Mageth

If you say so, but without the Might of the U.S.'s industrial power and natural resources, and the Might of the determination of the Soviets and the hostile conditions on the Eastern Front (combined with the Germans' error in fighting the war on two fronts), I doubt if our sense of justice would have gotten us very far. A sense of justice never won a war.

Biff the unclean

I do find this infantile mentality interesting.
It all seems to revolve totally around pleasing the "father figure". Morality as a social necessity seems to have no meaning to Theists. Only that it pleases Daddy…even when such "pleasing" behavior is no longer socially acceptable. And if you are "good" (read as obedient) Daddy will make let that you win at games (in this case WW II)

Keith

We Christians don't need to propose a moral/ethical system, or put it in place. It has already been put into place, and it is God's law. We just have to obey God. It's that simple. We know God's moral law through the bible, and because God has written His law on our hearts. The fact that we don't (and can't) obey God with perfect consistency doesn't mean that God's moral law is too strict or unreasonable. We all know what we ought to do, and what we ought not do.

Keith

Well, to mention one kind of antihumanistic value, the extreme emphasis on animal rights at the expense of human rights. There are some people that claim that it is "wrong" for humans to eat animals.

But my point is that even Hitler may have thought that his anti semitism would lead to the most humanistic world ever. He apparently tried to justify what he did by telling various lies about the Jews in order to make it appear that his goal was honorable and perhaps even humanistic. Who's standard for what is/isn't "humanistic" should be accepted? Should it be determined by consensus? Why is a consensus automatically morally right?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
We Christians don't need to propose a moral/ethical system, or put it in place. It has already been put into place, and it is God's law.

OK, what are these laws? And how many Christians could you find to agree with you on any set that you proposed?

We just have to obey God. It's that simple.

There you go; God's law is to obey God. Do whatever God tells you to do, no matter what that entails. Kill if god says kill. Fly jets into skyscrapers if that's what God tells you to do. Discipline your kids with a rod because the bible says "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

If some other Christian says that God told him to kill doctors who work at "abortion" clinics, or to kill homosexuals, how could you judge him? How would you know God didn't tell him to?

We know God's moral law through the bible,

I think the Bible has been well demonstrated on this thread as a piss-poor moral guide.

and because God has written His law on our hearts.

An assertion which you have failed to demonstrate, and which I strongly suspect you can't demonstrate.

I have nothing written on my heart.

The fact that we don't (and can't) obey God with perfect consistency doesn't mean that God's moral law is too strict or unreasonable. We all know what we ought to do, and what we ought not do.

If you know that, tell us. If God tells you to kill your child for cursing you, "ought" you?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Well, to mention one kind of antihumanistic value, the extreme emphasis on animal rights at the expense of human rights. There are some people that claim that it is "wrong" for humans to eat animals.

Extending rights we recognize for humans to animals is not necessarily "antihumanistic". I would see it more as recognizing that other living creatures should be extended the same rights as humans in most cases. The question is: is it indeed a human right to kill and eat animals? I think this is a valid ethical question to raise and discuss. (Note: I'm not saying I agree with this stance; I simply think you're misrepresenting the animal rights position).

Further, I doubt if you'd argue against the immorality of killing a species into extinction. Is it violating human rights to protect, or limit, hunting and killing of certain species? Should I be allowed to go into Yellowstone and kill all the Grizzly Bears I wish?

And note that the Bible listed several animals for which it was "wrong" for humans to eat (though for different reasons), so that's not hardly a new concept. So was God violating the Israelites' human rights by not allowing them to eat pigs?

But my point is that even Hitler may have thought that his anti semitism would lead to the most humanistic world ever. He apparently tried to justify what he did by telling various lies about the Jews in order to make it appear that his goal was honorable and perhaps even humanistic. Who's standard for what is/isn't "humanistic" should be accepted? Should it be determined by consensus?

Yes, that's the best way.

Why is a consensus automatically morally right?

Who said it was? That's another strawman you're constructing there. There are many things that the current consensus moral system of my society (or other societies) considers morally right (or wrong) that I, and others, including you I presume, may personally disagree with, or that the consensus moral system that we adhere to disagrees with.

Once again, if a consensus moral position is reached on an action, then that action may be morally right (or wrong) under that consensus morality.

Quite simply, there is no absolute moral right and wrong to which consensus morals can be compared. Morals are only valid under moral systems. Without moral systems, "moral right and wrong" has no meaning. (You as much as admitted this earlier when you excused the actions of some biblical characters because they didn't know or realize they were morally right or wrong). We poor humans have to work out our moral/ethical systems on our own - hence the necessity of consensus. God and the Bible is worse than useless because the Bible illustrates that God's morals suck. I don't want people doing to me what God told them to do, just like I assume you don't want terrorists doing to you what Allah told them to do.

Keith

I would know that it was not God who told him to do any of these things because the bible can't reasonably be interpreted to mean that God is saying that we Christians should kill abortion doctors or gays. Didn't Jesus say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Mageth

Yes, but in the OT God supposedly told the Israelites to kill people caught committing same-sex acts, as well as witches, "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only", and assorted others. I understand that most Christians don't think these commands apply to them, but it is apparent by some supposed Christians' actions that they do.

How do you know that God might not occasionally tell someone to do one of these acts? If He did it before, why can't He do it again? On this thread, you've ascribed to Him that ability, and indicated that the persons receiving the command would be morally obligated to obey. And the OT Laws indicate that your God apparently doesn't find anything particularly immoral about killing gays etc. Is the only reason Christians aren't killing gays right now really just because they don't think God is currently telling them to?

the bible can't reasonably be interpreted to mean that God is saying that we Christians should kill abortion doctors or gays.

And if it could, you should? That's what this attitude would seem to lead to.

Keith

That's right. The life and ministry of Jesus while He was among us, was to teach us what the law is and is not intended to do for us, and how to apply God's moral law.

Keith

No. Our rights have always come to us from God even though men want to add to, or take away from our God-given rights.