Johnny Skeptic

That is reason enough on its own for people to reject God. In fact, decent people do not have a choice whether or not to reject such a God. God is able to provide more information than he has provided. If he did, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Favoritism is a detestable attribute, an attribute that Christians usually oppose among humans. Not only that, decent people do not any choice whether or not to love a God who makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, who punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, and who kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes. You really do have a strange taste in Gods. If God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed many atrocities that are much worse than lying is.

I agree, but that is obviously not what God wants because he deliberately withholds information that would cause more people to become Christians.

The hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it, particularly people who lived in the first century (in the first century, God obviously discriminated against people who lived in China and other countries that were not in close proximity to Palestine), should not have to stand before God and wonder why God refused to explain these things to him, and why he refused to explain why he needlessly committed many atrocities against mankind. More importantly, in the next life, no one should have to stand before God and wonder why he deliberately withheld additional information from some people that would have caused them to become Christians if they had had the information.

But if I were given more information, I might become a Christian. If salvation is good, valuable, and worth obtaining, a loving God would not always leave it up to skeptics to tell people about it. If you were at a beach, and your son was drowning, you most certainly would not leave it up to the lifeguards to save your son if you were nearby and no lifeguards were nearby. It is called love and compassion. How much more beneficial and desirable is salvation than being saved from drowning? Now who do you suppose told Moses and Abraham about God, other humans? Of course not.

In the Old Testament, whose fault was it that most of the people in the world did not know about the specific existence and will of the God of the Bible? Could it be that because of pride, Abraham unilaterally chose his group to be God's chosen people?

No. Do you know that they were not lying? In a court trial, initially, the judge does not know that the defendant is lying. It is up to the plaintiff to reasonably prove that the defendant is lying. It is not up to the defendant to reasonably prove that he is telling the truth. I do not have to reasonably prove anything. All that I have to do is adopt a neutral position and ask you to reasonably prove your affirmative position. I am content with a Mexican standoff. Are you?

Why is that? Do you know of any benefits that humans derived from those atrocities? Do you know of any benefits that God derived from those atrocities?

Johnny Skeptic

If you had four children, and they were in danger of drowning, it would be your decision which ones you would try to save. How would you go about choosing which of your children you would try to save, or would you try to save all of them? Would your love, compassion, and protectiveness be selective and limited? I have brought up this issue many times at the EofG Forum, and several times at this forum, but you have always conveniently refused to discuss it because you do not want to make God look bad. Surely the undecided crowd are not impressed with your evasiveness, and they are essentially the only crowd that you have any chance of convincing of anything. If you refuse to discuss this issue, I will repost this post once a week as frequently as necessary so that undecided readers can see how evasive you are, and that you know when you are beaten.

rhutchin

I am confused by you inability to start a new thread to discuss an interesting issue. I started one for you. You can repost this on that thread and not continue to encumber this thread with your rabbit trail.

Johnny Skeptic

I am confused by your inability to answer my question in three different threads at two different forums. Assuming that the God of the Bible exists, his character is THE fundamental issue regarding whether or not decent people are able to accept him. Homosexuality is a very minor issue compared to that issue.

If I start a new thread, will you answer my question? If so, which forum do you prefer?

Regarding homosexuality, do you have any evidence that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? Do you know that they were not lying? You asked me if I had any evidence that the writers were speaking for themselves and not for God. I replied:

I do have good evidence that the Bible is not inerrant. I have posted it on numerous occasions, but you have always refused to reply to my arguments. You told me to start of new thread on inerrancy, but you were well aware that there were two existing threads on inerrnacy at that time, and there is still a thread on inerrancy on page one at this forum It is interesting to note that you did not make one single post in either thread. This is in spite of the fact that many of your aguments in various threads depend lock, stock, and barrel upon the Bible being inerrant. You are well aware that if you choose to debate inerracy, you will get into trouble. I used to think that you were a good debater, but now, your arguments have become ridiculously easy to refute.

You are one of the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across. It is obvious that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend to be. I actually prefer it that way since most undecided readers are surely not impressed with evasiveness. I don't suppose that you would be willing to have a formal debate with me about the nature of God, would you?

seebs

Actually, in Christian theology, it very much does. This is why works of the law can't save; because nothing you do solely for self-advancement is morally valuable, even if it is very convenient to others.

To feed the hungry because you wish them to be fed is laudable. To feed the hungry because, although you hate them and wish them to die, a large number of men with guns are going to kill you if you do not, is merely selfish.

I don't think it's possible for humans to determine morality.

I believe people should be free to try to discern morality, and act according to their own consciences. They are not determining morality, but seeking it. Deny them that, and they will be absolutely amoral, even if they coincidentally act in a way which might be moral had they chosen it.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that all of the individuals will be right; merely that they have to be the ones making the decision for right or wrong. If it's enforced, they are being denied the option of choosing between good and evil.

Well, it is the traditional Christian lifestyle, but I don't feel it would be remotely appropriate to force it on people.

Your question about what constitutes harm could have been a real one, but the example you chose is frankly a stupid one. Society can reasonably be expected to ignore sins of omission in the majority of cases; our negligence law is reasonably mature, and answers these questions in a way which, unsurprisingly, allows people a great deal of personal freedom.

No it isn't.

I don't think you've understood a word I've said.

You are starting with the dangerously wrong premise that outward actions are the sum total of morality, so of course it is obligatory to force people to commit only "good" acts. This is nonsense.

I am not saying that there is no absolute right and wrong; I am saying that they are not things which can be enforced effectively by laws. People have to have the freedom to choose evil before their choice of good can be called a moral action. You may have seen this argument advanced before; it's the entire basis of Christian responses to the Problem of Evil.

"Abomination" in this context means exactly and precisely "ritually unclean". Our usage of the word has changed substantially since the word "abomination" was first chosen to translate that particular bit of Hebrew. Shrimp are precisely the same "abomination" as gay sex. The same word is used, because it's the same exact concept; ritual purity.

Your question is incoherent because you have misunderstood my point.

Rape is harmful in a way that I believe justifies society's attempts to prevent it.

If a person has the desire to commit rape, and chooses not to solely out of fear of punishment, he has not acted morally, he has acted in a purely selfish fashion. He has not made the moral decision to refrain from harming another; he has made the selfish decision to refrain from taking an action that will harm himself.

This is very convenient for the person he has chosen not to rape, but it is not to be confused with the moral action of choosing not to harm others because you do not wish them to be harmed.

It is, however, not support for it.

And indeed, I don't. I just say that fornication is not determined by the physical particulars of an act, but by the moral intent of the actors.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that we believe that it is moral for Christians to engage in self-defense, using violence if necessary, and potentially even lethal force.

What is the difference between "murder" and "justified killing in self-defense"? It is a question of intent and circumstance.

Your attempt to define fornication in terms of particular physical acts is precisely as incoherent as an attempt to define murder in terms of prohibited weapons, asserting that any killing with swords is moral, but killing with guns is immoral. You're obsessed with physical details which are totally irrelevant to the moral question.

I do not believe God could say that, if we take "commands" to include the Law of Moses, because I am assured that God does not lie. Love is sometimes expressed poorly, but even a poor expression of love nonetheless expresses love. At this time, there is no standing command against gay sex. The commands on the record right now are "love God" and "love your neighbor". Everything else is the Law of Moses, and attempts to earn righteousness by following that are completely dead, and have no merit whatsoever.

Before you rush to point out that we frown on murder, and murder is against the Law of Moses, I must make this clear: I am not saying that all actions which violate the Law of Moses are necessarily okay. I am saying that there is no connection at all between the Law of Moses and morality. Some things which violate the Law of Moses are genuinely evil, others may be not merely tolerable, but morally obligatory! To observe that something violates the Law of Moses tells us nothing at all about whether it is moral or immoral.

So, rather than trying to draw up a precise list of physical actions which are prohibited, we should be looking at the question of whether a given sexual act expresses love or not.

Johnny Skeptic

It is obvious to anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense that just because a certain practice is legitimate to one person, that does not necessarily make it right. Some humans believe that killing people is legitimate, but most people know that killing people is not legitimate. God is an immoral being by his own standards. He says that killing people is wrong, but he frequently kills some of his most devout and faithful followers. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. God unnecessarily turned a savage Devil loose to terrorize the world. God helps the Devil by killing people with hurricanes. If God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed many atrocities that are much worse than lying is. Are you going to try to tell us that telling lies is worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? God is willing that some will perish, but if you have children, and they were in danger of drowning, you would not be willing that any of them perish. You would also not be willing that some of your children not hear about the Gospel message. God's worst attribute is that he deliberately withholds information that would cause some people to become Christians if they were aware of it. Whether regarding a human, an alien, or a God, love and compassion compel any being to have everyone's best interests at heart, to help people, to protect them, and to feed them, not to allow them to die slow, painful deaths by starvation. James 2:14-22 say "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Obviously, God is a hypocrite. For that reason, and many other reasons, decent people do not have any choice but to reject him. Pascal's Wager is a fraud because it does not work on decent people. It is not possible to get a person to love you based upon threats.

Do you love God? If so, why?

rhutchin

I like it. So, any ideas on how to determine what is "right" and what is not "right"? Could you determine that something was sexually immoral (or not) and how would you do that?

Do you think you can convince Seebs to enforce what you think is right on others?

rhutchin

Time, that precious commodity, explains it. You are not the only person to whom I respond and I have a limited amount of time.

It does not matter.

I just think that you should be gracious to the person who starts a thread and stay on topic or start new threads when you get off topic. I also think you should be gracious to others and develop threads on unique issues that allows as many to participate in discussions as possible.

Is that too much to ask of you?

Johnny Skeptic

You answered my second question, but you did not answer my first question. I said "If I start a new thread, will you answer my question?" Please answer my first question. Assuming that the God of the Bible exists, THE fundamental issue is his character. Compared to that issue, homosexuality is a very minor issue. If your primary goal is to encourge non-Christians to become Christians, how does discussing homosexuality help you to achieve that goal? Homosexuality is just one of many issues that are discussed in the Bible, so I wonder why you have chosen to discuss that issue and not divorce, adultery, or a host of other issues. If you choose to debate homosexuality for ten years, I doubt that you will convince one single non-Christian to become a Christian by discussing homosexuality.

Not at all. Regarding homsexuality, what evidence do you have that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? I do not have any evidence either way regarding this issue, but I do have good evidence that the Bible is not inerrant. I have posted some of my evidence on several occasions, via Farrell Till, but you have always conveniently refused to discuss the evidence in spite of the fact that your arguments on many issues depend lock, stock, and barrel upon the Bible being inerrant. You are obviously not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend you are. The undecided crowd are not impressed by your evasiveness.

I notice that you have conveniently vacated the thread that you started that is titled '2 Peter 3:9.' Why is that? You have also conveniently vacated a thread at the EofG Forum that you started that is titled 'Loving God no matter what.' Why is that? In both of those threads, the correct answer is obviously that you embarrassed yourself when you tried to defend the detestible nature of God, just like you embarrassed yourself in a thread on homosexuality at the GRD Forum. One wonders to what extent you will embarrass yourself further than you already have.

rhutchin

The law cannot save because (1) the law cannot erase what has happened and the law cannot change what a person is. The law (i.e., the sacrificial system) could only provide propitiation for past actions and not present or future actions. Thus the person who offered a sacrifice was cleared of past sins but not of any sins committed after the sacrifice. Because of his nature the person, immediately became tainted after offering the required sacrifices. Unless God has saved a person, that person will always act for purposes of self-advancement.

I think your point, however, is that a person may be coerced to do that which is right but this does not make the person a right thinking person right. I agree on this distinction. My point is that an action can be “right” regardless whether a person is coerced to do it or does it for some other reason, selfish or not. A selfish ingrate can do “right” things even though he is not to be credited as being a morally right person.

I agree that people cannot determine morality. That does not mean that morality does not exist or that a distinction cannot be made between right and wrong. God can determine morality and people can discern what God has determined to be morally right and wrong. Morality can be sought and found in the Bible.

Confused position. What is denied to the person is the ability to express physically the option he chooses. A person may choose (want) to rob a bank but will not carry out that action because he thinks he will be caught and spend 20 years in jail. He is coerced (inhibited) from robbing the bank even though he would if he thought he would not get caught. Nonetheless, we can still say that it is “wrong” to rob a bank regardless whether a person is free to express his desire to rob the bank.

Stupid?? Not really. On a positive note, you now seem to agree that a moral code distinguishing right and wrong can be constructed.

Your argument has not been expressed well. I think your argument got confused when you took the position that “if you're coerced into it, it's no longer ‘right.’” Regardless, we can still straighten out your argument.

The original issue was whether right and wrong can be identified. We both now seem to have come to agree that it is possible to do this.

Outward actions are an expression of inner desires. All the law does (and is intended to do) is distinguish between right and wrong and provide a basis for society to compel (coerce) people to do that which is right when a person wants to do that which is wrong. People are always free to want to do evil. They are not always free to express the evil that they want to do. Preventing a person from doing evil does not mean that the action is not evil (which seemed to be your original contention).

It’s a little stronger than that. To be an abomination may involve ritual uncleanness but it also prohibits entry into heaven. The person who has lied, murdered, stolen, etc. may be ritually unclean but the effect is that they are then excluded from heaven because they have disobeyed God (i.e., they have sinned). Only the ritually clean person (one without sin) can enter heaven.

So can we use Leviticus to identify certain sexual activities to be such that they are sin and exclude a person entering heaven?

Are you saying that rape is “wrong” or just that it might be harmful sometime and under certain conditions? Are you saying that rape is “wrong” even where a person is coerced to not rape when he wants to rape? Can we establish definitively that rape is “wrong” regardless of the motivations of people who do not rape. Can’t we establish activities, like rape, that can be described as either “right” or “wrong”?

Can we use Leviticus to identify sexual activities that are “right” or “wrong”?

We can do better than that. We can define fornication as any sexual activity that occurs outside marriage. Plain and simple. We can define murder as killing another person without justifiable cause. These definitions may correlate with intent and circumstance but the definition does not change as intents and circumstances change. I think you want to make intent and circumstance the determiners of right and wrong. However, right and wrong can be predetermined outside intent and circumstance.

For example, we define fornication as any sex outside marriage. Two people agree to have sex. If they were married to each other, it is not fornication; if not, it was fornication.

Leviticus disagrees with you. If not, then you might also say that there is no standing command against a person having sex with an animal. You are ignoring some straightforward statements in the Bible about sexual activities.

This is as confused as an argument can get.