I'd like to join into this conversation as well, and to anybody who frequents this thread on a regular basis, I'm pretty sure y'all know who else is going to be coming in here soon (winks at Dr.Elwin Ransom )

Andrew, (a great name by the way [is somewhat biased as that is my name IRL] ) you have said that morals, although they can be beneficial to each individual, cannot be pegged down by any absolute truth? Am I right in interpreting your sentiment as such? Because to me, it seems rather a moot point, because when the rubber meets the road, all human beings have a universal moral code. Your wording that you have chosen shows that even you hold to it:

I see everything as equal, the reasoning does not matter to the end result. Let's take killing: manslaughter vs. murder. If someone is found to have accidentally killed someone they will recieve a lesser punishment than one proven to have intent to kill. However at the end of the day, the other person is dead. Why they were killed is not going to change that.

You clearly state, right here, that it doesn't matter how the person is killed, they're dead, and that's the important bit. I agree with you on this matter; however, you have still arrived at the conclusion that murdering another human being is wrong. This is part of the absolute moral code that is ingrained in every human being on this planet. Even if we leave God completely out of this, and look at this on a biological level (a favourite thing of mine as a science majour ) then we see a moral code stamped on such an action. Biologically speaking, humans are animals, and by your argument, we are nothing more than animals. Therefore, along the same lines of your argument, we should punish people equally for killing a fellow human being, as we should for people killing a goldfish (not that I condone either). In fact, each human on the planet could then be accused of being a mass murder terrorist, every time we wash our hands - in doing so, are we not killing millions of living beings?

So you can deny morals all you like, deny the fact that they are universal, and deny the fact that they are absolute. . . but they're their, and they cannot be denied.

Now, you've said,

I don't feel required to answer to god just because he created me, in fact I rather dislike the fact that he did (assuming he did), and it would have been better for all of us if he had not (Ecclesiastes 4:3).

First off, as an agnostic, I highly advise against your using scripture. It is a book in which you don't believe (but tis another topic). An evolutionist certainly wouldn't add credibility to his argument by quoting somebody in a creationist journal. Nor would a chinese student benefit much by using an english dictionary. But that's beside the point, as the scripture you've quoted is clearly out of context.

1So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are dune under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter, and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

2Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.

3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

The verse that you utilized has nothing to do with denouncing God's creation of us, but rather states that the dead are lucky, for they do not have to endure troubles. They are luckier than the living as well as the unborn, because both will have to face troubles until they are dead.

Secondly, to quote Professor Kirke, "Well what has that to do with it!"

In the quote mentioned above, you say:

I don't feel required to answer to god just because he created me, in fact I rather dislike the fact that he did (assuming he did), and it would have been better for all of us if he had not

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. The fact of the matter is that we as Christians believe that He did. God doesn't care tuppence about what you think on the matter; He created you and that's all there is to it. You're probably right when you say that it would have been better for all of us if he had not (assuming that by this, you mean that God never existed, evil never existed, there is no life after death, etc. . .) because then you could truly say that there were no morals or absolutes. There'd be nothing. . . period. Life would be nothing. . . for when you take away all of the attributes of God. . . there's nothing left (not even existence itself).

You've also claimed that God has no interest in us. What poppycock, my friend! If you do believe that He created us (which I do) then why shouldn't he have an interest in our lives? If I grow a garden from seed, I take an interest in its development. I weed it when it gets ensnared. I prune it, so that it can bare more fruit (even at the pain of the plant), and I water it to ensure its care. I didn't even "create" my garden this year, and yet I look after it, and care for its well-being. How much more could God, who truly did CREATE us, care for us. The entire Deist mindset of that argument, is poppycock if you believe in God at all.

As far as God's existence goes, your argument itself has proven his existence. Evolution is concerned with the success of the organism, but cares nothing about the emotions of the creatures involved. Yet, humans (and some animals too) can think, reason, and feel. Evolution doesn't explain for these any more than it explains where the "primordial soup" came from.

But this is not an evolution debate. . .

The fact that you think that murder is wrong (whether it be first degree or manslaughter) is another proof for God. You see, the fact that every human being on this planet posesses the same idea about murder, and about certain other things, proves that there must be a common denominator. Since it's obvious that evolution via the world cannot produce emotion or thought or feeling, the only other alternative is that this moral code must have come from outside this world. In fact, the mere fact that evil exists in the world at all is proof for the existence of God. Why is modern man so ready to accept the forces of hell as being present in every day lives (via evil, demons, bad-deeds, etc. . . ) whereas they refuse to accept the opposite. Andrew and Gandalf's Beard, both of you have said that evil exists, and yet you don't accept the fact that the alternative exists (the alternative being the Embodiment of all things good, and through whom no good thing could exist)

But as far as the Nazi's go, I agree with you (to a VERY minute extent). However, the creation of a master race not only goes against the laws of thermodynamics, and against the laws of ethics, but also against the very laws of God. To create a master race, you need a certain amount of ingredients (much like baking a cake):

A: A group of people narcissistic enough to think that "THEIR" idea of a master race is "THE" idea of a master race (aka, my logic is better than yours)

B: Mass slaughter of anybody not willing to fit into their plan (lest they contaminate a pure gene pool)

C: A more or less lawless nation.

D: A person in charge of all this, who would more or less be psychopathic

E: A group of people large enough to make a difference, and yet small enough to control (after all. . .who wants to be "weeded" out first?)

F: Godlessness.

G: The idea that perfection can be obtained.

What the Germans messed up (apart from all of it) was the very last one. They thought that perfection could be obtained this side of heaven. . . but it cannot. By their very logic, they have defeated themselves, for perfection must therefore come from imperfection. These egotistical, godless, and eugenic ideas have gained scorn from people of all nations (thus proving the fact that a moral code exists against murder. . . as well as torture)

In closing, I ask you this quick question. . . You said that it was all right for individuals to have their own set of morals, but that their morals were no better than anybody else's. What I have to ask you is this: What gives you the right to make this statement? What cosmic event has occured that has given you the right to say what is moral and what is not. When it comes right down to it, you are using your own set of moral codes (the moral codes of agnosticism) to judge Christians for what you must view as "silly, worn-out beliefs." But when it comes right down to it one is left with merely this. . . It takes as much for a person to believe that there is no God, as it takes to believe that there is a God. And when you come to the end of your life, which would you rather have believed? Would you rather come to the end of your life, finding that all of your religion was false, and that there was no God (assuming that we can think when we no longer exist) or would you rather stand before The Almighty, as He says, "Depart from me. . . I never knew you," and you are cast into a fire that burneth forever.

Interesting things to consider. . .

Good points to consider, but wrong as you made assumptions about me base on part of what I've said. For example:

You clearly state, right here, that it doesn't matter how the person is killed, they're dead, and that's the important bit. I agree with you on this matter; however, you have still arrived at the conclusion that murdering another human being is wrong. This is part of the absolute moral code that is ingrained in every human being on this planet.

I do not believe murder is morally wrong. It is dusruptive to the society we have, forsure, but not inherently wrong.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. The fact of the matter is that we as Christians believe that He did. God doesn't care tuppence about what you think on the matter; He created you and that's all there is to it.

That's basically why I will never serve him, or even like him.

You've also claimed that God has no interest in us. What poppycock, my friend! If you do believe that He created us (which I do) then why shouldn't he have an interest in our lives? If I grow a garden from seed, I take an interest in its development. I weed it when it gets ensnared.

As far as God's existence goes, your argument itself has proven his existence. Evolution is concerned with the success of the organism, but cares nothing about the emotions of the creatures involved.

My arguments concering God's existance are only "what-if" arguments. If God exists, then he is impersonal. You make the assumption here that God would be just like you - care if he plants something. Not everyone who creates, cares.

In closing, I ask you this quick question. . . You said that it was all right for individuals to have their own set of morals, but that their morals were no better than anybody else's. What I have to ask you is this: What gives you the right to make this statement? What cosmic event has occured that has given you the right to say what is moral and what is not. When it comes right down to it, you are using your own set of moral codes (the moral codes of agnosticism) to judge Christians for what you must view as "silly, worn-out beliefs."

It is not I who made it that way; that is just the way it is. Right and wrong may not exist, but facts do. And seperating fact from lie is the hard part, isn't it?

Also you said something about it's better to risk your life on God than not. Read back a couple of pages to my Tom Robbins quote for my answer to that.

Here is the real issue with eugenics. Is has absolutely nothing to do with what it claims. Eugenics claims to better society through the elimination of 'lesser genes' and reducing population to 'managable levels'. In reality, that is not what they are after. They are after control and power. The only people they want alive are the ones that will benefit them the most according to their standards. They claim there are no aboslute standards but thier own, and they want everyone else to live by them. And like with the Nazi's the first ones to go are the Christians. History has proved it time and time again. And if eugenics had control when I was a child, I would likely be dead or put in a hospital where I would be ignored and forgotten by society. And I make that statement without considering my or my family's faith. Doctors told me many times I had no hope, but my parents and God said otherwise. And I am living, walking proof that there is a God who cares about us.

Andrew, it sounds to me that your arguments for moral conduct and right and wrong are really more along the lines of ethics. Ethics are the debatable stuff that according to thier studies, don't really have an answer. But here is something to really think about. The issue of right and wrong being each for his own has this critical assumption in its foundation: that our choices do not affect any one else but me. This is dangerously flawed.

Let's take a buisness example. An employee at a Best Buy (electronics store for those that don't know) thinks it is right to quietly stash away a CD or DVD for testing so he can make sure his customers are getting the right info on what they are buying. When the shipment comes in with a case of 24 items, he marks down 23 came in and pockets the one. Does it affect anyone? Absolutely. The store purchased 24 items and it is a simple matter of theft.

Smoking is a huge one. People who want to smoke in public say it is thier buisness and no one should interfere with them, because it doesn't affect anyone. Well, when I go to a city park, I want to breathe fresh air, not someone's nicotine. I can smell it a fair distance away. Both the smoker and I can't be right at the same time. Yet in a society where there are no set standards, there is an impass. This is just a small example of how this logic does not come to a logical conclusion.

And finally, Andrew, you claimed that you don't feel that you have to answer to God. That's fine, if you are correct. But if what the Bible says is true, it does not matter what you or I think. God is not responsible to us, but we are responsible to him. Like or not, that is the way it is, if the Bible is true. I can believe 2+2=5 as hard and persistantly as I possibly could and nobody could prove to me otherwise. That does not change the fact that 2+2=4.

One of the other things that many people either don't understand or realize is that in this big story that God is telling us, we do have a villian. God did create the being Lucifer as an angel of Light, the most powerful, most beautiful angel in the universe. He rebelled due to pride and is the root cause of all evil in this world. God has allowed evil to take place on earth, for reasons few of us ever get a glimpse as to why. But God uses those evil things and turns them around for good. He is also in a battle against Satan for us. He beat him once at the cross to open the way for us to be united with him again, and he will beat him for good at the end of the times. I can't explain all of God's actions as to why he does what he does, but it is not my position to do so or to try to defend him, as though he needed me to. But I do understand that there is a purpose and a plan to all of it and one day, likely in hindsight, I will see how it all works together.

I do not believe murder is morally wrong. It is dusruptive to the society we have, forsure, but not inherently wrong.

Um. . . wow. Why don't you believe that murder is wrong? Can you think of any circumstance where cold-blooded murder is a good thing? Where it isn't wrong?

That's basically why I will never serve him, or even like him.

I don't mean to sound rude, but that sounds a wee bit close-minded to me. And to be honest, that's the choice that God gives to each and every one of us. God never sends anybody to hell. . . we choose to go there of our own free will. (FREE-WILLY HERE!!!!)

If God exists, then he is impersonal. You make the assumption here that God would be just like you - care if he plants something. Not everyone who creates, cares.

And you are making the counter-assumption that you know God's attributes better than somebody who has served God to the best of his ability since age four. And to be honest, we can never know if "Not everyone who creates, care" because nobody can ever "create" anything.

It is not I who made it that way; that is just the way it is. Right and wrong may not exist, but facts do. And seperating fact from lie is the hard part, isn't it?

Really? Where is the proof that that's just the way it is. If anything is true, the facts point in just the opposite direction. Facts do exist, and despite your view that murder is okay, and eugenics are okay, and the Nazi's weren't that bad, etc. . . most other cultures, societies and individuals concur (pretty much broad-spectrum concurrance) that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, etc. . . . . Look it up; these are more or less the ten commandments.

You said that separating lie from truth is the hard part, but by your standards it shouldn't be that hard at all. If lying and telling the truth are morally equal, then it shouldn't matter which one is believed.

Digs, I actually agree with quite a bit of your posts. CS Lewis in The Abolition of Man makes a solid case for the Universality for a basic set of Moral Principles, and that they have some basis in Nature (leaving aside the question of God for the moment).

I have to say Andrew, that the definition of Murder, vs killing in Self Defense, by Accident, or to prevent the Murder of a great number of people (and so on), is inherently a rather absolute definition. Murder implies that the killing was not justified, or mitigated by any circumstances. This is an Absolute Moral definition of the term.

That we have a set of judicial standards that distinguishes between Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide, etc. is where the Relativism comes into play. This is in large part what I mean when I say that Morality is a tension between a basic Universal Moral Standard which rests on an Absolute, and Relativism. The Golden Rule is essentially that Moral Absolute, and it is endemic to nearly every culture in existence.

Where I disagree with Digs, is that this basic principle is a proof of God's existence. But it does indicate an advanced ability to Reason, and this alone could be indicative of Natural Selection as not all life-forms have evolved to the point of expressing Reason. Though it certainly is not a disproof of God's existence either.

Also Digs, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Andrew and I agree that Evil exists. Andrew has stood rather squarely on the side that "Evil" does not exist as an Objective Phenomenon (i.e. he thinks it's ALL Relative). Whereas I DO think that Evil can be Objectively defined. And Nazism is an ideology that seems to Objectively embody Evil to me.

And I should point out that I do not believe that a Supernatural Being that embodies ALL that is "Evil" in Opposition to ALL that is Good (Satan) exists, any more than I believe that the Opposite (God as the embodiment of ALL that is "Good") exists. My own position is that any possible Panentheistic Entity, would embody both the "Creative" and "Destructive" forces in balance. And indeed, on that level, terms such as "Good" and "Evil" seem all too Relative. In other words, Objective Human standards of Good and Evil would not apply to the "God" level of Reality.

In a way, I think this echoes a bit what some of you (including the good Doctor among others) have said in the past about God's "Justice" being beyond Human Standards. I would disagree with the way many Christians frame/contextualize the point (by putting it in terms of "justice" which I think is a decidedly Human concept, applied to an Anthropomorphized Deity). But I don't disagree with the principle behind it, as interpreted through a Panentheistic lens.

GB

Andrew, I have a couple of questions:

You claim to be an agnostic, meaning that we cannot know whether there is a God or not. Here is my question: why can't we? You are categorically excluding the possibility that God could reveal Himself, as He has.

Secondly, you are seeming to set up some sort of standard. You claim not to believe in right and wrong, yet you are assigning some sort of blame to this God, claiming that there is something unfair about His ways. You keep making normative statements and trying to claim that they should apply to a God who, if He exists, is judge over you, not the other way round. So there are two problems: a) your criticisms cannot apply to God since He answers to no one but Himself b) even if you could judge him, your very use of normative language would be self-referentially incoherent.

Indeed it is, but unlike morality, it is based in reason that has no overriding answer to why it is "wrong."

Why should we be reasonable? You are assuming a normative standard.

The Nazis had a good idea, but their methodoligy was disruptive (please note that I am NOT in any way condoning their barbaric actions).

Well seeing as you can't condone or blame anyone for anything under your own system . . .

Also, if right and wrong were natural, true things, why must we be taught them (rather that instinctually know them), and why can our veiws on them change?

Because we are sinners and have a sin nature. I can account for this just as well as you can, my friend.

Right and wrong may not exist, but facts do.

How do you know that facts exist? Upon what do you base this assertion?

All knowledge involves faith because all knowledge involves belief. My friend, you have a sad philosophy: I really do pity you. Living for pleasure without purpose---I can understand why you'd be depressed: sounds incredibly boring.

Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else . . .

The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless -- one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything. The Tolstoyan's will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite's will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is -- well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads.

TBG

TBG:
You claim to be an agnostic, meaning that we cannot know whether there is a God or not. Here is my question: why can't we? You are categorically excluding the possibility that God could reveal Himself, as He has.

I think you're setting up a bit of a Straw Man. Agnostic can also imply that one cannot PROVE knowledge of God. And in fairness to Andrew (who might not be stating things as clearly as he could), I think you are conflating his position vis a vis how he perceives the Christian view of God with his own non-committed view of Theism in general.

GB

Agnostic can also imply that one cannot PROVE knowledge of God.

What kind of proof are we talking?

EDIT: also, what would you make of this?

TBG

@ TBG,

As Jesus said, if they would not believe the prophets, they would not believe if the dead were raised. Miracles alone cannot change a heart. Only God can.

Also, if right and wrong were natural, true things, why must we be taught them (rather that instinctually know them), and why can our veiws on them change?

We don't need to be taught to do wrong; such a statement is absurd, when put to the test. Do parents ever need to teach their children how to lie? Do they need to teach them to live unchaste lives? Do they need to teach them how to sin, period? The answer is no! Children are deceptive from the moment they come out of the womb. Babies cry, when they don't need anything, merely to get their parents to come to them (a form of lying). They take things that don't belong to them, merely because they want it (covetuousness and theft). Along with a myriad of other things.

However, parents do have to teach their children to do right.

Why? Because of man's inherent sin nature. Anybody who tells you that "man is basically good," obviously has never had children, and hasn't spent very much time around society. When sin entered into the world, and death by sin, a sin nature passed upon all human beings. This sin nature is passed from father to child (which is why it is so important that Jesus had no earthly father), and infects every one of us. . . there are no exceptions. The Bible clearly states this fact throughout Scripture, but even lying Scripture aside, one can clearly look on the way the world is, and see that man never has to be taught how to do wrong, only what is right. And unfortnately, many people are never taught to do right, leading us further and further towards the godless society that we are becoming.

We don't need to be taught to do wrong; such a statement is absurd, when put to the test. Do parents ever need to teach their children how to lie? Do they need to teach them to live unchaste lives? Do they need to teach them how to sin, period? The answer is no!

These are not universal wrongs. They are subjective depending on the mores of the society in question. Society A may condone lying in certain situations, where Society B may condemn it unconditionally. Society C may condone premarital sex as a sign of proper fertility, where Society D condemns it as being unchaste.

Children are deceptive from the moment they come out of the womb. Babies cry, when they don't need anything, merely to get their parents to come to them (a form of lying). They take things that don't belong to them, merely because they want it (covetuousness and theft). Along with a myriad of other things.

A child crying to get a parent to come to them obviously means they need their parent to come to them, even if that need is just physical comfort. That's a need, and therefore not deceptive.

This sin nature is passed from father to child (which is why it is so important that Jesus had no earthly father), and infects every one of us. . . there are no exceptions.

Really? This may be something of an out there question, then, but if the Bible acknowledges that sin passes father to son and it was so vitally important that Jesus not have this sin-passing earthly father, why are women the ones condemned as being unclean and unworthy in the societal rules set down in the Bible? I've read here before where this question has been answered with "women equally pass sin nature", and yet it was vitally important that Jesus not have an earthly father, while an earthly mother was just fine. I don't want to restart the "God suspended Mary from passing sin nature" theories again, I'm asking from a purely societal, cultural point of view. If it's the men who pass the sin, why do the women do cultural/societal penance by being stratified as lesser?

why are women the ones condemned as being unclean and unworthy in the societal rules set down in the Bible?

They aren't---that's medieval monkish nonsense mixed with Greek philosophy. The reformation cleared up that muddle (cue Katharine von Bora taking a bow).

But really, why are you passing judgment on a culture not your own in the first place?

TBG

why are women the ones condemned as being unclean and unworthy in the societal rules set down in the Bible?

They aren't---that's medieval monkish nonsense mixed with Greek philosophy. The reformation cleared up that muddle (cue Katharine von Bora taking a bow).

But really, why are you passing judgment on a culture not your own in the first place?

TBG

It wasn't a judgment, it was an honest question born out of curiosity and confusion. It simply didn't make sense to me that it was accepted that men were the ones passing the sin nature, and yet the structure and voice of the society is such that the male creative (sexual) power is so venerated. I'm just asking for clarification from people I know to be knowledgeable.

But isn't the passing of judgment on a culture not their own kind of the base of any conversion-based religion? Aren't they judging the other culture to be wrong and therefore in need of conversion?

But isn't the passing of judgment on a culture not their own kind of the base of any conversion-based religion? Aren't they judging the other culture to be wrong and therefore in need of conversion?

Well yes, we are (I prefer to speak of redeeming culture), but we're consistent in doing it because we have an absolute standard.

It simply didn't make sense to me that it was accepted that men were the ones passing the sin nature, and yet the structure and voice of the society is such that the male creative (sexual) power is so venerated.

What exactly do you mean by this? Christianity, from its earliest period, appealed to women and held them in much higher esteem than the culture of the time. Over half of the greetings in the letters of St. Paul are directed toward women, and women seem to have played vital (non-leadership) roles in the churches he wrote to.

TBG

Oh TBG, surely we are long past our debates on epistemology . Empirical Evidence is the only verifiable "proof" of anything in the end. And yet, you know me enough by now to know that I do not think Empiricism is the Be All and End All of Knowledge. One can have Knowledge without Certain Proof.

One can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God (though that doesn't mean God might not exist). And indeed Fencer, Miracles alone do not prove the existence of God.

And TBG, surely you know your Bible better than to ascribe the numerous passages therein that delineate for women an inferior status to "Medieval Monkish Nonsense" and "Greek Philosophy". Was Leviticus Medieval or Greek? I think not. And lest you should try to claim that Hebraic Law was overturned by Christ, there are plenty of similar passages in the NT:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

However, the fact that you are willing to consider such passages "Nonsense" is testimony to your ability see past, and rise above, some of the Bible's more sticky bits to find the Spiritual truths within . One should not throw out the Babywith the Bathwater.

Digs, I am actually a bit shocked at your vehement mis-characterization of Children. Maenad's response seems well reasoned to me. Lying is a learned behaviour that requires Language. Humans, like all creatures, are neither inherently Good or Evil from Birth (though people are born with greater or lesser abilities to empathize). Right and Wrong are BOTH learned concepts.

GB