the argument that god's will was written on the hearts of men. Clearly there are many men and quite a few women who's hearts didn't get god's memo.

Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?

Geko45
09-04-2012, 16:43
Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?

King, don't become another CavDoc.

High-Gear
09-04-2012, 16:43
Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?

Do you spend every spare cent fighting famine in Africa? Do you forego air conditioning, and live just above the poverty line because others are in need? No? Ah, worldly possessions and comforts make you feel better than feeding starving children and saving their lives. Hedonist!

I don't sacrifice luxuries in my life to save others either, however I don't judge other's morals with a sense of superiority because of an ancient book (which is full of imoral examples). Examine your own morality before judging others.

Gunhaver
09-04-2012, 17:21
Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard you say, and that's really saying something.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 17:24
Do you spend every spare cent fighting famine in Africa? Do you forego air conditioning, and live just above the poverty line because others are in need? No? Ah, worldly possessions and comforts make you feel better than feeding starving children and saving their lives. Hedonist!

I don't sacrifice luxuries in my life to save others either, however I don't judge other's morals with a sense of superiority because of an ancient book (which is full of imoral examples). Examine your own morality before judging others.

Actually, I am involved in several charities. I won't brag about what I am doing, because that goes against why I am doing these things.

Matthew 6:2-4, "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."<sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23287B))'></sup>

Also, I don't do things based on what makes me feel good. Choices aren't always about feelings. Choosing to Love someone isn't about warm fuzzies.

Now, if you are interested, I can give you some charities that I think are worthy of your attention:

http://www.asianaid.org/

http://www.adra.org

These help needy children get and education, and starving people get fed.

I try to think of all my expenses in two ways:

1. Will it serve my families needs.
2. Will it serve others needs.

When I am working on firearms, I think of two things:

1. Can it defend my family from harm.
2. Can it potentially put food on the table.
3. If we get in a bind, which of them can I sell.

So, there are choices in life. It isn't all about what it feels like, e.g. Hedonism. It is an esay and comfortable trap to fall into, but ultimately unrewarding.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 17:25
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard you say, and that's really saying something.

Your statement lends itself to the discussion is some legitimate way, how? Or did it simply make you feel good to say that?

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 17:27
King, don't become another CavDoc.

I have a great deal of respect for CavDoc, he is approaching the concepts as honestly as he knows how. It is refreshing, actually.

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 17:33
Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?Whereas, were he a theist, he would conclude that if the child is drowning it must be God's will that it happen, as it was with the Flood, and nothing should be done that would be contrary to God's will.

See? Two can play that ridiculous game.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 17:35
While I am not exactly an Atheist, I do believe that morality comes from people, not God.

Then it changes based on behavior?


The morality is ever changing from culture to culture and from past to present. Sometimes very drastically so. All societies were practicing cannibalism, human sacrifices, or slavery at some point or another. To imply that morals were handed down by God is to either say that he didn't care about these things until Moses times, or that he didn't pay any attention. Besides, most people on Earth are not part of the Judeo-Christian belief system yet have some of the same basic morals.

The commandments were known before God handed them down, in fact, I can show you in scripture where they were acknowledged before Sinai.

As to your theory, you believe that morality ebbs and flows with society, so your morality belongs to whatever the prevailing morality is? For instance, in 10 years if it is decided that homosexuality is a scourge on society that causes dreaded deadly social disease after disease, and their constitutional right to live without being murdered are set aside, how many homosexuals would you shoot?


I think the morals are developed by society - they are rules that govern how people should behave in the way that is best both for the society and the individual. Some of the major rules are very basic and stay unchanged for millenia, some are specific to the times. That's why 10th Commandment mentions slaves, oxes and donkeys.

Do the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few? If so, was Germany justified in exterminating millions of Jewish people, which were a minority in that society?

And the 10th Commandment mentions servants not slaves.


To say that morals come directly from God is a very dangerous thing, in my opinion. This implies that only your particular religion's morals are valid; that all of other people are thus immoral; that the moral commandments should be followed literally to the letter (if they came from God, they better be; does it mean then that slavery is OK ?).

I postulate that an independant morality is less destructive than your theory of social whim.


I do believe that there's part of God in all of us, and that humanity as a whole, despite all it's failings, is "in tune" with divine spirit. So the very basic morals are in a way God given. But not literally.

I think the Holy Spirit is attempting to atune all of us toward God. It is just whether we listen to that still small voice or not. I think what you are seeing is the promise to write the law on all men's hearts. And that phenomena is what confuses a lot of people. It is there for them, they just try to find a reason to deny the source.

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 17:38
Whereas, were he a theist, he would conclude that if the child is drowning it must be God's will that it happen, as it was with the Flood, and nothing should be done that would be contrary to God's will.

See? Two can play that ridiculous game.

Actually, what your are purporting is an Amish or Calvanist perspective, that everything happens for a reason, or it is simply predestined.

At any rate, the Christian feels obligated to help the child, because he recognizes that this child is worth more than an animal in a pit, as Christ pointed out, and that the cost of a brand new suit and expensive phone is nothing compared to a life.

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 17:50
Actually, what your are purporting is an Amish or Calvanist perspective, that everything happens for a reason, or it is simply predestined. Pretty sure both the Amish and Calvinists are theists. Are you taking the position that God can't affect daily matters in the world?
At any rate, the Christian feels obligated to help the child, because he recognizes that this child is worth more than an animal in a pit, as Christ pointed out, and that the cost of a brand new suit and expensive phone is nothing compared to a life. And the non-theist feels obligated to help the child because he recognizes that only through children can the species be propagated and that protection of the young is a communal duty.

NMG26
09-04-2012, 17:59
I do believe that there's part of God in all of us, and that humanity as a whole, despite all it's failings, is "in tune" with divine spirit. So the very basic morals are in a way God given. But not literally.

Well said.

:cool:

Kingarthurhk
09-04-2012, 18:03
Pretty sure both the Amish and Calvinists are theists. Are you taking the position that God can't affect daily matters in the world?
And the non-theist feels obligated to help the child because he recognizes that only through children can the species be propagated and that protection of the young is a communal duty.

Yes, so are Hindus, Muslims, and Budhists. However, each one of them would have a diverse perspective as well.

Back to what we are really talking about, Christianity. I know God can and does affect daily matters in this world. I have seen far too much not to know that.

The Non-Theist in your analogy is then not a Hedonist but a Utilitarian. The child serves a useful purpose, so he rescues him/her based on the child's potential value being worth more than a suit and expensive new phone that can be replaced. Howeve, if the same Non-Theist perceived that his new suit and expensive new phone were more valuable than a child because the world was overpopulated, he would let the child drown.

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 20:06
Yes, so are Hindus, Muslims, and Budhists. However, each one of them would have a diverse perspective as well. And non-theists have a variety of perspectives as well, not just the one you try to assign to them. Do you see the point I'm trying to make.
Back to what we are really talking about, Christianity. I know God can and does affect daily matters in this world. I have seen far too much not to know that. If this is true, and God has decided to drown a child, what right do you have to interfere?
The Non-Theist in your analogy is then not a Hedonist but a Utilitarian. The child serves a useful purpose, so he rescues him/her based on the child's potential value being worth more than a suit and expensive new phone that can be replaced. Howeve, if the same Non-Theist perceived that his new suit and expensive new phone were more valuable than a child because the world was overpopulated, he would let the child drown.The theist can also be viewed as a utilitarian, if he takes the perspective that God would want the child saved. Saving the child would please God, not saving the child would displease God. When God gets displeased he does things like blowing up cities and turning people to salt. Not wanting to be turned into salt, the theist attempts to please God. Purely a utilitarian motive.

NMG26
09-04-2012, 23:59
I think the Holy Spirit is attempting to atune all of us toward God. It is just whether we listen to that still small voice or not. I think what you are seeing is the promise to write the law on all men's hearts. And that phenomena is what confuses a lot of people. It is there for them, they just try to find a reason to deny the source.

But your doctrine gets in the way. You have often said that the spirit in me is not from God because I do not ascribe to a need for a blood sacrifice in order to know God.

Through your doctrine you call what is godly, not godly. How is that not sin?


I do believe that there's part of God in all of us, and that humanity as a whole, despite all it's failings, is "in tune" with divine spirit. So the very basic morals are in a way God given. But not literally.

He is saying the same thing that you are except that the Bible is the authority of God.

Divine Spirit is available to all at any time, not just those that ascribe to one strict doctrine or religion.

Divine Spirit does not get bent out of shape by the atheist who does not believe. It works in them both to do and will of it's good pleasure whether there is acknowledgement or not.

God as an invention of humanity does not diminish the goodness of God.

There is really no fight with the atheist. Their choice to not believe in God does not stop the Spirit of the divine from influencing them.



.

Bren
09-05-2012, 05:07
Yes, you've caught me. I have a degree in Philosophy beside other things. I liked it, it makes you think about what you believe and why. I've studied the world's religions, and come to a singular conclusion. God exists, Jesus walked the earth, and He ws the Son of God.

I think a lot of people don't trully, honestly, ask themselves what they believe and why.

If you have a degree in philosophy, it speaks poorly for our colleges. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the subject.

Okay, then you are a Hedonist. If it makes you feel good, you do it. For instance, if you saw a small child drowning, and decided that the water would ruin your new suit and brand new expensive phone, and that would make you more sad than than watching a child drown, you would watch the child drown?

An example is your understanding of hedonism, here. You seem to go with the "popular" layman's version, rather than actually knowing what "hedonism" means.

It would be better if you are lying about the degree than to think you have it and still know nothing about it, including the most basic concepts.

Kingarthurhk
09-05-2012, 05:26
If you have a degree in philosophy, it speaks poorly for our colleges. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the subject.

I think I am doing pretty well for having obtained the degree in 1996.


An example is your understanding of hedonism, here. You seem to go with the "popular" layman's version, rather than actually knowing what "hedonism" means.

It would be better if you are lying about the degree than to think you have it and still know nothing about it, including the most basic concepts.

Hedonics is not all the complicated.

Kingarthurhk
09-05-2012, 05:36
And non-theists have a variety of perspectives as well, not just the one you try to assign to them.

I am attempting to understand what they call moral, good, and bad based upon what they say. When people who do not believe in an independant morality and use those terms, I want to understand why.


Do you see the point I'm trying to make.
If this is true, and God has decided to drown a child, what right do you have to interfere?
The theist can also be viewed as a utilitarian, if he takes the perspective that God would want the child saved. Saving the child would please God, not saving the child would displease God. When God gets displeased he does things like blowing up cities and turning people to salt. Not wanting to be turned into salt, the theist attempts to please God. Purely a utilitarian motive.

Please point out in scripture, anywhere, where it is said it is good to let a child drown. This should be interesting. Rather, I think you will find the exact opposite if you look properly. As for rainging fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorah, there was quite a discussion before it happened and quite a bit of waiting before they had gone to far with bands of homosexuals roaming around raping people. If you do evil all the time, and rejoice in it, and harming others, there are consequences. Our society tends to mete out those consequences, but imagine if they didn't?

Kingarthurhk
09-05-2012, 06:06
But your doctrine gets in the way. You have often said that the spirit in me is not from God because I do not ascribe to a need for a blood sacrifice in order to know God.

Through your doctrine you call what is godly, not godly. How is that not sin?

It is godly, it just isn't Godly.

1 John 2:21-27, "I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it<sup class="crossreference" value='(AZ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30572AZ))'></sup> and because no lie comes from the truth. <sup class="versenum">22 </sup>Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.<sup class="crossreference" value='(BA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30573BA))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">23 </sup>No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.<sup class="crossreference" value='(BB (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30574BB))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">24 </sup>As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning<sup class="crossreference" value='(BC (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30575BC))'></sup> remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.<sup class="crossreference" value='(BD (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30575BD))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">25 </sup>And this is what he promised us—eternal life.<sup class="crossreference" value='(BE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30576BE))'></sup>

<sup class="versenum">26 </sup>I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.<sup class="crossreference" value='(BF (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30577BF))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">27 </sup>As for you, the anointing<sup class="crossreference" value='(BG (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30578BG))'></sup> you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things<sup class="crossreference" value='(BH (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30578BH))'></sup> and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."<sup class="crossreference" value='(BI (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30578BI))'></sup>

Animal Mother
09-05-2012, 06:54
I am attempting to understand what they call moral, good, and bad based upon what they say. When people who do not believe in an independant morality and use those terms, I want to understand why. Considering how many times it has been explained to you, one must wonder why you still fail to understand.
Please point out in scripture, anywhere, where it is said it is good to let a child drown. This should be interesting. Rather, I think you will find the exact opposite if you look properly. Genesis 7:4. What exactly does looking properly entail?
As for rainging fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorah, there was quite a discussion before it happened and quite a bit of waiting before they had gone to far with bands of homosexuals roaming around raping people. If you do evil all the time, and rejoice in it, and harming others, there are consequences. Our society tends to mete out those consequences, but imagine if they didn't?Please point out in scripture where Lot's wife was part of a roaming band of homosexuals.

NMG26
09-05-2012, 08:41
It is godly, it just isn't Godly.


Yes, The Christian religious mind will never promote peace in the world. It will always be elitist. Godliness in the Bible is not capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence.




.

Backfire_Tx
09-05-2012, 21:18
Yes, The Christian religious mind will never promote peace in the world. It will always be elitist. Godliness in the Bible is not capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence.






.

Amazing. God loves variety in people - simply amazing. You need to read history of who started hospitals in east moose droppings mongolia and other far reaches of the rat holes of the earth. It was people who followed Jesus Christ.

Woofie
09-05-2012, 21:20
I just wish the fanatics on all sides would stop acting like children.

Altaris
09-05-2012, 22:09
Richard Dawkins destroys muslim on morality - YouTube

NMG26
09-06-2012, 00:25
Amazing. God loves variety in people - simply amazing. You need to read history of who started hospitals in east moose droppings mongolia and other far reaches of the rat holes of the earth. It was people who followed Jesus Christ.

Interestingly enough I could not confirm or deny that. Got a link?

Christianity and those that follow Jesus Christ are often two different things. The dogmatic Christian is not a follower of Jesus Christ. The dogmatic Christian is a follower of their doctrine. They war with any that would appose it.

One of the fruit of the Spirit is peace. It is not the nature of Christianity to make peace with any other religion. It is not the nature of the sectarian Chrstian to make peace with any other sect. Christians are against the Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, and any other form of Spirituality that does not agree with their interpretation of Bible.

A particularly loud sect here is all about end times. The world is going to end in exactally the manner that they understand the book of Revelation to reveal.

God has no faith in humanity if God must step in and end all things. Our religious wars are not godly, they are humanity, getting God all wrong.

Having faith in God is to know that God has faith in us.



IBTL