Christ welcomes you to His feast

PETER,

Let's face it, we are going to disrupt whatever the current topic is that is going on there. Since that is usually the case I would prefer a panel member that has less traffic.

I dunno, Peter. I noticed on the thread Walter suggested that there has not been a post in 3 days. Think maybe we should stay with it?

I think they all jumped over to here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2011/01/getting_angry_at_god.html

Been having a little fun over there myself. The atheists have worked themselves into quite a lather over Hirschfield's blog. It is comical to say the least.

Not sure why our discussion on this thread has died off. TW seems to have disappeared.

Have you seen any sign of PEREGRINE elsewhere? Pam?

At present this link does not have much traffic,

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/max_carter/2011/01/first_faith_challenge_of_2011.html

Let's face it, we are going to disrupt whatever the current topic is that is going on there. Since that is usually the case I would prefer a panel member that has less traffic.

PETER,

The new link does seem awfully busy.

It does indeed. What do you think, Walter?

Hi everyone,

The new link does seem awfully busy.

Reminder

This thread hits the 14 day mark today. If/when it times out, per Walter's suggestion, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/12/whats_your_new_years_prayer.html#comments

GOLDENSPACECADET,

Part 1 of 2

What represents in your view, the best single example of the “inconsistencies”/”contradictions”/”insanity” that you refer to?

Time and space certainly preclude an exhaustive response as your posts are case-studies in contradiction and inconsistency. I’ll cite some of the most glaring. You state:

Contrary to the criteria set forth by the Master himself, Rcofield demands that he be given this gift without making any effort whatsover.

Setting aside the absurdity that I make demands of Christ, you seem unfamiliar with the concept of a gift being unearned. That is precisely why it is called a “gift.” No “effort” is necessary in the receiving of a gift. That the gift of salvation cannot be earned or merited is perfectly clear in scripture. Your above statement is both logically and biblically inconsistent, even nonsensical.

Salvation is not free. Salvation does not come without effort.

Salvation, by definition, is both free (for us—it was certainly not “free” for God) and can only be accomplished by God. Your above statement is again both logically and biblically inconsistent. The entire first three chapters of Romans make the air-tight case that no man will be justified in the sight of God by works of the law. Only God can justify (save) unworthy sinners. Your postulate here is completely antithetical to the whole of scripture.

You are confusing the doing of good works (obedience) out of sheer gratitude for so great a salvation and the doing of good works (obedience) to earn salvation (which cannot be done). Common mistake, but an unnecessary mistake if one but reads the scripture.

GOLDENSPACECADET,

Part 2 of 2

As for outright contradictions, you first fabricate a case out of thin air that I “hate 1 BILLION CATHOLICS.” You then declare that I have a “demon” in my “astral plane” “pressing on my feeling world.” This you do all the while posting one post after another literally dripping with your hatred toward homosexuals. Methinks the contradiction is self-evident: If your accusation against me were correct (it is not), you are trying to remove the speck of dust from your brother’s eye all the while housing and entire timber in your own.

Another glaring contradiction emerges when you contend that “If we can fulfill those promises (walk on water/raise the dead, etc.), ONLY THEN will we be sure that our conception of God is correct.” You are capable of none of these things, yet you are quite sure that my conception of God (though drawn from His Word) is quite incorrect. How the law of non-contradiction does suffer at your keyboard.

Another glaringly contradictory postulation is your insistence the we “fulfill” the promise of Christ. As if Christ, who has been given all power and authority in heaven and earth is somehow impotently dependent on us to fulfill His promises. This is an utterly ludicrous position on your part.

As for insanity, your postulation that you are a reincarnated apostle/disciple of Christ—who walked with Him and listened to His public discourses—would have to rank near the top of the list among the most psychotic things I’ve seen posted on these threads. Your contention that you will eventually be able to walk on water, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead would run a close second.

Of course, I’m sure you recognize none of this. There is none so blind as he who refuses to behold himself in the mirror of the everlasting Word of Truth.

GoldenEagles, your understanding of Scripture is shamefully pitiful. Salvation is a gift of God, not something that can be earned by our good works.

God has done everything necessary to save His people from their sins, including wooing us by His Son, Spirit and word, meeting all His righteous requirements in Christ for us, providing the perfect sacrifice that is acceptable to Him, and changing our nature by giving us a spirit that is receptive to Him and His will.

It is not by what we can do but by what He has done for us.

Where does your mystically false authority come from? You are constantly twisting and misrepresenting what He has said.

Rcofield says, “ ... your posts are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, not to mention outright insanity ... “

Given the fact that my last two posts represent my highest and best expression of truth of which I am currently capable of expressing in relationship to this subject area, I would have to ask you for some clarification regarding this triune mud ball you have thrown in my direction.

1. What represents in your view, the best single example of the “inconsistencies” that you refer to? Just one example. The single most egregious “inconsistency” in your view.

2. What represents in your view, the best example of the “contradictions” that you refer to? Just one example. The single most egregious “contradiction” in your view.

3. What represents in your view, the best example of the “outright insanity” that you refer to? Just one example. The single most stunning expression of “outright insanity” in your view.

GOLDENSPACECADET

If we can fulfill those promises (Jn. 14:12), ONLY THEN will we be sure that our conception of God is correct.

So...I'll ask you again. For the third time. Have you learned to "walk on water," "turn water into wine," "give sight to the blind," "heal the lame," and "raise the dead"?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Hence, by your own measure, you do not know whether your "conception" of God is "correct."

You really have no idea how to defend your views in head-to-head debate, do you?

Ah, well. I guess it's just as well. Your posts are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, not to mention outright insanity--those cannot be rationally defended.

Reality Check - John 14:12 - Part 1

From the very dawn of time, it has been well known, and well understood, that mankind has, within the dark and self-centered imagination, both the inherent capacity and the self-serving desire to twist and distort the very Defintion of God to match the shape and form of the self-centered needs and desires of the human ego. Over the long march of the centuries, the adherents of every religion have done this from one extent to another. And this has led to the ruin of every known civilization.

That is why the Master Jesus Christ gave us a reality check in the promise recorded in John 14:12.

John 14:12 - Verily Verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my father.

If we can fulfill those promises, ONLY THEN will we be sure that our conception of God is correct.

Rcofield is a perfect illustration of this capacity to fashion a “god” within the imagination, in accordance with the wishes of the human ego.

In this regard, as Rcofield listens to the promise of the Master Jesus Christ, pertaining to salvation, we hear him day in and day out panting after the Lord to give him the gift of salvation on a silver platter.

Contrary to the criteria set forth by the Master himself, Rcofield demands that he be given this gift without making any effort whatsover.

(more)

Reality Check - John 14:12 - Part 2

Why is Rcofield so absorbed in this illusion that salvation MUST COME without effort? It is because Rcofield does not want to make any effort.

In fact, Rcofield has woven his own philosophy out of his own entrenched refusal to make the necessary effort, and over that philosophy, he has draped the golden rove of Biblical Sanctity. Indeed, every square peg in this philosophy of no effort, Rcofield forces into the round hole of every passage in the Bible. Every one in the world sees the piles of sawdust at his feet, except for Rcofield. Rcofield refuses to see it. He is the lazy kind of spiritual devotee.

In order that his “god” be worthy of his adoration, he must make that “god” conform to his desire to be spiritually lazy, and thus he fashions the very person of Jesus Christ into that very image, as the Lord that will give Rcofield what Rcofield wants, without any effort whatsoever. In as much as Rcofield worships a Christ who will give him salvation on a silver platter, according to the rules Rcofield has established in his own brain, to that extent he worships a false christ. One that he has manufactured in the image of his own polluted desire nature.

The promise given in John 14:12 was given for people just like Rcofield. When the Master spoke those words, he had Rcofield in his mind’s eye as the archetype of the lazy devotee.

Salvation is not free. Salvation does not come without effort. CHANGE is required.

And it takes a mighty effort to change. And this is what Rcofield refuses to do.

Here is a simple and obvious change Rcofield could make. Rcofield could stop hating One Billion Catholics. Rcofield could stop standing on the edge of the very pit of hell, with his arms folded in such smug satisfaction, as he imagines these one billion Catholics all burning in hell, and for eternity.

Rcofield calls that love. But that is a cold-hearted hatred.

Let the New Year Begin with Truth.

(end)

WALTER,

Good to hear from you.

rco, i'll address your "first cause" and the HUUUGE unwarranted leap you make from that to the god of the ancient israelites soon.

Take a closer look. I am not arguing (yet) for the "god of the ancient israelites." Read my whole two-part post again, then look closely at the last paragraph of part 2.

i'd like to try this one because it's a "right-side-up": new comments are at the bottom. to my way of thinking this is mush easier to follow along - especially with the many multiple-post comments you guys make. if that's too much to adapt to or if you just don't like it, we can go back to these upside-down ones...

Sounds good to me.

rco, i'll address your "first cause" and the HUUUGE unwarranted leap you make from that to the god of the ancient israelites soon.

if/when this thread runs out, shall we go here?

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/12/whats_your_new_years_prayer.html#comments

i'd like to try this one because it's a "right-side-up": new comments are at the bottom. to my way of thinking this is mush easier to follow along - especially with the many multiple-post comments you guys make. if that's too much to adapt to or if you just don't like it, we can go back to these upside-down ones...

oh, peter... we've been through this many times: whence morals w/o god?

do you really think if you were atheist that you'd choose to go out and start lying, murdering and stealing? really?

i presume you suppose that morals come from YOUR god? so you'd have to explain why non-christian societies aren't "anything goes".

i'll address this AGAIN, further, if you like.

i'll be back.

(i thought i posted this a long time ago, but apparently i didn't.)

GOLDENEAGLES,

What could be considered a better example than the “Holier than Thou” posturing of the religiously robed human ego, than Rcofield’s hatred of ONE BILLION Catholics?

Umm...your unilateral hatred of homosexuals? That seems to be quite real, unlike your utterly fabricated contention that I hate Catholics.

You never responded to my series "GoldenEagles Got a Booger in His Belfry." Does that have you stumped?

CORRECTION:

Though you reject the eternality of “God,” you embrace and eternality of “natural causes.”

Should read:

Though you reject the eternality of “God,” you embrace an eternality of “natural causes.”

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

OK. Let’s compare our respective hypotheses regarding the origin or cause of the universe. We are (I think) in agreement of the following points:

The observable universe is amazing and awe-inspiring.
Our universe had a beginning (probably the “Big Bang”).
The universe is a closed system and is “winding down,” degenerating if you will, due to the randomization of energy as explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Hence, the “universe” as we know it will come to an end.
An “effect” cannot “cause” itself. Every known “effect” is dependent on a “cause” outside of itself for its existence.
For every known “effect” there is a first and moving “cause.”
The “cause” of the universe is beyond the current purview of science. Any speculation about the origin of the universe is therefore philosophical in nature.

Our respective hypotheses can be summed up as follows:

Your hypothesis concerning the origin if the universe is that it was “caused” by a “natural” cause. You contend that we yet DO NOT KNOW the “cause,” but you are “going with” a “natural cause” because we have found “natural causes” for much of what was once thought to be supernatural.
My hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe is that it was “caused” by a super-natural cause, namely the self-existent God of scripture.

We are generally in agreement on all but our conclusions, so I’ll focus on that.

First, your conclusion that the universe is the result of “natural causes” requires that whatever natural cause caused the “effect” of the universe itself must be explained in terms of natural causes. In other words, once a natural cause for the universe is determined, that cause itself must have been the result of yet another natural cause. Once the “cause of the cause” is determined, then that cause then begs a “natural cause” explanation. Your philosophical naturalism requires an infinite regression of causes, hence the first and moving cause of all things can never actually be determined.

Secondly, your philosophical naturalism (which, by default, determines that the first and moving cause of the universe can never be discovered—hence it does not exist) runs completely counter (logically) to the principles of the scientific method itself. The law of causality is indispensible when it comes to the natural sciences. Ultimately, lack of knowledge as to cause is the starting point of all inquiry, including both scientific and philosophical inquiry. Your position (philosophical naturalism) insists that we can never know the first and moving cause of the universe and is therefore a self-refuting philosophy.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

Thirdly—and this is where Occam’s Razor becomes applicable—your position requires the endless multiplication of explanatory entities (causes). Though you reject the eternality of “God,” you embrace and eternality of “natural causes.” This is illogical because everything in the “natural” (or material) universe demonstrates beyond doubt that matter and energy are not “eternal.” This undermines your position in two points. First, it precludes your being able to argue for the eternality of matter. And secondly, it eliminates you being able to argue (rationally) against the eternality of God.

Conversely, my position is this: The “effect” of the universe requires a first (and ultimately eternal) first and moving cause. Unless we claim the irrationality of an infinite regression of causes, the ultimate cause of the universe must possess the power of being within itself. By definition, only such an entity could be an “uncaused” cause—that is, a cause that is dependent of nothing outside itself for its existence. And such an entity would, by definition, be a “God” without rival.

It should be noted here that the law of causality does not require that everything have a cause, only that every effect must have a cause. An eternal object need not have a cause, because it would have the power of being within itself. That matter and energy (the “stuff” of which the universe is made) cannot be eternal is self-evident because it is subject to the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

No less than Aristotle himself argued that the existence of a supreme being was necessary simply because events require a cause, and there needs to be an uncaused (or first) cause in order to make sense of the world. The limitations of the natural sciences in determining the first cause of the universe are self-evident.

In the end, the use of Occam’s Razor renders the hypothesis of philosophical naturalism an inferior hypothesis to philosophical theism. The “God hypothesis” eliminates the “multiplication” of explanatory entities AND halts the irrational “infinite regress” of causes.

While I am aware that my arguments do not “prove” that the Judeo-Christian God is the “first cause” of the universe (I have other arguments for that), I am convinced that they prove the necessity of a “cause” outside of and separate from matter/energy ("natural" causes).

What think ye?

Happy New Year, Walter. I am looking forward to our continued dialog in 2011.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Did you have too much to drink New Year's Eve, or are you just still sore about the resounding defeat of DADT?

I find it amusingly ironic that, after "resurrecting" and beating a non-existent dead horse--working yourself into a self-righteous metaphorical lather in the process--you then conclude with this little gem of a rhetorical flourish:

Let the New Year Begin with Truth.

Indeed. You would do well to heed your own postulate.

A good starting point for you would be here:

John 17:17b (Father [note the absence of "Momma God"])....your Word is truth.

BTW: Have you learned to "walk on water," "turn water into wine," "give sight to the blind," "heal the lame," and "raise the dead" in your protracted absence from our discussion? Are you "fulfilling the promise of the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12"? ;-)

(Revised)

What could be considered a better example than the “Holier than Thou” posturing of the religiously robed human ego, than Rcofield’s hatred of ONE BILLION Catholics?

See these one billion Catholics spread out on a vast plain, stretching to the very horizon and beyond, indeed, standing with eyes dazed in the hot and scorching sun of their own abject ignorance before Rcofield’s refreshingly high altar, built as it is, upon an alabaster platform tall enough for every eye to behold.

There we see Rcofield perched and beaming, as the high priest, in a towering golden pulpit to boot, declaring to the gathered masses, “Hear Me Now, for the Sake of Your Very Souls, all of you Ignorant Catholics.” The voice booms across the plains, even like unto the voice of God. And the people stand with gaping mouths, stunned at the majestic melodiousness of his voice.

Says he, “I Am Rcofield, and I Am Holier Than Thou.” The multitudes stand frozen in awe, and a great roaring sound is heard across the plain as hundreds of millions of Bibles drop out of now useless hands, and onto the sun baked ground.

As the echoing roar dies down to a distant din, Rcofield holds high a radiant golden scepter, proclaiming, “Be at peace, my brethren, with the order of the universe, as I have declared it to you. But slacken not, ye fools, and grasp quickly the golden ring of wisdom now, and Hearken to my word, or you will all burn in hell” sweeping his hand in a dramatic fashion across the face of the gathered multitudes, expecting all to bend the knee before him, and worship his crown of wisdom, if not his distorted and hate-riddled heart.

Let the New Year Begin with Truth.

What could be considered a better example than the “Holier than Thou” posturing of the religiously robed human ego, than Rcofield’s hatred of one billion Catholics? See these one billion Catholics spread out on a vast plain before his high altar in clear view of all of these Catholics, with Rcofield, standing, as the high priest, in a towering golden pulpit, declaring to the gathered masses, “I, Rcofield, Am holier than thou.” Says he, “Hearken to my word, or you will all burn in hell” sweeping his hand in a dramatic fashion across the gathered multitudes, expecting all to bend the knee before him, and worship his crown of wisdom, if not his distorted and hatred riddled heart.

Let the New Year Begin with Truth.

TW,

TWM: Yes, there are various translations available and not all agree. Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder". But one wonders, doesn’t that make my point?
As we’ve discussed, I’ve stated that your reading of the bible is based on your “interpretation. If even experts at language translation can’t agree as to the correct translation then why would you contend that your understanding is the one and true understanding?

There really is no confusion on this issue. As I pointed out, the oldest manuscripts (of which there are literally thousands—substantially more than for any other literature of antiquity) in both the Hebrew and Greek use the respective terms for “murder.” There is no disagreement among linguist. I can offer you tons of scholarship on biblical interpretation if necessary.

Additionally, there are allowances for self-defense contained within the OT law, so the sixth commandment is clearly not a unilateral prohibition against killing. Context, TW, context.

You do realize that if you applied the same interpretive principles to all other documents that you are applying to scripture there would be no document in all of literature that could be understood, don't you? This would include your own software licensing agreements. :-)

Have you already set me straight on my misunderstanding regarding three sets of commandments? If you have, then please refer me to your post which does so. If not, I’ll await your reply.

I addressed that @ December 30, 2010 10:53 AM

In the meantime, I’m working on a more detailed discussion on the “art” of discernment.

Did you see my comments on that issue @ December 30, 2010 10:49 AM and December 30, 2010 10:44 AM?

Hi TWMatthews,

Sorry to hear about your mom. I will leave that post to RCofield. Alzheimer's is a sad, sad disease and I hope a cure is found soon.

DANNYINTHEPUPPYSPLAYPEN,

I don't understand your point. It is pointless and time-consuming to go round and round arguing this silly stuff. Most people here offer brief opinions and comments.

Silly stuff? What do you find “silly” about, say, my latest exchange with TWMATTHEWS?

And yes, I know “most people here offer brief opinions and comments.” That’s because most people here aren’t even aware that they have a worldview, let alone know how to defend or give rational evidence to support their worldview. Need I tell you who I have in mind?

Maybe sometimes, I have to take the clothes out of the washing machine and put the into the dryer, or I maybe sometimes I am not at home, while you are all engrossed in your thirteenth century discourse.

Yes. It does indeed sound like you are “engrossed” in things far more important than the rest of us.

It is not that I disagree with you; I just do not comprehend how someone living in the 21st century can be so completely off track and wrong as you are.

Are you unaware of the law of non-contradiction?

And are you unaware that there are a good deal more than a few of us out here that find the bible quite applicable to “living in the 21st century”?

You are the one who said earlier, the Evolution is preposterous, and the science is a fraud,….

I have never said that science is a fraud. You have simply chosen to believe that I said science is a fraud.

…yet you pop your zinger quotes straight from the Bible,….

So…you think my quoting a passage which states that the heart of man is deceitful and wicked is a “zinger”? Do you live in a vacuum?

And why do you think my quoting the bible bothers you so much?

…. as though quoting like that makes you better and more intelligent, and as if you have proved someting.

Was that over your head?

I don't get it.

Apparently it was.

Would you like for me to explain in detail for you how that passage applies to your statement to which I was responding?

What is the point in wasting time on this stuff,…

I don’t know, Danny. Why do you “waste time on this stuff”?

…unless, it is just a time-killing hobby that you like to do; in that case, go ahead and do it.

Why, thank you, Danny. Your magnanimity is breathtaking.

Hello Peterhuff and RCOfield,

RCO said, This is no difficulty at all. A quick word-search on the Hebrew term translated “kill” in the 10 commandments will yield what should be self-evident—the obvious conclusion that the prohibition is against murder.

TWM: Yes, there are various translations available and not all agree. Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder". But one wonders, doesn’t that make my point?

As we’ve discussed, I’ve stated that your reading of the bible is based on your “interpretation. If even experts at language translation can’t agree as to the correct translation then why would you contend that your understanding is the one and true understanding?

Have you already set me straight on my misunderstanding regarding three sets of commandments? If you have, then please refer me to your post which does so. If not, I’ll await your reply. In the meantime, I’m working on a more detailed discussion on the “art” of discernment.

TW,

Thanks for your response to my question about feeding tubes. Your love for your mother is self-evident in your posts and I find it grippingly poignant. My heart goes out to you and your family.

I know I had asked you to let me address that issue before you responded to my last series of posts, but, if you will, go ahead and respond. I think it will probably work better for me to incorporate my position on feeding tubes into…my response to your response…if that makes any sense. :-)

Hi Daniel,

It is not that I disagree with you; I just do not comprehend how someone living in the 21st century can be so completely off track and wrong as you are. - DITLD

But if you think he is wrong you definitely disagree.

You are the one who said earlier, the Evolution is preposterous, and the science is a fraud, yet you pop your zinger quotes straight from the Bible, as though quoting like that makes you better and more intelligent, and as if you have proved someting. - DITLD

I agree that Darwinian evolution is preposterous. It does not have the ability to explain how life comes from non-life, or how a process that in not living, personal, intentional and thinking can produce life that is.

Can you explain it?

RCofiels

"That may explain why you cannot seem to engage in a continuous dialog. You seem to start out with every intention of participating in the dialog, but then abort as soon as someone disagrees with you."

I don't understand your point. It is pointless and time-consuming to go round and round arguing this silly stuff. Most people here offer brief opinions and comments.

Maybe sometimes, I have to take the clothes out of the washing machine and put the into the dryer, or I maybe sometimes I am not at home, while you are all engrossed in your thirteenth century discourse.

It is not that I disagree with you; I just do not comprehend how someone living in the 21st century can be so completely off track and wrong as you are.

You are the one who said earlier, the Evolution is preposterous, and the science is a fraud, yet you pop your zinger quotes straight from the Bible, as though quoting like that makes you better and more intelligent, and as if you have proved someting.

I don't get it.

What is the point in wasting time on this stuff, unless, it is just a time-killing hobby that you like to do; in that case, go ahead and do it.

RCO,

My mother was able to swallow up until the very end. She was hand fed for 5 years. Toward the very end when we knew her death was imminent, she started to lose the ability to swallow and simultaneously, seemed to lose the ability to breath.

It was the inability to breath, once the disease had attacked that part of her brain controlling the autonomic nervous system, which resulted in her death. But as a family, we had decided not to use a feeding tube.

During the course of the disease, about 2 years before my mother's death, my father couldn't bring himself to issue a do not resuscitate order and so he turned over the legal authority for my mother's medical care to his three children. We were the ones who signed the DNR order and decided against feeding tubes at the very end.

What's heart wrenching about this situation were my mother's wishes. On many occasions she told us that she never wanted to spend her last years in a nursing home. It turned out she spent 8+ years in a nursing home the last 5 without any personality, communication or interaction of any kind.

Often times, I think Kevorkian had it right.

TW,

I don't want to be insensitive here, but if you don't mind answering could I ask if your mother was sustained by a feeding tube in the later stages of her Alzheimer's?

If you don't mind divulging that information I would like to respond to that (either way) before you answer my last series of posts. I assure you that I will respond with all the sensitivity of personal experience--coupled, of course, with biblical principles.

TW,

I will be responding but until I have the time, I wanted to mention how much I appreciate the delicacy with which you've addressed these issues.

Given the extent to which we disagree, that is remarkably kind of you.

I thank you for your candor. It is quite commendable.

RCO,

I haven't had a chance to respond to your latest posts or Peter's for that matter. But I did want to dash off a quick note of thanks. Even though I disagree with much of what you've said and the conclusions that you've arrived at, your responses are both well thought out and sensitive to the point of demonstrating real compassion.

For that I thank you and appreciate the interaction.

I will be responding but until I have the time, I wanted to mention how much I appreciate the delicacy with which you've addressed these issues.

TWM

WALTER,

Are you with us on this thread yet?

TW,

Part 1 of 5

I appreciate your responses.

Let's use RCO's example about killing. RCO said, "Abortion. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you think is confusing everyone?" The idea that you can define a moral standard as simply as thou shalt not kill is both overly simplistic, ignores circumstances and is at times itself immoral. What about self defense? Is it okay for you to kill someone while defending yourself? How about to protect your family? There was an awful story of a family in Connecticut that was taken hostage in their own house by two murderers. The wife and daughters were repeatedly raped and then killed and the house was set on fire. If you had to kill these two men to save your family would you? Would your actions be moral or immoral?

This is no difficulty at all. A quick word-search on the Hebrew term translated “kill” in the 10 commandments will yield what should be self-evident—the obvious conclusion that the prohibition is against murder. Likewise, the Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the Hebrew OT uses the Greek word for murder. The English Standard Version accurately translates Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder. By definition, murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice and premeditation. Even the laws of our land—which are, to no small degree, based on the 10 commandments—recognize this, thus it is not unlawful to kill a person in self-defense.

Your position here is a classic example of how those who wish to reject scripture simply throw reason and objective interpretive principles to the wind in an effort to discredit the bible (more on this in the final post of this series). The eternal truths of scripture remain unaffected in the face of such tactics.

So...if I had to kill two such men as you give in your example to protect my family and myself I would do so, and it would not be immoral—both according to scripture AND according to the laws of our land. In fact I have a fully loaded 9mm pistol on a high shelf in my closet reserved for just such a necessary contingency.

What about lying? Is it ever moral to lie?

The description of your mother's battle with Alzheimer's is truly heart-wrenching. I've witnessed the effects of this terrible disease personally, and my heart goes out to you and your family. That must have been difficult beyond mere words.

TW,

Part 2 of 5

We had an elderly couple in my congregation just a few years ago in which the husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. His wife came to me with the exact problem that you described. My counsel to her was simply this: It is never right to lie, regardless of your circumstances. When your husband becomes confused, gently correct him. If he becomes agitated or frustrated, simply change the subject, preferably to something concerning the Word of God (with which the man was very familiar). You wouldn't believe some of the responses that elicited if I told you, but suffice it to say I watched her do exactly that for years with such consistency, grace, and tenderness that it still brings tears to my eyes to recall it. To my knowledge she never lied to him, and her faithfulness to her husband of 60 years produced a testimony that profoundly impacted our entire congregation and community.

Here's an even more interesting question for both of you. My mother spent the last 8 years of her life in a nursing home, the last 7 of which she neither walked nor talked. My father visited my mother virtually every day for those 8 years and spent most of his retirement income caring for her. What is more moral -- letting her cling to no life at all, without any ability to interact, to care for herself or to communicate or even recognize anyone or to allow her to die by withholding food? The law is clear, you can't perform mercy killing. But my moral guidelines, wanting to reduce suffering, says that the moral thing to do -- for both my mother and father -- would be to let her die, even if it meant not feeding her. Is it ever moral to kill?

I know this was incredibly difficult for you and your family, and I am almost hesitant to respond because of your suffering. I don't want to appear insensitive, because I am certainly not insensitive to such suffering. My father died one inch at the time over the course of 2 years from colon cancer, and for the last 3 months he was virtually mindless. But, given that you raised the question, I will try to respond to it with integrity.

As you noted, there are laws against “mercy killing.” The reason there are such laws is because such “killing” is actually premeditated, intentional murder, even though there would probably be no malice involved. The scriptural prohibition AND the laws of our land guard against such. The reason they do so is because we do not give life—only God can give life—and because we do not give life we do not have the “right” to take life. Only the Giver of life possesses that right. Further, as we do not possess perfect knowledge, we simply do not have the level of Divine wisdom necessary to determine when life should end. So, in the end, despite our natural propensity to limit suffering, “mercy killing” is still murder.

TW,

Part 3 of 5

I hope this may be of some consolation to you. I am convinced that those who suffer from Alzheimer's—at least in the latter stages (presumably the point at which you would advocate “mercy killing”)--are not cognizant of their suffering. I think this is self-evident in that they demonstrate no cognizance even of their existence, and suffering presupposes cognizance.

So, in the end, it is more the attending family that suffers. Do you see the problem here? In the case of advanced Alzheimer's, whose suffering would be alleviated by a “mercy killing” if the patient is not cognizant? Do you not see how deceitful our own hearts can be? This, to me, is proof-positive that we simply lack the necessary wisdom to determine when life should be terminated, and it would render “mercy killing” no less than premeditated murder. And that is prohibited both in scripture and in our laws.

Now, according to RCO you would think that God, formulating the most important commandments ever, would be able to duplicate them each time; they would agree down to the last letter. For reference purposes, the third set of 10 commandments are listed in Exodus 34:28 and again in Deuteronomy 4:13 which is a retelling of the of Exodus 34. So let's see if the devil (ahem, I mean God) is really in the details.

Aw, TW. Why do you insist on getting your information about the bible from the movies and Atheist-R-Us websites? Don't you think you should at least read the actual text itself?

A simple reading of Exodus chapters 20-31 yields the following obvious facts. First, God gave Moses the Moral Law (10 Commandments) in chapter 20. In addition to these—or, more accurately, derived from these—God gave Moses the Civil Law that would govern them as a people, and the Ceremonial Law that would govern Temple worship (Exodus 21-31). These “three sets” of laws (or commandments) make up the entirety of the law given to Moses by God on Sinai.

Exodus 34 (and Deuteronomy 4) are simply summations of the whole law—Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial—given on Sinai in Exodus chapters 20-31. There is neither ambiguity OR contradiction when one simply reads Exodus 34 (and Deuteronomy 4) in the context of Exodus 20-31. In fact, your whole argument, in every point, completely falls apart when you simply read the passages you refer to in context.

TW,

Part 4 of 5

You haven't addressed my earlier post which asks the question, by what standard do you discern the bible? What standards of discernment do you (or Peter) use? And how can you be sure your understanding is perfect/good versus someone else's who may come to a completely different conclusion about these moral issues while reading the exact same bible?

I will answer that, but first let me turn the question around on you. By what standard do you (and your clients) discern the meaning of your software licensing agreements? I mean, if 1,000 people read your licensing agreements, it is not inconceivable that you could have literally dozens of different interpretations, right? Does that mean that your licensing agreements are completely ambiguous? I, for your sake, certainly hope not! I'll come back to this in a moment.

Now to your question: “By what standard do you discern the bible?” This may be the easiest question you have asked to date. The bible is discerned by the use and application of the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation. Now, I bet you are saying to yourself “what the heck is RCO talking about.” Well, it ain't nearly as complicated as it sounds.

First, we interpret the words of the bible literally unless the genre or context dictate otherwise. Secondly, we interpret the statements of scripture grammatically, taking into account the meaning to the words and sentence structure (english 101). Thirdly, we take into account the historical setting of the words of the bible, recognizing that the manners and customs of the day influence the meaning of the text. And finally, we use the canonical-contextual method of interpretation in that we base our interpretation of any single text on a comparison with the context of the whole of the bible.

This is no mystical interpretive method. We use this method of interpretation to rightly discern the meaning of any document we read! Take your licensing agreements for example. If your clients chose to ignore the literal meaning of words, the grammatical structure of your sentences, the historical nuances of modernity, and the context of the whole of your licensing agreement.....they could interpret your licensing agreement any way they wanted to. And you, of course, would rightly object. Why? Because words have discernible meanings, sentences have discernible grammatical structure, historical nuances have discernible influences, and context has a discernible impact on the whole of the document.

TW,

Part 5 of 5

TW, if you don't get anything else I say in this series of posts, I hope you get this. You, just as virtually every other atheist I have ever encountered, are completely ignoring the commonly accepted rules of interpretation when it comes to your reading of the bible. Your “interpretation” of the 10 Commandments issue is a classic case-in-point. If we all read and interpreted the documents that regulate our lives the way you are reading and interpreting the bible there would be nothing but utter chaos.

In the end, the language of the bible is neither ambiguous nor contradictory. The vast majority of the bible is so clearly written that a child can understand it. The varying and contradictory interpretations to which you so often refer are the result of either one of two things: lack of application of the commonly accepted rules of textual interpretation, or the natural depravity of heart that causes us all to rebel against the God of scripture. More often than not, it is both.

So, I ask you again: What part of “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie)” and “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife” do you think is ambiguously confusing everyone? :-)

DANNYINTHEPUPPYSPLAYPEN,

I know how to spell. I can't see very well, no matter how hard I try to see clearly, even with thick glasses. There is no lens prescription that can make me see as well as you do.

... :-)....Not a single misspelled word in that last post. Hmm......

I don't have the spell checker on my WaPo comment box. If you have it, can you tell me how to work it?

Enter your posts in your word processor. Any misspelled words will appear with a wavy line under them. Right click on the misspelled word and the correct spelling will magically appear. Cut and paste your post into the WaPo comment box. Any misspelled words will appear with a wavy red line under them. This is not a fail-proof method because we can all make mistakes, but it will render your posts much more legible.

I am sorry my name bothers you so much. It is just an name that I have always been called. You know, like if your name is Clark, everyone calls you Clark Kent. (My friend, Clark, pointed that out to me).

Your “name” doesn't bother me. Just having a little fun with it. You OK with that?

I do not claim, and I have never claimed that all of my beliefs came from the Methodist tradition. What did come from my Methodist tradition is the encouragement of freedom of thought, no matter where it leads, and the willingness to acknowledge that my inner will is my own, to be determined in my own heart, and by the mysterious processes of my own heart, which are unknown to anyone but me, and which even I do not really understand.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

As for the rest of this type of discourse, that is all very fine and good, if you can get anything meaningful out of it. But to me, it is navel-gazing.

That may explain why you cannot seem to engage in a continuous dialog. You seem to start out with every intention of participating in the dialog, but then abort as soon as someone disagrees with you.

Here's a nuance that you aren't following. I'm not looking for anyone to adopt my moral standards. I don't think there's a single human being who shares my moral standards regarding every issue. I just don't think it's that important. For those standards that are important to living together in harmony, we enact laws. But the need for anyone else to adopt my moral standards is unnecessary and impossible. Where my standards different from the law, I will defer to the law or try to change the law. –TWM

Yes, I am following it, but here is a nuance that you seem to be missing. Whether or not your moral standard is adopted, the question to you is what makes it right or true? Just because you ‘feel’ it to be (i.e. it works for you)? What are you basing your moral standard on, your personal better or best on, truth or personal preference? In some cases I see it as both, based on God’s decrees, but how do you know? You have no way of knowing unless there is an objective, absolute, universal, best standard.

If that is the standard that you want to use to justify belief or ‘good’ or ‘better’ by, (your own) then when something evil in your mind is perpetrated against you, you can’t judge it as wrong for anyone but yourself and those of like mind, because it is someone else’s better and works for them.

Hitler’s Germany works for Hitler and those who share his feelings so therefore it was good for him. Do you want to live by those standards because those are the standards you are advocating where everyone determines their own preference, their own good and if they have the power they can fly planes into buildings (or at least get those who they have brainwashed into believing the same thing to do it for them) and destroy those who they feel are evil and don't believe the same way.

It works for them!

PART 2

Peter in commenting on my moral guidelines: I can’t disagree with that but I can ask you if there is no absolute, objective moral Giver then why should your opinion be anything but your subjective feelings and preference, and as such no better or worse than any other opinion. –TWM

It is no better or no worse than an opinion. I have no expectations of my standards being adopted. I think that the way I go about evaluating the morality of something works for me but I don't expect it to work for everyone. –TWM

That is just my point. If it is no better or worse than anyone else’s opinion then there is nothing to measure or judge it by; no standard, just personal tastes. Because you judge by your own moral compass, why does that make it right or better? Why does your judgment qualify as better just because you believe it is? Why should you set the standard? Why should your mind be the determiner of better? Do you understand every side of every issue so that what you determine as better actually is?

You have admitted to a pragmatic way of living, but someone else with this same philosophy can make their values work for them by subjecting you in slavery to their standards and use the same justification that you do. It works for them. Just because something works for you does not necessarily make it better. There must be an unchanging objective to compare it to. You want to say that the Bible is wrong and Christian standards are no better than yours because you feel that your standards are better. If you didn’t think they were better you would not ascribe to them.

There are a lot of people who think their personal ideas are ‘better.’ They can think those things but they can’t live with them. A thief thinks it is justifiable to steal, but turn the tables and he/she is morally outraged. These things that you see most people objecting to are the standards of the Bible, summed up in the Commandments. The Lord Jesus summed them up in two principles – love God and love your neighbor, but basically people disobeying them are the things that most people object to – murder, theft, adultery, lying, coveting, and dishonoring parents out of selfish disrespect and desires.

You've asked me why my moral standards are better than others and I've replied they aren't nor do I expect them to be. But let's turn the question around a little. Why do you claim that your interpretation (or if you prefer, use the word understanding) is better than other Christians? Why is your understanding perfect? And without an objective measurement of perfect understand (akin to your statement about an objective moral standard) how to you know that your reading of that standard is better than someone else's? -TWM

Am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that your moral standards are not better than others. Why would you want to hold on to them if you did not believe that they were better?

In certain areas the Spirit has confirmed His word and it does not contradict what the Scriptures reveal. I gave you a couple of examples in another post.

But could everything you say above about other Christians be said by them about you? Could other people claim that you are actually ignorant of God's standards, that you aren't interpreting what he said in the proper context; or that you are not rightly discerning his word, etc. Again I ask what makes you believe that your discernment is perfect or better than others? Where is your objective standard of discernment which is what you keep asking me for when it comes to moral standards. Why is there not the same need for an objective, standard of discernment by which to judge all discernments? –TWM

Yes, it could be said of me, but we have a plum line, a standard that can be appealed to, and that standard is God’s word. It does not contradict itself when the context and other Scripture are used to verify something. There are many other considerations such as whether the language used is figurative or historical narrative, metaphoric or plain, but God speaks in language that can be understood and the Spirit leads His people in correctly discerning His word. God has communicated to man so that man can understand Him, even so that a little child can understand Him.

The objective standard is God’s word and correctly interpreting it.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

What does that verse mean to you?

I don’t know if you read the posts between GoldenEagles, RCofield and myself on the previous four or five links, but in them we took GoldenEagles to task on his interpretation of Scripture. He was saying things that were contrary to God’s word. We showed this.

If you feel that RCofield or I misrepresent the scriptures then you should push the point by taking us to the Scriptures in dispute and we will see how it plays out.

Hi TWM,

There are many things that the Spirit has not brought to light yet in my life. - Me

So using Don Rumsfeld's words, are these known unknowns or unknown unknowns? Are you saying there are missing illuminations in your life and you know how many and which kind or are there unknown unknowns -- there are things that you don't even know that you don't know? _TWM

As a finite creature there is a sea of knowledge that I do not know and that mankind does not know, but the things revealed by God can be known when rightly discerned as certain and true, such as there is only one way to know God intimately and truly. Jesus is that way. There are other things that we can rightly discern about the universe and world we live in. God has given mankind an intellect and reason to comprehend these things and discover many things about His creation or natural revelation.

Concerning Scripture, His special revelation, some things are known by me to be unknown at this point in time, or at least truly known, or understood, even though I know bits and pieces about them; others are known by others but totally unknown by me. There are lots of things that I don’t know that I trust at some point God will bring to light when the time is needed if it is to be used to His glory. There are other unknowns that I will not know this side of the death of my body and then there are other things that God only knows or that He will reveal to others but not me, for He is infinite in understanding and I am finite. That is my nature as a creature.

But He has given me everything that I need to know about salvation and having that intimate relationship with Him where we interact on a daily basic by prayer, through His Word, by His Spirit and by Christ in me, the hope of glory!

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)

You can't know God in spirit and in truth except through Jesus Christ. He is the way and to know Him is to know the Father also, because God is one in nature and unity. If you deny the Son whom the Father has sent you also deny the Father. Jesus meets our needs of purity and righteousness as well as paying the penalty for our sins by dying in our place.

TWMatthews, faith is trusting God for He does not lie. The question is do you have such faith or will you continue to lean on your own understanding, not having a clear definition of what is good, what is right, making yourself the measure of all things, making your finite mind the final authority on what is real, what is true? It is something to think seriously about.
Life is short. You must be around the same age that I am. Time is running out.
"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 23)

RCofield

I know how to spell. I can't see very well, no matter how hard I try to see clearly, even with thick glasses. There is no lens prescription that can make me see as well as you do.

When you reach a certain age, and you can't see as well as you could when you were young, it is a little humorous. But gradually, it becomes a little scary. I am glad that you can laugh at it.

I don't have the spell checker on my WaPo comment box. If you have it, can you tell me how to work it?

I am sorry my name bothers you so much. It is just an name that I have always been called. You know, like if your name is Clark, everyone calls you Clark Kent. (My friend, Clark, pointed that out to me).

I do not claim, and I have never claimed that all of my beliefs came from the Methodist tradition. What did come from my Methodist tradition is the encouragement of freedom of thought, no matter where it leads, and the willingness to acknowledge that my inner will is my own, to be determined in my own heart, and by the mysterious processes of my own heart, which are unknown to anyone but me, and which even I do not really understand.

As for the rest of this type of discourse, that is all very fine and good, if you can get anything meaningful out of it. But to me, it is navel-gazing.

Hi TWMatthews,

You haven't addressed my earlier post which asks the question, by what standard do you discern the bible? What standards of discernment do you (or Peter) use? And how can you be sure your understanding is perfect/good versus someone else's who may come to a completely different conclusion about these moral issues while reading the exact same bible? – TWM

With sincere prayer, a right heart and trusting that God will bring that understanding to you. By asking to understand His meaning and in understanding that words in context have specific meaning depending on what kind of language is being used, literal or figurative, who is being addressed, the historical setting and how that context is applicable in my life and the life of others, as well as the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. It is important to gets God’s meaning from the Scriptures, rather than reading into them a meaning that is not there.

But without the Spirit you can still get hopelessly lost. I remember praying for years about a certain issue (my ‘Word of Faith’ friend had said that a Christian could lose his salvation. He could take himself out of God’s hands) and for a correct understanding about the issue. That teaching did not sit right with my spirit. After years of battling this question one day I sat down and started reading through the New Testament for God’s confirmation on this issue and over and over again God revealed to me who was doing the action and who was receiving the action, the subject and object.

For ‘He will save His people from their sins’ or ‘He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them’ or ‘to Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault’ and on and on it went as He taught me this lesson.

But God constantly confirms His truth to the Christian in their everyday life that His word is true.

He also builds that confirmation of His word by question from unbelievers and then by seeking the answer through Scripture, through historic or philosophical confirmation. I have come to understand more on the subjects of inerrancy and how He has preserved His word and the historic reliability of the Bible by such questions, or the issue of abortion or slavery or homosexuality or false religions by such questions, doubts and concerns from unbelievers.

PART 2

At other times God has impressed upon me lessons by constantly bringing before me an issue I was dealing with, such as the message of the Sunday service or one of my Christian friends bringing up the issue or starting a new Christian book or Bible study and the message comes through the author or the group and then is confirmed in Scripture, or by God bringing into my life a godly man who is able to teach me from Scripture about an issue that He has providentially brought before me.

But if the message contradicts God’s word then I know it has not come from Him for He does not lie and there is nothing false or insincere about Him. Sometimes this message or revelation does not come easy. Sometimes the issue sits on the shelf for months or years then suddenly it becomes clear. This is how I came to discern that my ‘Word of Faith’ friend did not rightly discern the Scriptures. What he was saying contradicted God’s word in so many issues. And to top it off one of the news shows like Dateline or 48 hours exposed one of the faith preachers that he was constantly praising – Benny Hinn. From there it was searching the Internet to understand the issue further as well as reading various books on the subject and comparing them with Scripture.

But more often than not the lesson is learned by studying the Scriptures, through prayer, and through using the principles of good hermeneutics and seeking to exegete the passage in its context and as it relates to other Scripture.

You are able to understand what I am saying and when something is unclear then you ask for more clarity from me, the author, in what specifically I meant. The same is true of God and the Christian. When we are unclear of something we seek His help by coming to Him and by asking Him and believing by faith that ‘He rewards those who diligently seek Him.’ (Hebrews 11:6)

To RCOfield and Peterhuff (part 5)

This will be my final post for the night.

RCO said:Again, you presume ambiguity within the text on these fundamental issues where there is none. Your mere insistence that there is ambiguity does not, in fact, prove that there is ambiguity. Until you can clearly demonstrate such with specifics your argument here is and remains nothing more than a straw-man.

TWM: Actually, in my last post I cited plenty of ambiguity within the same book of the bible (Exodus). But to make my argument doesn't require that I prove ambuigity even though it abounds in the bible. The real proof lies in the number of people who agree on the single set of moral standards that you believe were defined by God. If the vast majority of people agreed on a single set of standards then I would agree with you. But reality is a harsh administrator. If I can go into any church and find vast differences in how people evaluate the moral issues previously discussed (abortion, birth control, stem cell research, capital punishment) then you must admit one of two things: either a significant portion of the people claiming to be Christian interpret god's definitions differently or god's definitions are not so clearly defined as you believe.

You haven't addressed my earlier post which asks the question, by what standard do you discern the bible? What standards of discernment do you (or Peter) use? And how can you be sure your understanding is perfect/good versus someone else's who may come to a completely different conclusion about these moral issues while reading the exact same bible?

Do you claim your understanding of the bible is perfect? Is it better than someone else's who may answer these moral questions differently than you? And if so, by what standard are you developing your interpretation of the bible. Just because you say it's perfect and unambiguous doesn't make it so. In fact, the degree to which people in the same demonination / church can come away with completely different understandings of what the bible means strongly indicates misunderstanding.

With a complete set of moral standards as you both claim, there should be no misunderstandings. There always have been and there always will be misinterpretations. Even the examples you give are not as clear cut as you think. Reflect on the bible's take on adultery and then on Abraham and Hagar.

To: RCOfield and PeterHuff comparing the various versions of the ten commandments (part 4)

Here is the list Moses got the third tie around. This is the final, godly authorized, heavenly proofed list:

1. Thous shalt worship no other god. (Same as in Exodus 20. So far so good).
2. Thous shalt make thee no molten gods. (Hmmmm, well, I guess in the short period between Exodus 20 and Exodus 34, graven images are now okay. Unless you want to "interpret" molten gods as graven images but then that would support my case that the bible is subject to one's interpretation). Let's keep going, it gets better.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4. Six days thous shalt work, but on the seventh day thous shalt rest. (a perfect match).
5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. (Wait a second....where the heck did this come from? I don't remember anything about a stinking feast of weeks in Exodus 20)
6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. (Only boys? RCO, are you sure you want to make the case for god not favoring men?)
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. (What the heck is this and where did it come from? What about taking the name in vain? What happened to honoring my mother and father? Are you still insisting there is no ambiguity? Maybe it's simply a translation error. You know how that can happen -- molten may have sounded like mother.)
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left until the morning. (Wow, is this important or what. I can hear my wife now -- don't leave that passover food out overnight. It will spoil. Man, I'm sure glad god made this one of the top ten. It's okay to leave Thanksgiving dinner out overnight. But not the passover meal)
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. (That's an easy one to abide by. How many people seethe their kids in his mother's milk? Is this a global problem I'm unaware of?)

By my count, the ten commandments defined in Exodus 34 have a 20% match with those in Exodus 20. What the heck happened to killing, stealing, perjury?

To RCOfield and PeterHuff on the question of biblical ambiguity and the ten commandments (part 3)

RCO said, LOL. Let's see if I've got this. You declare there are “three sets of 10 commandments,” proceed to state that they do not agree with each other—and that with no specifics whatsoever; we wouldn't want to get into that—and then call on me to sort out what is clearly confusion on your part?

TWM: This simple post is to refute your contentions; (1) that the bible is perfect and unambiguous and (2) that I am confused. Me thinks that you guys are blinded by belief and unable to recognize contradictions if they hit you in the face.

When Moses took his first trip up the mountain, he came back down with no stone tablets at all. He simply spoke what he said God told him and that list of "rules" found in Exodus 20 is what made it into Jewish and Christian tradition as the "Ten Commandments".

Moses went back up the mountain a second time and this time he did come back with laws engraved by the finger of God with the ten commandments though I don't think they were formally called the 10 commandments (this described with all due respect to Charlton Heston and Mel Brooks).

Now, as you both will recall, Moses smashed those tablets to pieces when he saw the children of Israel worshipping the golden calf (and Edward G. Robbinson leading the way). So this makes two sets of commandments given to Moses by God; one verbal and one written. I wonder whether God was pissed that Moses broke them? Apparently not since he went back up the mountain a third time.

Now, according to RCO you would think that God, formulating the most important commandments ever, would be able to duplicate them each time; they would agree down to the last letter. For reference purposes, the third set of 10 commandments are listed in Exodus 34:28 and again in Deuteronomy 4:13 which is a retelling of the of Exodus 34. So let's see if the devil (ahem, I mean God) is really in the details.

-- continued ----

To RCO and Peter -- defining moral standards part 2

What about lying? Is it ever moral to lie?

During the first 6 years of my mother's battle with Alzheimers, especially during years 3-6, my insistence on telling her the truth wound up causing unnecessary stress. My wife, who is far smarter than I am, sensed this earlier than I and didn't insist on correcting her when she mistook my kids for my sister's or my wife for her own sister. My wife just went along with whatever my mother was saying. My mother would shortly forget the entire incident and would up being much less stressed than when I insisted on correcting her. After year 6 she was so demented that she was not really aware enough to be stressed. In years 8-15, she no longer walked or spoke to anyone. She had to be fed and for the last 3 years, we had no way of knowing whether she even saw anything anymore.

Was it moral or immoral during those years to let my mother's statements go uncorrected or, as happened many times, to actually lie to her? Were we being immoral?

Here's an even more interesting question for both of you. My mother spent the last 8 years of her life in a nursing home, the last 7 of which she neither walked nor talked. My father visited my mother virtually every day for those 8 years and spent most of his retirement income caring for her. What is more moral -- letting her cling to no life at all, without any ability to interact, to care for herself or to communicate or even recognize anyone or to allow her to die by withholding food? The law is clear, you can't perform mercy killing. But my moral guidelines, wanting to reduce suffering, says that the moral thing to do -- for both my mother and father -- would be to let her die, even if it meant not feeding her.

By the way, three months after Mom passed away (when she could no longer swallow and her breathing was affected by the disease), Dad died of a massive stroke. I'm convinced that if he hadn't spent 15 years of his life caring for her, he'd still be alive today.

Is it ever moral to lie? Is it ever moral to kill?

-- continued (and the next post will be less depressing) --

To RCO and Peter,

Thanks for the thoughtful and swift responses. I won't have time to address everything tonight but here's a start.

Peter said, You are confusing personal preference to qualitative values. They are a different kettle of fish. For something to be better it must have an ideal best by which to compare/define better to/by.

TWM: Again, I never said mine were better. Go back and reread my posts. I said my determination of whether something was moral or not is based on a simply guideline of not increasing suffering and/or increasing joy. What neither of you seem to understand is that no matter how you cut it, moral evaluations are a judgment call. Some are easier than others but all involve judgment.

Let's use RCO's example about killing. RCO said, "Abortion. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you think is confusing everyone?"

TWM: The idea that you can define a moral standard as simply as thou shalt not kill is both overly simplistic, ignores circumstances and is at times itself immoral. What about self defense? Is it okay for you to kill someone while defending yourself? How about to protect your family? There was an awful story of a family in Connecticut that was taken hostage in their own house by two murderers. The wife and daughters were repeatedly raped and then killed and the house was set on fire. If you had to kill these two men to save your family would you? Would your actions be moral or immoral?

---- continued

Hi TWMatthews,

Thanks for the greeting and well wishes. It is appreciated.

I said moral values evolve over time and you said, Morality is fixed and absolute. As such, it does not change or “evolve.” And you would be correct if you ignored the historical record. It used to be viewed as immoral for a black person to date, let alone marry, a white person. It no longer is. It was viewed by most people, not even 100 years ago, that having sex outside of marriage is immoral. That is no longer the case by today’s standards with the majority of Americans (not to mention by the majority of British, Fins, Dutch, French, Spanish or almost any European nation). You seem to think that morals are fixed, never changing, but they aren’t.

I just wanted to add to this discussion since you raised some points that I find inconsistent to sound logic. Yes morals are fixed, people change. If there is a true standard for anything it must be objective and it must be fixed.

You are confusing personal preference to qualitative values. They are a different kettle of fish. For something to be better it must have an ideal best by which to compare/define better to/by. If better is always changing then how can it ever be defined or how could there ever be a best? If there is no objective fixed standard of best then how could you even know what better is? Better would just be what you like, which is all it appears to be in your world-view.

If there is no fixed standard of what color green is then how could we ever determine what shade/color green is? Red could be green to some people. But people do know what green is otherwise numerous people would be stopping at green traffic lights and driving through red ones. In the same way we know what an elephant is because we have a fixed standard that defines ‘this is an elephant.’

Now for you better is what you personally determine. If that is the standard that you want to live by then for me it is what I personally determine, based on your logic. But if each determines for him/herself what that standard will be then an elephant can be a hippo or rat to me and everything become blurred because there is no fixed standard. That is what you have done with ethics in making them personal.

PART 2

Furthermore, you can’t object to someone who views better as enslaving you or murdering 6 million people because their idea of better is different from yours. You have no ideal but your own to appeal to. You can’t object to Hitler’s Germany as being morally evil for anyone but yourself and for those who have the same tastes as you do. But for Hitler and those who shared his philosophical naturalistic views it was good or better.

But how do you get better without a fixed best is beyond me. You have nothing but your subjective opinion to appeal to or base better or best on, and that could change as your preferences change, so that your once better is no longer better. No, your system of ethics cannot make sense of itself. Why should your opinion be the standard that fixes what better is? With your logic I have as much right to determine the better standard as you do and if my better means eliminating your better then so be it. Better is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize, or should I say choose not to recognize, God’s ultimate standard.

Better is indefinable if everyone has a different idea of what right is, or if there is no objective reference then any standard of taste can pass as better and right cannot be determined.

Because I define better as that which increases joy without increasing sorrow/pain/distress. If you do something that increases someone’s joy or reduces someone’s suffering, in my book it’s probably moral. At the same time you’ll notice I said "in my book" because as Daniel stated, morals are personal and what may be morally good as far as I can judge (and it’s a judgment call) may be immoral for you. –TWM

And Hitler defined better as that which eliminated approximately 11 million undesirables, at least to his mind and those who shared the power. The better standard in your way of looking at it can only be established by those who have the power to establish better. Your ideas of better don't count. You are at the mercy or tyranny of those who control others. But again don’t call it better, how can it be with so many different opinions of better, unless of course there is an objective, fixed measure which is God.

An elephant does not cease to be an elephant just because someone believes it to be a mouse. Better does not cease being better just because Hitler has a different opinion on what better is. Both just have a faulty conception of what an elephant or better is.

PART 3

The bible's promise of eternal torture simply for not believing in the "right" god is morally repugnant to me -- even if I'm convinced that it's untrue. –TWM

Why? Do you not think that a just Judge will do what is right and good? If you refuse to bend your knee to what is revealed as perfectly good and conform to that standard then you have missed the mark that is goodness. Do you not deserve to be judged? What is more, if you refused to bend the knee when you had the chance, to the Lordship of Jesus Christ on earth, then why do you think that God should usher you into His eternal presence and blessings, when in fact you will still try to do what you feel is good as defined by your own personal preference? If you do not want to submit to His authority and righteousness during your lifetime then why do you think you deserve to receive His goodness? If your three sons act in disobedience to what is right do they not deserve punishment? They are under your authority until they reach a certain age or leave your household.

I don’t know much about the doctrine of Hell and the Lake of Fire for it is not something that I have ever studied, so these are entirely my own thoughts based on a superficial reading of Scripture in such issues. Maybe RCofield will have more insight into this for you.

If the description of Hell and the Lake of Fire is metaphoric language that God uses, then I can imagine it as being a place of pure misery in which everyone is trying to enforce their selfishness and their desires on the other, much like on earth, but magnified to extreme without God’s providence and goodness to stop the power of evil having its way. And this will go on for the rest of eternity for those who have not been justified in Christ. That is just one view. If it is literal meaning then the agony may very well be worse. Either way there will never be the peace of God or any rest. I have also thought that after seeing God in His majesty and purity and then being eternally separated from Him will be eternal torment – to know what you have missed out on.

PART 4

So here's the question to RCO and Peter. Is it immoral in your view for Bob and Donna to have sex since neither one is now married? Is this an absolute moral standard for you - that all premarital sex is immoral no matter what the circumstances or the individuals involved? So here's the question to RCO and Peter. Is it immoral in your view for Bob and Donna to have sex since neither one is now married? Is this an absolute moral standard for you - that all premarital sex is immoral no matter what the circumstances or the individuals involved? -TWM

Yes, it is immoral. God has stated it is so. God designed man to be united with one woman in marriage. That is the standard. Outside of this it is wrong to have sex. It relates to a commitment by both parties to become one in spirit as well in body, just as in Christ Christians are one in Spirit with God and one in body with other Christians, for we are the body of Christ on earth. The NT teachings especially reveal that sex outside of marriage is sin, and as I said in my previous post yesterday, sin is missing the target of goodness that is God.

TW,

Part 1 of 6

Good grief, man. You certainly made up for lost time with that series of posts! :-)

I said moral values evolve over time and you said, Morality is fixed and absolute. As such, it does not change or “evolve.” And you would be correct if you ignored the historical record.

You cut me short in your quotation. I also said, in the very next line, “What you are referring to as “evolving” morals is no more than shifting and changing personal or societal preferences. You then proceed to make my case for me:

It used to be viewed as immoral for a black person to date, let alone marry, a white person. It no longer is.

Biblically, it has never been immoral “for a black person to date/marry a white person.” What you are referring to in this example is a shift in societal preferences, not an “evolution” of what is actually moral/immoral. Then you make my case for me yet again:

It was viewed by most people, not even 100 years ago, that having sex outside of marriage is immoral. That is no longer the case by today’s standards with the majority of Americans (not to mention by the majority of British, Fins, Dutch, French, Spanish or almost any European nation). You seem to think that morals are fixed, never changing, but they aren’t.

Again, because morality is fixed, sex outside of marriage has always been immoral. The mere fact that societal preference has shifted away from that in the past 100 years in no way makes it moral. And this isn't the first time in history that this "shift" has taken place...you are aware of that, aren't you?

RCO: So...if there is a “better” moral standard without an “objective” or fixed moral standard...how do you know it is “better”?
Because I define better as that which increases joy without increasing sorrow/pain/distress. If you do something that increases someone’s joy or reduces someone’s suffering, in my book it’s probably moral. At the same time you’ll notice I said "in my book" because as Daniel stated, morals are personal and what may be morally good as far as I can judge (and it’s a judgment call) may be immoral for you.

So...my question still stands: How can you define it as “better” without an objective standard? If my “moral standard” is the exact opposite of yours, on what grounds do you declare yours “better”? The reality remains that if morality is nothing more than personal preference, you have no right to object to the “morality” of, for instance, Charles Manson. You do object to the “morality” of Charles Manson, don't you?

TW,

Part 2 of 6

RCO: Setting aside for the moment the fact that the bible nowhere advocates “treating some people as subhuman” or treating women or minorities as “less than full and equal citizens” or “less than fully human,”.
Well, that’s not entirely true. The bible’s pronouncement that women shall not hold positions of authority over men has directly led to women being treated as less than full citizens and able to enjoy positions of responsibility, for hundreds of years. The sacred texts of most Abrahamic religions treat women as second class and excluded them from positions of power.

Well, it is just your sort of mis-interpretation of the biblical text that has led to that to which you object. The text actually only prohibits women usurping authority over men in the public meetings of the church. It nowhere prohibits women holding civic offices, and there is even an example of this in the OT in that a woman was appointed as a judge over the entire nation of Israel. There are also a number of examples of women in the NT who were very influential in the early Church. The bible is no more to blame for the misunderstanding of what it states than is the constitutional laws of our nation. You can't plead “ignorance” or “misunderstanding” of the law in the courts of our land.

The same can be said about the bible’s contradictory treatment of slaves. You have to ignore the tacit approval of slavery found in the bible in order to conclude that the bible views slavery as immoral (yes, I recall the extended discussion you had with Walter on this very issue).

And to make the “case” that the bible advocates forced slavery requires one to completely ignore the clear prohibitions against such—and then interpret a number of other texts all the while ignoring the manners and customs of biblical times. Such simply lacks integrity, and to then “fault” the bible for “tacit approval of slavery” is to become willingly ignorant of what the text actually says.

The bible's promise of eternal torture simply for not believing in the "right" god is morally repugnant to me -- even if I'm convinced that it's untrue.

Actually, what the bible “promises” is that those who refuse acknowledge God as God and worship him accordingly will be separated from God for all eternity. What I find “morally repugnant” is that those who have no desire to know God—and even mock him in the process—then want to fault him for simply granting them the separation from him that they so desperately crave. Does that not seem rather absurd to you?

TW,

Part 3 of 6

Do you claim that the morals of Americans have not changed over the last 200 years or do you claim that Americans don't understand the same moral guidelines that you follow?

No, what I am saying is that American preferences have changed over the last 200 years. We have just chosen to ignore the moral standards of scripture so that we can accommodate our own sinful desires. And we have done so to our own detriment. It really is astounding to me that you guys insist that our “morality” is improving (evolving) in this nation. Take a look around. It ain't happnin.

Your example makes a lot of assumptions and sets up one particular scenario. Your claim that premarital sex is immoral is justified not because premarital sex itself is immoral but because of the contrived circumstances under which it occurred in your example.

Actually, my “example” happens all the time. It is an all-to-common “scenario,” and as such it is hardly “contrived.” And as for the immorality of premarital sex being “justified” because of the “contrived” circumstances of my example, I can make the case for the immorality of premarital sex in any circumstance you care to offer. Watch:

(Particulars of “Bob and Donna's” circumstances deleted for sake of space) So here's the question to RCO and Peter. Is it immoral in your view for Bob and Donna to have sex since neither one is now married? Is this an absolute moral standard for you - that all premarital sex is immoral no matter what the circumstances or the individuals involved?

Short answer: Yes. Sexual intercourse, according to the fixed moral standard of scripture, is reserved for the bond of holy matrimony. Anytime it takes place outside of that bond, one or both parties are being “used” for the crass and selfish satisfaction of the other. This violates your own stated “moral system.”

TWM: I think there's a world out there that agrees with me. My example of citing the major moral issues of the world today (birth control, abortion, capital punishment, stem cell research, etc.) finds that there is no general agreement as to the morality of each.

TW, I think the mistake you are making is in believing that a general consensus with a given population determines what is moral/immoral. Are you not familiar with the long and sordid history of such thinking? I don't think you really want to open that “Pandora's Box.”

TW,

Part 4 of 6

YOu can find people of the same general religion (Christian), the same denomination (Lutheran) the same sect of that demonination (Evangelical Lutherans) come down on both sides of every one of these issues. That says to me that since people from the same religion come down on different sides there is NOT general agreement as to a finite set of moral standards. Now, you justify this in a number of ways and that will be the focus of my next set of comments.

Ok. Let's just take one of the issues that you raised in which “people from the same religion come down on different sides.” Abortion. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you think is confusing everyone?

For those standards that are important to living together in harmony, we enact laws.

So...what moral “standard” do we use as a basis for our laws—yours or Pol Pot's? If you object to Pol Pot's “moral system,” on what grounds to you object?

Peter said: Why is abortion or same-sex marriage considered wrong in one era and right in another?
TWM: Bingo! That's the question to ask regarding objective, eternal moral standards. Since society's morals seem to change over time I contend that there are no eternal moral standards.

How do you make logical sense of this: Society's moral standards change over time=There are no eternal moral standards?!

So...if a society “changes” and determines it is morally acceptable to practice ethnic cleansing (ie. Third Reich)...then “Thou shalt not kill” is no longer a fixed moral standard??!! Good grief, man. Are you not thinking through some of the things you are positing here?

TWM: Bingo again Peter. Since everything we hear or read or see is subject to our interpretation no communication of moral standard or of anything can be guaranteed to be perfectly understood. Herein lies the problem as I see it, from your viewpoint. Knowing that people of the same religion come down on different sides of the very moral issues we've been discussing, you would agree that there are different "interpretations" of those moral issues.

Ok. Apply that same reasoning to the laws of our land. Because some may not understand them and yet others may mis-interpret them—we should just jettison said laws?

TW,

Part 5 of 6

TWM: But could everything you say above about other Christians be said by them about you? Could other people claim that you are actually ignorant of God's standards, that you aren't interpreting what he said in the proper context; or that you are not rightly discerning his word, etc. Again I ask what makes you believe that your discernment is perfect or better than others? Where is your objective standard of discernment which is what you keep asking me for when it comes to moral standards. Why is there not the same need for an objective, standard of discernment by which to judge all discernments?

That entire premise presupposes scriptural ambiguity. Scripture is not ambiguous when it comes to God's standards of morality. This is a presupposition you force onto the bible, and you then build your argument on the “foundation” of that false presupposition.

RCOfield said about the bible and what it says:
Setting aside for the moment the fact that the bible nowhere advocates “treating some people as subhuman” or treating women or minorities as “less than full and equal citizens” or “less than fully human."
TWM: Isn't it really which verses of the bible you pull from? When the bible says that women shall remain silent in public and hold no authority over men, I've interpreted that as assigning women a role that is less than the roles assigned for men. Why are the texts that you choose to extract from the bible better than mine? To paraphrase Peter, where is your objective standard that defines the relative importance of statements coming from the bible?

Again, your entire premise in that statement rests on your presupposition that there are internal contradictions within the text itself. I have elsewhere shown that there is no contradiction in scripture on the issue of women and their ability to hold public office. The texts to which you refer are addressed to churches, not the holding of civil positions of authority.

TWM: And your statement presumes that everyone understands the Word in exactly the same way as you do. Then why are there different types of Christians who disagree on fundamental issues of faith and morality?

Again, you presume ambiguity within the text on these fundamental issues where there is none. Your mere insistence that there is ambiguity does not, in fact, prove that there is ambiguity. Until you can clearly demonstrate such with specifics your argument here is and remains nothing more than a straw-man.

TW,

Part 6 of 6

Would you say that some of the 10 commandments (we won't get into the idea that there really are three sets of 10 commandments and many do not agree with each other) are standard moral standards that all humans should follow? If so, tell me which ones. If not, give me some of the moral standards that you've discerned.

LOL. Let's see if I've got this. You declare there are “three sets of 10 commandments,” proceed to state that they do not agree with each other—and that with no specifics whatsoever; we wouldn't want to get into that—and then call on me to sort out what is clearly confusion on your part? Why don't you identify these “three sets of 10 commandments,” and then prove that there are points of disagreement within them?

In the end, your insistence that there exists no fixed moral standards is simply not sustainable in the real world. If someone stole all of the software you create in your company and left you financially destitute...I would put my money on you insisting that there are fixed standards of morality that were violated.

Whaddayathink?

Peace

To RCOfield and PeterHuff (Part 6)

RCO said: First, I would ask you the same question concerning secularists. Do all secularists agree unilaterally concerning what is moral and what is immoral?

TWM: No, I never claimed that. In fact, I've concluded the opposite as discussed above that everyone develops their own moral standards and much like fingerprints, no two people share exactly the same standards for all situations.

RCO: And secondly, your question presumes that all who call themselves Christian are, in fact, Christians. The simple truth is that a “Christian” is one who obeys the Word of Christ (the bible).

TWM: And your statement presumes that everyone understands the Word in exactly the same way as you do. Then why are there different types of Christians who disagree on fundamental issues of faith and morality?

RCO: Don't you, in your heart of hearts, wish your “rather easy to describe and easy to understand” moral system was absolute in that everyone should “do whatever you can to ease the suffering of other humans and to bring as much joy as possible to others”?

TWM: Well that's the crux of the situation. In every case, the answer to moral questions are really matters of judgment and no two people judge every issue in the same way. Let's get at some moral standards as you've defined them. Would you say that some of the 10 commandments (we won't get into the idea that there really are three sets of 10 commandments and many do not agree with each other) are standard moral standards that all humans should follow? If so, tell me which ones. If not, give me some of the moral standards that you've discerned.

Best regards.

To Peter and RCO (Part 5),

Peter said regarding why so many Christians disagree on moral standards:
There could be many reasons but I will boil it down to a couple. Either because they are ignorant of God’s standard in being immature in their faith and not rightly discerning His word, or because they are not Christians, just profess to be.

TWM: But could everything you say above about other Christians be said by them about you? Could other people claim that you are actually ignorant of God's standards, that you aren't interpreting what he said in the proper context; or that you are not rightly discerning his word, etc. Again I ask what makes you believe that your discernment is perfect or better than others? Where is your objective standard of discernment which is what you keep asking me for when it comes to moral standards. Why is there not the same need for an objective, standard of discernment by which to judge all discernments?

Peter: There are many things that the Spirit has not brought to light yet in my life.

TWM: So using Don Rumsfeld's words, are these known unknowns or unknown unknowns? Are you saying there are missing illuminations in your life and you know how many and which kind or are there unknown unknowns -- there are things that you don't even know that you don't know?

RCOfield said about the bible and what it says:
Setting aside for the moment the fact that the bible nowhere advocates “treating some people as subhuman” or treating women or minorities as “less than full and equal citizens” or “less than fully human."

TWM: Isn't it really which verses of the bible you pull from? When the bible says that women shall remain silent in public and hold no authority over men, I've interpreted that as assigning women a role that is less than the roles assigned for men. Why are the texts that you choose to extract from the bible better than mine? To paraphrase Peter, where is your objective standard that defines the relative importance of statements coming from the bible?

-- nearing the end but still continued --

To Peter and RCOfield (part 4):

This sections delves into the specific comments made about objective moral standards.

Peter said: Why is abortion or same-sex marriage considered wrong in one era and right in another?

TWM: Bingo! That's the question to ask regarding objective, eternal moral standards. Since society's morals seem to change over time I contend that there are no eternal moral standards. I'm not saying one set is better than another. But simply that they are changing.

As you've indicated Peter, same-sex marriage was non existent historically and now is becoming more and more common. Soon it will become law meaning it's acceptable by most people (in this country). We will judge whether that's a good or bad thing by our own moral standards.

Peter: If it is wrong it is always wrong and we, as Christians, have a reference that is outside ourselves that says it is wrong and that reference is the standard of goodness - God Himself.

And in response to my question about why so many people disagree on those standards even if they claim to be Christian Peter said, "That does not always mean that they are always rightly or correctly discerned/interpreted."

TWM: Bingo again Peter. Since everything we hear or read or see is subject to our interpretation no communication of moral standard or of anything can be guaranteed to be perfectly understood. Herein lies the problem as I see it, from your viewpoint. Knowing that people of the same religion come down on different sides of the very moral issues we've been discussing, you would agree that there are different "interpretations" of those moral issues.

You've asked me why my moral standards are better than others and I've replied they aren't nor do I expect them to be. But let's turn the question around a little. Why do you claim that your interpretation (or if you prefer, use the word understanding) is better than other Christians? Why is your understanding perfect? And without an objective measurement of perfect understand (akin to your statement about an objective moral standard) how to you know that your reading of that standard is better than someone else's?

---- (sigh) still more to come -----

To Peterhuff and RCOfield:

This is the next installment in the on-going saga; are there objective moral standards? I say no and you say yes. Let's delve a little deeper.

Peter said:How can you have laws of right and wrong without a Moral Law Giver? All you have shown is that your tastes, your preferences, your opinions are what matters to you. There is a world out there that disagree.

TWM: I think there's a world out there that agrees with me. My example of citing the major moral issues of the world today (birth control, abortion, capital punishment, stem cell research, etc.) finds that there is no general agreement as to the morality of each. YOu can find people of the same general religion (Christian), the same denomination (Lutheran) the same sect of that demonination (Evangelical Lutherans) come down on both sides of every one of these issues. That says to me that since people from the same religion come down on different sides there is NOT general agreement as to a finite set of moral standards. Now, you justify this in a number of ways and that will be the focus of my next set of comments.

Peter said: So many are working on other preferences such as greed, the thirst for power and control, to be the latest icon that others look up to in approval. They don't care about your views. What makes yours the ones they 'should' adopt?

TWM: Here's a nuance that you aren't following. I'm not looking for anyone to adopt my moral standards. I don't think there's a single human being who shares my moral standards regarding every issue. I just don't think it's that important. For those standards that are important to living together in harmony, we enact laws. But the need for anyone else to adopt my moral standards is unnecessary and impossible. Where my standards different from the law, I will defer to the law or try to change the law.

Peter in commenting on my moral guidelines: I can’t disagree with that but I can ask you if there is no absolute, objective moral Giver then why should your opinion be anything but your subjective feelings and preference, and as such no better or worse than any other opinion.

TWM: It is no better or no worse than an opinion. I have no expectations of my standards being adopted. I think that the way I go about evaluating the morality of something works for me but I don't expect it to work for everyone.

-- continued (again) ----

RCO and Peter,

I'm not sure this next post will make it through. It has been rejected already I suspect from the use of the word sex. I've commented about premarital sex and gave the example (not given here for expedient's sake) of the teenage boy deceiving a girl in order to have physical relations.

Your example makes a lot of assumptions and sets up one particular scenario. Your claim that premarital sex is immoral is justified not because premarital sex itself is immoral but because of the contrived circumstances under which it occurred in your example.

Change your example around just a little bit. Suppose the boy in your example did not want to have sex and the girl, who in your example was deceived, was the one who wanted sex. Now suppose further that they talked about sex like adults. They discussed the possible consequences, use of birth control as well as their desires -- honestly and forthrightly. Suppose further that they honestly decided together that they both wanted to have sex. Also, change their age just a little. Let's use my good friend Bob in place of the boy. Bob was married for 40+ years, has a grown family and grandchildren. Bob's wife died a little more than 3 years ago from cancer. Bob met a widow (about 65+ years old) while skiing in Aspen.

Now, since Bob lives in the south and his new friend, let's call her Donna, lives in California, the opportunity to spend a day together is nonexistent. Bob plays drums in the same contemporary choir that I do and heads up one of the Habbitat for Humanity Work Crews. He's a retired executive. When he and Donna get together, it's usually for a month at a time because of the distance between them.

So here's the question to RCO and Peter. Is it immoral in your view for Bob and Donna to have sex since neither one is now married? Is this an absolute moral standard for you - that all premarital sex is immoral no matter what the circumstances or the individuals involved?

-- more to come --

RCO and Peter,

I'm attempting to respond to both posts. By the way, I hope both of you had a wonderful Christmas and have a happy and healthy new year.

RCO in talking about the age of consent:
Ok. Who determines the “age of consent”? Do you determine this? If so, am I required to submit to your determination? If you do not determine the “age of consent,” who does?

TWM: That's a really good question and another example of evolving moral standards. Historically, it was not uncommon for "children" or what we would call children today, to be assigned a spouse by their parents. Love, being a fundamental component of marriage today, has historically played little or no role in spouse selection and in most cases, a mate was chosen by one's parents and not the result of falling in love.

Today, we don't think of marrying someone because of political advantage or to marry so as to obtain the financial resources that the other family offers.

Of course there are exceptions to this trend like there are to everything, but now if someone marries someone else strictly for financial gain, we view that marriage as being built on a poor foundation. That was not true 200, 500, 800, 1000 years ago. So what was morally accepted for hundreds of years -- marrying for financial/political advantage -- is no longer acceptable today, at least not here in America. And the age at which we view a child as being able to leave the nest so to speak, has increased. It was fairly common for a young women 15, 16 or 17 years old to be married off. Today, that's an exception and we have laws that prevent 15 and 16 year olds from getting married.

-- continued --

TW,

RCO, I enjoyed reading the more personal part of your post. Now that you are a Grandfather, maybe you can explain to me one of life's mysteries....

Why do perfectly reasonable people lose all semblance of parental responsibility once they become grand parents?

LOL. Yeah, that is a very common problem. When my wife and I began having children I was utterly appalled at how quickly our parents dispensed with the rules and regulations of our childhood. When I pointed this out to our parents they just laughed and told me that one day, when I had grandchildren, I would "understand."

Well, that "one day" has caught up with my wife and I. And yes, the temptation to dispense with responsible parenting is definitely there. We've talked about it and, in the interest of raising another generation of well-behaved, responsible Christian citizens, we have agreed to try and resist the temptation to "undo" the (thankfully) solid parenting of our own children. No small task, but we are committed.

So...when our precious granddaughter throws her tiny little arms around us and we turn to "goo," we try to resist allowing our brains to turn to "mush." The same parental rules that apply to her when she is with her parents apply to her when she is with us. And, being a quick study, she knows that. This makes things a good deal easier for "Bop" and "Poppa."

As an aside, I recently read a study that discovered that the brain-wave activity in a child, starting around 18 months and continuing to about their 10th year, is TEN TIMES that of a normal adult. I find that utterly astounding. That certainly seems to accord with what psychologists have for years dubbed "the formative years." It reminds me of the biblical proverb:

Train up a child in the way they should go, and when they come of age they will not depart from it.

Hmmm....I wonder if the God who created the adolescent brain might have known something we have only recently discovered?

RCO and Peter,

Sorry about the abrupt ending. I still have a couple of posts to finish and am trying to do so while working. 2010 has been a really good year for my little software company and as such, I'm working hard to try and finish up a number of activities before the end of the year. I have the best of intentions about responding to your interesting post RC.

RCO, I enjoyed reading the more personal part of your post. Now that you are a Grandfather, maybe you can explain to me one of life's mysteries....

Why do perfectly reasonable people lose all semblance of parental responsibility once they become grand parents?

My mother was a perfect example. Years ago, when #1 son was barely 2 years old, she insisted on giving him his first ice cream cone. Now remember, it was at about 10:00 am and before lunch or anything. Why would a normally responsible woman, who never would have dreamed of doing that for her own children, fling good eating out of the window?

There are lots of other examples from my parents as regarding my three sons and now my sister who has two young grandchildren and views all of the rules for how her own children were raised as archaic.

Hi RCofield,

I trust you and yours had an worshipful Advent celebration. -RCO

I did but my wife came down with bronchitis to add to her breathing problems with COPD. She is battling. Increasing her oxygen level seemed to alleviate the difficulty in breathing to some extent.

You were far too gracious in many of your comments in that last post. I never feel that I have done an adequate job, especially when I read many of the brilliant, able apologists of the Christian faith with whom God has blessed our generation. -RCO

Your responses are articulate and I am enjoying you banter, especially with Walter. I'm looking forward to see how that unfolds. He has side-stepped the moral argument for now. Wow, he is getting behind in his responses.

I was just listening to a Ravi Zacharias audio that is relevant to our discussion on atheism. He tackled it very well. Here is the link,

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2008/03/ultimate-apologetics-mp3-audio-page.html

You'll have to do a bit of work in scrolling down to Ravi Zacharias: Is Atheism Dead, is God Alive? It is a four parter.

Yeah, it appears GoldenEagles is out of the loop for the time being. He may be overwhelmed by the defeat of DADT. -RCO

That is quite a battle he is having.

I'm wondering about Pam also. I hope she is well. I'm going to check Susan Jacoby's post on December 31st and January 1st. I owe her a lot of posts concerning a response to the Darwinian world-view that I am not ready to answer yet.

Hi Daniel,

If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are? –TWM

1) Because there are not absolute guidelines. 2) People who make abosulute moral claims are actually referring to their own moral claims, which are themselves, arbitrary. –DITLD

1) Are you absolutely certain of that DITLD, because you state it as if it is an absolute guideline?

2) No, not necessarily, some are referring to the moral precepts that come from the Bible, which says it is the Word of God, over and over. These are standards outside themselves.

And in order for there to be moral laws there must be a moral law Giver. Laws are discovered by beings that are capable of understanding such concepts, because they are made in the image and likeness of God. Laws are incapable of being understood by chemical impersonal matter. It takes a person with a mind to understand such things.

In order for there to be such a concept of good there must be an objective ideal to compare good to. Without it all you have is opinion and preference. Some people like to love their neighbors, others like to eat them. Which do you prefer?

To say that there is a God who imposes an absolute moral law, does not make it true. To say it with empahsis or temper tantrum fury, likewise, does make it true. – DITLD

How do you know? Do you know God?

Actually I am usually quite relaxed when I respond to posts. I don’t recall any temper tantrum while posting that one. Just because I state something as authoritative because the precept comes from the Bible does not necessarily mean that I am being arrogant or bulling. Truth deserves to be defended. It is worth standing for.

What Peter Huff is actually is not existential logic, but the politics of power, and what must be, in order for there to be poltlical and civil order in the societies of man. Whatever conclusion anyone may have about these political arrangements, they can have no bearing on the speculations about the true nature of God and man's relaitonship to God. – DITLD

Sorry, I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I agree with RCO, please restate it.

One of Peter Huff's favorite phrases is "you can't believe that... " But yes, people can believe "that;" people believe what they believe, no matter how impossible it may seem. "You can't believe that ... " or " ... you shouldn't believe that ... " has no relevance to these arguments, not to what people really do believe. – DITLD

Like RCofield, I’m not aware of saying this. Can you provide a couple of references? It definitely does not register as one of my favorite sayings.

Hello TWMatthews,

Welcome back!

Excuse me for butting into your most recent discussion with Walter. I see you are still attempting to establish an objective moral value system and you seem to think this is a prerequisite for a moral society. Per our discussions from almost three months ago, it still seems like there is no single moral standard. Moreover, moral values evolve over time. -TWM

Not so much trying to establish one. It already exists. I’m just trying to show Walter and others that they can’t make sense of morals or anything else without first presupposing God.

First, you said:"There is no 'better' without an objective ideal that he cannot produce." - TWM

Yes there is a better without an objective standard at least without an objective standard the way you define it. –TWM

Well would that ‘better’ be Mother Teresa’s ideal or Hitler’s? Without an objective standard outside of subjective human’s tastes what makes anything ‘better?’ As RCofield said, it just becomes a preference that is enforced by might makes right unless there is an ultimate absolute measure and reference.

Why ‘should’ your idea of good be the standard? Why not Kim Il-sung of North Korea who has said recently that he is not against reducing South Korea to ashes? Why should your opinion be the one that everyone else lives by? Without God and with a world-view that sees empirical matter and energy as the cause of everything in the universe why ‘should’ the way the chemicals react in my brain be thought of as bad and the way they react in your brain be thought of as good? They just are. Chemicals reacting are not capable of qualitative judgments, only people are because they are made in the image and likeness of God and bear a personality and conscience that testify to the fact that there is a moral law giver – God (Romans 2:16-17).

Sin is a measurement of how good we are not, and sin is missing the target that is the goodness of God.

How can you have laws of right and wrong without a Moral Law Giver? All you have shown is that your tastes, your preferences, your opinions are what matters to you. There is a world out there that disagree. So many are working on other preferences such as greed, the thirst for power and control, to be the latest icon that others look up to in approval. They don't care about your views. What makes yours the ones they 'should' adopt? Why not instead just make you adopt theirs by force? Is that not the way the world works for many? If you don't think so, then watch the six o'clock news.

The fact that we know the difference between right and wrong is because God has laid that in the hearts of human beings. We know there is an ideal, even though we suppress this fact so that we can live life on our own terms, making up good and evil and calling what is truly good evil, and what is evil good.

PART 2

The moral standards of 200 years ago treated some people as subhuman (and it was perfectly acceptable by the bible), women were treated as less than full and equal citizens and other "minorities" were treated as less than fully human. That's the moral system that is supported in no small part by the bible. -TWM

No, it is not. If you want to make that statement then prove it through the Word of God.

My moral system is rather easy to describe and easy to understand; do whatever you can to ease the suffering of other humans and to bring as much joy as possible to others. (These guidelines apply to adults). –TWM

I can agree with that because it is taught in the Bible. You are arguing for a biblical precept. I can’t disagree with that but I can ask you if there is no absolute, objective moral Giver then why should your opinion be anything but your subjective feelings and preference, and as such no better or worse than any other opinion.

Truth is based on what is objective and absolute. Why is your subjective opinion to be regarded as true unless it meets criteria that is objective and absolute? Truth does not change. It can never be false, and yet we see human subjective opinion constantly changing. If all you have is that then there is no such thing as better. Why is abortion or same-sex marriage considered wrong in one era and right in another? How can it be both right and wrong depending on which era you live in or which culture, since it is still outlawed in some countries? So which country is ‘right?’ Again, why ‘should’ I base right on what you perceive it to be unless you can show me that it has a measure that is the ideal, the best, better than all the rest.

Thus premarital sex is probably morally wrong to you but completely moral to me provided they are consenting adults. – TWM

If it is wrong it is always wrong and we, as Christians, have a reference that is outside ourselves that says it is wrong and that reference is the standard of goodness - God Himself.

From your previous posts you seem to believe that God defined what is moral or not and those rules are clearly stated in the bible. –TWM

Yes. That does not always mean that they are always rightly or correctly discerned/interpreted.

PART 3

If you still hold that position, I would ask you why Christians, all claiming to want to do God's will and live the way God wants them to, come down on both sides of the major moral issues of this generation (stem cell research, abortion, capital punishment, war, torture, sex, birth control). A simple sampling on these issues from Christians of lots of different denominations will find significant numbers of people who absolutely disagree with each of these issues. -TWM

There could be many reasons but I will boil it down to a couple. Either because they are ignorant of God’s standard in being immature in their faith and not rightly discerning His word, or because they are not Christians, just profess to be.

If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are? –TWM

I would contend that they are not known to all believers since some are ignorant of some issues. There are many things that the Spirit has not brought to light yet in my life. We are only finite human beings that are slow in learning the ways of God. Young children are not always quick to learn what is in their best interests either. Some believers have not studied to show themselves approved by God as correctly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). If you try to read something into Scripture that it does not say instead of finding out the Author’s intent and drawing out His intent you are going to misinterpret Scripture. Some Christians are not listening to the Spirit but to the world and its values. They are confused by the many conflicting world-views. Some have forgotten their first love, the Lord Jesus Christ and allegiance to Him. They are not being faithful. And others are not true believers.

As RCofield said, the same applies in the world of unbelievers. They can’t agree on everything either. But we do have an ultimate, objective, universal, absolute, good standard that God has revealed in His Word, by His Spirit and through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That standard is God. I asked Walter just before Christmas what kind of proof he would accept as to the existence of God. So far no word back, but he wants proof of God on his own conditions. He won’t bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is adequate proof in the world because God made it, but outside of Christ there will always be some excuse or some objection, no matter how trivial, because that is the nature of unbelief. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

But two things I can do as a Christian is pray and show that an unbeliever has no way of making sense of anything ultimately by the using of the word of God and God's concepts and lessons.

You can’t make sense of truth, knowledge, being, origins, the uniformity of nature, or morals without first borrowing from the Christian world-view.

Hi Peter,

I trust you and yours had an worshipful Advent celebration.

You were far too gracious in many of your comments in that last post. I never feel that I have done an adequate job, especially when I read many of the brilliant, able apologists of the Christian faith with whom God has blessed our generation.

In retrospect I agree that I pushed the envelope a little too far on the situation with Walter and his church affiliation. If I had it to do over I would not go as far with it as I did.

Yeah, it appears GoldenEagles is out of the loop for the time being. He may be overwhelmed by the defeat of DADT. I personally felt from the beginning that the veneer of Clintonian hypocrisy in that policy rendered it less than useless. In this cultural climate its rescission was all but inevitable.

I wonder about Pam as well. Hope she is OK.

Hey TW,

You ended your last post with:

-- continued --

Was there supposed to be a second part to that?

Hi RCofield,

Couldn't help but be slightly amused by your post to Peter. Peter, I know you will address these issues but I hope don't mind my throwing in my two-cents worth here.

RCofield, I'm always glad when you comment and when you turn the unbeliever's words back on themselves. (^8

I agree with almost everything that you have said on these posts and am learning some things from your replies. I see the Spirit at work in your responses in tearing down strongholds that set themselves up against the knowledge of God and challenging their world-views. I have not seen you lose your cool in responding to anyone, but regard them with the love of Christ in respecting them as being made in the image and likeness of God, however marred that image may be since the Fall and the suppression of God's truth.

I don't think I would have initiated the same ploy with Walter, however it was obvious from his posts where he lived and what church he attended. I have enjoyed your debates with Walter and feel that he has not given strong rebuttals to your arguments on slavery and abortion.

It appears that GoldenEagles is not engaging. I do hope he gets his theology straightened around.

I wonder if we will see Pam back in the new year?

Ah RCO, it's nice to engage again.

I said moral values evolve over time and you said, Morality is fixed and absolute. As such, it does not change or “evolve.” And you would be correct if you ignored the historical record. It used to be viewed as immoral for a black person to date, let alone marry, a white person. It no longer is. It was viewed by most people, not even 100 years ago, that having sex outside of marriage is immoral. That is no longer the case by today’s standards with the majority of Americans (not to mention by the majority of British, Fins, Dutch, French, Spanish or almost any European nation). You seem to think that morals are fixed, never changing, but they aren’t.

RCO: So...if there is a “better” moral standard without an “objective” or fixed moral standard...how do you know it is “better”?
Because I define better as that which increases joy without increasing sorrow/pain/distress. If you do something that increases someone’s joy or reduces someone’s suffering, in my book it’s probably moral. At the same time you’ll notice I said "in my book" because as Daniel stated, morals are personal and what may be morally good as far as I can judge (and it’s a judgment call) may be immoral for you.

RCO: Setting aside for the moment the fact that the bible nowhere advocates “treating some people as subhuman” or treating women or minorities as “less than full and equal citizens” or “less than fully human,”.
Well, that’s not entirely true. The bible’s pronouncement that women shall not hold positions of authority over men has directly led to women being treated as less than full citizens and able to enjoy positions of responsibility, for hundreds of years. The sacred texts of most Abrahamic religions treat women as second class and excluded them from positions of power. The same can be said about the bible’s contradictory treatment of slaves. You have to ignore the tacit approval of slavery found in the bible in order to conclude that the bible views slavery as immoral (yes, I recall the extended discussion you had with Walter on this very issue).

The bible's promise of eternal torture simply for not believing in the "right" god is morally repugnant to me -- even if I'm convinced that it's untrue.

Do you claim that the morals of Americans have not changed over the last 200 years or do you claim that Americans don't understand the same moral guidelines that you follow?

-- continued --

TW,

Ten inches of snow?! Good grief. We had rain and 55 degree temperatures on Christmas day down here. It has actually been 17 years since we have had an accumulation of snow in my hometown. Wish we could "borrow" 2 or 3 inches from you guys, but I'm glad we didn't get 10 inches.

My family and I had a wonderful holiday. Our first granddaughter just turned 2 and was an absolute joy to all of us. When she throws those tiny little arms around my neck, squeezes me with all her little might, and says "I wuv you, Popa," well, I just turn into goo. What a beautiful, precious gift from God. And we have another on the way! I may need sedation!

I trust that you and yours had a good holiday. I'm sure the "white Christmas" was beautiful.

Looking forward to knocking heads with you again. I've missed you in your absence and have often wondered if all was well with you.

RCO,

Good to hear from you and by all means, jump in with both feet. However, since we received 10" of snow on Christmas, be sure to wear the appropriate attire before jumping.

I'm still working so will need a little while to review your comments.

I hope your holidays have been really good and that your family is well.

Responding shortly,

TWM.

DANIELINTHEPUPPYSPLAYPEN,

TW queried:

If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are?

To which you responded with aplomb:

Because there are not absolute guidelines. People who make ab(so)lute moral claims are actually referring to their own moral claims, which are themselves, arbitrary.

LOL. I bet you weren't taught that in the Methodist Sunday School classes of your “childhood,” were you?

Do “absolute guidelines” not exist simply because you have righteously declared they do not? When you postulate that “people who make absolute moral claims are actually referring to their own moral claims which are themselves arbitrary,” are you making an “absolute” claim, or is your opinion, itself, “arbitrary”?

To say that there is a God who imposes an absolute moral law, does not make it true. To say it with empahsis or temper tantrum fury, likewise, does (not?) make it true.

Does your insinuation that there is not a God who imposes an absolute moral law make it true that there is not such a God? Does your sarcasm in that last line make the insinuation in the former line more true?

What Peter Huff is actually is not existential logic, but the politics of power, and what must be, in order for there to be poltlical and civil order in the societies of man. Whatever conclusion anyone may have about these political arrangements, they can have no bearing on the speculations about the true nature of God and man's relaitonship to God.

If you wouldn't mind cleaning that paragraph up a bit I would love to respond to what you are trying to say.

One of Peter Huff's favorite phrases is "you can't believe that... " But yes, people can believe "that;" people believe what they believe, no matter how impossible it may seem. "You can't believe that ... " or " ... you shouldn't believe that ... " has no relevance to these arguments, not to what people really do believe.

You know, I read most of what Peter Huff posts on these threads. I don't recall “you can't believe that...” being one of his “favorite phrases.” Could you give us a few examples of this, or did you just fabricate your accusation to support your otherwise unsupported and hardly intelligible argument?

I think that it is wront for people to comment themselves to automomic mental conformity to dogma, BUT, they do it anyway.

Do you think that it is “wront” for people to “comment” themselves to “automomic” obedience of the clear moral teachings of Jesus Christ?

Do you think it is wrong for people to commit themselves to automatic posting of comments in which numerous words are misspelled when the little wavy line under a word in your processor indicates that the word is probably misspelled?

Merry Christmas. Happy New Year.

Hi TW,

Part 1 of 4

Long time no-post. :-)

Couldn't help but be slightly amused by your post to Peter. Peter, I know you will address these issues but I hope don't mind my throwing in my two-cents worth here.

TW, you said:

Moreover, moral values evolve over time.

Morality is fixed and absolute. As such, it does not change or “evolve.” What you are referring to as “evolving” morals is no more than shifting and changing personal or societal preferences. You then state:

Yes there is a better without an objective standard at least without an objective standard the way you define it.

So...if there is a “better” moral standard without an “objective” or fixed moral standard...how do you know it is “better”? Aren't you just saying that it is “better” in your opinion? I mean, after all, if there is no fixed standard you have nothing to measure your standard against and thereby declare your standard “better,” do you? Let me demonstrate what I mean. You say:

The moral standards of 200 years ago treated some people as subhuman (and it was perfectly acceptable by the bible), women were treated as less than full and equal citizens and other "minorities" were treated as less than fully human. That's the moral system that is supported in no small part by the bible.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that the bible nowhere advocates “treating some people as subhuman” or treating women or minorities as “less than full and equal citizens” or “less than fully human,” I would like to pose a few simple questions:

By what standard do you deem modern moral standards “better” than “the moral standards of 200 years ago”? In other words, how do you know that the current treatment of women and minorities (in some modern cultures—certainly not all) is “better” than it was 200 years ago? Is it only “better” in your opinion, or is it “better” when compared to some moral standard outside of yourself? If it is the former, what makes your opinion “better” than anyone else's? If the later, what is that standard?

Hi TW,

Part 2 of 4

My moral system is rather easy to describe and easy to understand; do whatever you can to ease the suffering of other humans and to bring as much joy as possible to others. (These guidelines apply to adults).

Um....TW, though they lack a great deal of necessary detail (on your part), those moral guidelines are everywhere evident in the bible. In fact, they are quite descriptive of the life of Christ himself, and should characterize the life of everyone who calls themselves christian. Is it possible that at the same time you are derisive of the bible you have, inadvertently, drawn your own moral standard from that which you deride? You do know that is not at all uncommon for secularists who reside in cultures largely influenced by christianity, don't you? But let me argue against your point.
So...when you say “these guidelines apply to adults,” you are in effect saying that your moral system must be adopted by all adults. What would you say to me if I told you to stick your “moral system” in your ear? Why do you think Imust adhere to your moral system?
Let's say—for argument's sake—that my “moral system” is equally easy to describe and easy to understand; inflict as much suffering as I can on other human beings and bring as much joy to myself as possible (at the expense of others). What makes your “moral system” better than mine?

Thus premarital sex is probably morally wrong to you but completely moral to me provided they are consenting adults.

Ok. Who determines the “age of consent”? Do you determine this? If so, am I required to submit to your determination? If you do not determine the “age of consent,” who does? On what authority do “they” make this determination? Does your “personal” concept of consent take into account the possibility of manipulation? Consider this:

Hi TW,

Part 3 of 4

Let's say for argument's sake that you have an 18 year old daughter, and you have determined the that “age of consent” is 18 years old. She is in the back seat of a car with the local high-school quarterback, parked on a dark side-road. He is all over her. He tells her he loves her (he doesn't—he's not in love, he is in heat), and that if she loves him she will have sex with him. She falls for it and “consents.” Afterwards, he drops her off at your house and she never hears from him again—and she is utterly devastated that she surrendered her virginity to such a slug. Thirty days later she discovers she is pregnant. Are you telling me that is “completely moral” as far as you are concerned?

Now let's turn it around and make it my daughter in the same scenario—except I believe that premarital sex is morally wrong, regardless of age. Therefore, when this local stud-muffin quarterback calls on my daughter, my wife and I tell him that he is welcome to spend the evening with our entire family (including my daughter, who is the object of his...uh...”affection”) so that we may get to know him better. After two hours of civil conversation and southern hospitality in our family parlor he leaves a very frustrated and angry wad of raging hormones and my daughter never hears from him again. Simple question: Whose moral standard is “better,” mine or yours?

Hi TW,

Part 4 of 4

You said to Peter:

From your previous posts you seem to believe that God defined what is moral or not and those rules are clearly stated in the bible. If you still hold that position, I would ask you why Christians, all claiming to want to do God's will and live the way God wants them to, come down on both sides of the major moral issues of this generation (stem cell research, abortion, capital punishment, war, torture, sex, birth control). A simple sampling on these issues from Christians of lots of different denominations will find significant numbers of people who absolutely disagree with each of these issues.
If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are?

First, I would ask you the same question concerning secularists. Do all secularists agree unilaterally concerning what is moral and what is immoral? Aren't you accusing our side of the table of the very same thing your side of the table is guilty of? You are aware that not all secularists agree with your “ rather easy to describe and easy to understand” moral system, aren't you? Do you think they should submit to your “moral system”? If so, why? If not, why not?

And secondly, your question presumes that all who call themselves Christian are, in fact, Christians. The simple truth is that a “Christian” is one who obeys the Word of Christ (the bible). As there is no ambiguity in the bible when it comes to the issues you named, the problem rests not in the standard but in the individuals who disagree with the standard. That's one of the really cool things about absolute morality: It is not diminished in the least by those who disagree with it, be they christian or secular.

Don't you, in your heart of hearts, wish your “rather easy to describe and easy to understand” moral system was absolute in that everyone should “do whatever you can to ease the suffering of other humans and to bring as much joy as possible to others”?

Merry CHRISTmas. Happy New Year.

Twmatthews

"If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are?"

Because there are not absolute guidelines. People who make abosulute moral claims are actually referring to their own moral claims, which are themselves, arbitrary.

To say that there is a God who imposes an absolute moral law, does not make it true. To say it with empahsis or temper tantrum fury, likewise, does make it true.

What Peter Huff is actually is not existential logic, but the politics of power, and what must be, in order for there to be poltlical and civil order in the societies of man. Whatever conclusion anyone may have about these political arrangements, they can have no bearing on the speculations about the true nature of God and man's relaitonship to God.

One of Peter Huff's favorite phrases is "you can't believe that... " But yes, people can believe "that;" people believe what they believe, no matter how impossible it may seem. "You can't believe that ... " or " ... you shouldn't believe that ... " has no relevance to these arguments, not to what people really do believe.

I think that it is wront for people to comment themselves to automomic mental conformity to dogma, BUT, they do it anyway.

Hello and Merry Christmas PeterHuff. Excuse me for butting into your most recent discussion with Walter. I see you are still attempting to establish an objective moral value system and you seem to think this is a prerequisite for a moral society. Per our discussions from almost three months ago, it still seems like there is no single moral standard. Moreover, moral values evolve over time. So if you don't mind picking up from where we left off, here are a couple of comments/questions.

First, you said:"There is no 'better' without an objective ideal that he cannot produce."

Yes there is a better without an objective standard at least without an objective standard the way you define it.

The moral standards of 200 years ago treated some people as subhuman (and it was perfectly acceptable by the bible), women were treated as less than full and equal citizens and other "minorities" were treated as less than fully human. That's the moral system that is supported in no small part by the bible.

My moral system is rather easy to describe and easy to understand; do whatever you can to ease the suffering of other humans and to bring as much joy as possible to others. (These guidelines apply to adults).

Thus premarital sex is probably morally wrong to you but completely moral to me provided they are consenting adults.

From your previous posts you seem to believe that God defined what is moral or not and those rules are clearly stated in the bible.

If you still hold that position, I would ask you why Christians, all claiming to want to do God's will and live the way God wants them to, come down on both sides of the major moral issues of this generation (stem cell research, abortion, capital punishment, war, torture, sex, birth control). A simple sampling on these issues from Christians of lots of different denominations will find significant numbers of people who absolutely disagree with each of these issues.

If absolute moral guidelines are known to all believers, why can't Christians agree what they are?

Hi Walter,

Yes, this is the link. I think everyone took a break during the Christmas season.

How was your holiday?

Did you have any thoughts on my last posts? I asked you some specifics.

Btw, I'm having a regular dialog with the gentleman who posted his atheist poster on the local buses. To this point in time he is devoid of offering anything but his personal preference as to why his 'system' is for the 'betterment of society' or why his 'reason, ethics and compassion' is better or even rational.

He has actually admitted all he has is preference. There is no 'better' without an objective ideal that he cannot produce. Yet he, thus far, has refused to come to this realization that such a philosophy as atheism can produce it. So much for a system based on reason, ethics and compassion.

In my opinion, this is always the biggest hurdle for atheism, how to justify a moral should or ought without an absolute moral law giver. My new atheist friend wants to prescribe his moral outlook on others without being able to explain why it is for the betterment of society other than being his own personal taste and the taste of those of like minds.

You Walter, use a quantitative value system all the time in trying to justify your position and decry ours as invalid. Yet values are something that are not possible without a mind to reason that something is good or bad. They just don't exist outside of a thinking being. Chemicals or rocks are amoral. And without an objective absolute value system or standard how can you justify your particular taste as anything but your own feelings or those of like opinion - just the way your particular chemicals react? There is no good or bad without an objective moral standard or ideal. It is just taste/preference/opinion/feelings.

There must be a moral law giver if in fact there are moral laws of right and wrong/good and bad. You have to know what is right before you can know what is wrong and yet where does your ideal come from - Impersonal Chance?

You have to have some moral grounding that can measure good and better and best by. Feelings don't meet this criteria for they are relative, subjective, personal.

Without a moral grounding you have North Korea's rhetoric, threatening nuclear war and to reduce South Korea to ashes. This is from an atheist regime that wants to make their feelings/preferences known and enforced by mental and/or physical force. This is all you have Walter - might makes right. But there is no 'right' about it. Don't call it good without God unless you can point to an ideal measure. Why do you keep using moral qualitative judgments? Show me first that you can justify them before you use them.

That is something I want you to justify in the new year or admit that your position is morally bankrupt.

rco, peter? is this the right place? hope you guys had a nice time at JC's birthday party this year.

"God did the unthinkable and humbled Himself and fully took on human flesh. The Creator became a creature, the one who held the cosmos was held by a mother. Jesus kept his Divine Nature, but acquired a human nature no different from any human being on the planet. He felt our pain, bore our pain, and restored the possibility of a relationship with God."

And people actually believe this nonsense?

╔╗─╔╗
║║─║║
║╚═╝╠══╦══╦══╦╗─╔╗
║╔═╗║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║║
║║─║║╔╗║╚╝║╚╝║╚═╝║
╚╝─╚╩╝╚╣╔═╣╔═╩═╗╔╝ EVERY-DAY!
───────║║─║║─╔═╝║
───────╚╝─╚╝─╚══╝ LiKE A
╔══╗───╔╗╔╗───╔╗──────╔╗
║╔╗║──╔╝╚╣║───║║──────║║
║╚╝╚╦╦╩╗╔╣╚═╦═╝╠══╦╗─╔╣║
║╔═╗╠╣╔╣║║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║╠╝
║╚═╝║║║║╚╣║║║╚╝║╔╗║╚═╝╠╗
╚═══╩╩╝╚═╩╝╚╩══╩╝╚╩═╗╔╩╝
──────────────────╔═╝║
──────────────────╚══╝
-

█▀█░██░█▀█░█▀░██
█░█░█■░█▀█░█░░█■
█▀▀░█▄░█░█░█▄░█▄
█ &. . . . . . .
. . . . ╔╗ . . . . . .
. . . . ║║╔═╦╦╦═╗
. . . . ║╚╣║║║║╩╣
. . . . ╚═╩═╩═╩═╝. . NO
. . . . ╔╗
. . . . ║║. . .╔╗
. . . . ║╚╦═╣╚╦═╗
. . . . ║║║╬║╔╣╩╣█
. . . . ╚╩╩╩╩═╩═╝●
.
.
By: "JJ" http://onwapo.wordpress.com
.
.
MADE IN AMERiK.

John Mark,

Secularists aren't ugly. They simply feel that religion is a private matter. That, I think, is a very beautiful idea.

And this devout secularist wishes you and your family a very Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,
Farnaz

I see "ugly" theocons demanding we say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" and judging and condemning anyone and everyone different and those who do not kow tow to their Christmas demands. They have hijacked my father's Christmas like they did with his GoP.

Happy Birthday, Jesus, please protect the rest of us from your evangelical followers.

It saddens me to have to do this, but it must be said;

"A few Christians, the type narrow enough to see down a straw with both eyes, and many non-Christians, trying to live in a Christian culture without noticing, pretend that Christmas is a pagan holiday"

Look, I know you're "fighting the good fight", and all of that, but you'll not win converts by lying.
December 25th IS a pagan holiday.
It is NOT even close to the birth date of Jesus.
This isn't the 17th century. People have access to information. Some people even have access to a retrospective Hebrew calendar, which is all you need, (aside from a third grade level of reading comprehension) to know for a certainty when it was that Christ was born,
(that is, if you believe the Bible, and aren't just pushing an agenda)

There are meanings behind the real dates involved, inasmuch as they fall on actual Hebrew observances. When those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of God won't even bother to learn His word, there's not much hope for his flock.

It's not that big of a deal to me personally, but you might want to consider something before you and the Easter bunny write your column on The Passion.
(You know, that thing that should be observed as "Passover", rather than as an homage to the Canaanite idol, Ashtaroth)

"[13] Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the SOLEMN MEETING. (Ashtaroth, in Hebrew)
[14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
[15] And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear:

"God did the unthinkable and humbled Himself and fully took on human flesh. The Creator became a creature, the one who held the cosmos was held by a mother"

Technically, you're wrong.
Jesus was "the last Adam".
He was made perfect through sufferings and BECAME the author of eternal salvation.
You can make the case that God the Father took on the physical body of Christ, after his baptism, but you can not claim that God the Father was born in flesh.
If that was true, then whose voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"?

Very poor scholarship on display, Mr Reynolds

Well...Jesus was Jewish so why this conversation even takes place is crazy, never once does Jesus say to celebrate his birth in the bible.

Karlmarx2

And Mr. Reynolds is not all so smart as he thinks he is. Until about 150 years ago, Easter was the primary Christian festival, not Christmas.

Christmas has NOT been a huge festival down throughout the ages; that is a recent innovation in Christian practice.

@Danielinthelionsden - No, you're right. This is what Reynolds believes. When you get right down to it, the official christian religion is a creepy and hateful philosophy. The people who follow it most seriously, like Mr. Reynolds, tend to be pretty creepy and hateful themselves.

The Christmas story of a baby god being born is not so bad. Babies, especially our own, are kind of godlike to us and renew our love of life. But that's as far as I'll go with the christian Christmas.

The way I see it, the closer Christmas gets to its pagan roots, the more it is a holiday of love, celebration, and sharing. So that's how I intend to celebrate it.

Mr. Reynolds, do you honestly believe that there were no winter holy days being celebrated before Jesus acme along? And do you honestly believe that he was born in the middle of winter?

You think of non-Christians as the living dead, as grimly grinning ghouls?

I am not sure if you really believe this, or if this is just a poor choice of words with lack of proof-reading, but I think I am starting to feel sorry for you.

You should learn to love.