Jack the Bodiless

Because I have an innate moral sense that says so.
My innate moral sense says so.
My innate moral sense says that this is wrong.

Evolution and social conditioning easily explains this. Men who make a habit of going around raping women will get themselves killed. We evolved as social animals, and being antisocial is NOT a good survival/reproduction strategy.

Ed

No, because it comes from his objective moral character which is composed of oughts. While evolution and social conditioning are composed of things that just are.

No, we should obey God out of love for Him and also because that is the way to live the most fulfilling life in this temporal universe.

That is not exactly what we were talking about. I was referring to the ORIGIN of morality not reasons for being moral. And as shown above there are no oughts in evolution and social conditioning so you still have not explained the origin.

Jack the Bodiless

What does "composed of oughts" mean? According to Christian theologians, God simply HAS a specific "moral character". This doesn't give us a reason to obey God, however.
And we should obey society's rules out of love for our fellow humans and also because that is the way to live the most fulfilling life in this temporal universe: the life that evolution shaped us for.

You're missing the point (as usual). If we DO have an "innate moral sense", then that is sufficient reason to behave morally. But, for psychopaths who lack this sense: what OTHER reason is there?

Other than fear of punishment (which secular society also enforces), you have provided none.

Why should a sociopath CARE that "God created us"? Why does this provide a reason for a sociopath to obey God? It doesn't!
Yes, I HAVE explained the origin:

evolution and social conditioning.

You have STILL not provided any reason why evolution and social conditioning would be incapable of producing an "innate moral sense". And you're STILL wittering about "oughts" even though this is irrelevant to the ORIGIN of this moral sense.

Ed

I didn't say it founded on the name of the theory, it was founded on the names of God used in the Pentatuech.

Ed

By not going along with the ancient Roman institution of patrias potestas in the Roman empire they were able to get these freedoms.


Just because you are the computer guy and you have a friend in accounting does not mean you are not social equals, it just means you have different roles. We don't know exactly why God does not allow them to teach adult men.

Ed

Yes it does.

No, when interpreting the bible you have to look at it from the perspective of the writer, who plainly believed that God exists. And as a sidelight, you have yet to demonstrate He is nonexistent.

No, that is earlier in the text that is not in the verse that states his heart was hardened.

You have yet to demonstrate that assertion.

lpetrich

That's only one part of the theory, and not the foundation of it.

(the early Christians...)
How had they not gone along with that? Did they allow women to instruct adult men?

(women...)
And for the purpose of finding out whom women may instruct, how does one tell when a man is an adult and no longer a boy?

And are men not allowed to instruct adult women also?

And where did Mr. G. explicitly state "Women are not allowed to instruct adult men"? And what would happen if women did?

Would that be anything like what a disaster it supposedly is for women to drive cars; according to Saudi religious leader Al Qarni, it would result in:
* Women's heads being uncovered
* The sexes freely mingling
* The destruction of the the family and of society

For more, see the thread Why Women Are Not Allowed to Drive in Saudi Arabia

Jack the Bodiless

So now you're denying the existence of the rest of Exodus 7:13?

Even if it's been somehow erased from YOUR Bible, how do you explain its occurrence in online Bibles (even those maintained by Christians)? Evil atheist hackers put it there?
The writer of Exodus plainly did NOT believe that "God allows free will". Exodus contains MANY attempts by God to deny free will to both the Hebrews and the Egyptians. You are failing to grasp the fact that the concept of the "omnimax God" lay centuries in the future: the God of Exodus sought to suppress free will to the best of his limited ability.
Yes, "as God had said" IS in the same verse: Exodus 7:13.

Your willingness to deny the Bible is truly amazing.

Of course, it requires you to look up a different verse (Exodus 7:3) to see what God DID say on this subject. So, are you NOW arguing that Exodus 7:3 is false?
I have PROVED it: there is no other verse that applies.

Therefore you lose.

Ed

Go check out my old supersized EOG thread, I pretty much covered all their arguments in that thread.


Heaven is described as a new heaven and a new earth ie a new universe that we will be able to explore. I would not call that boring.

The white robes are not meant literally, they represent the righteousness that we will receive. And neither is the singing hymns all day, though that may be a large part of our pleasures. Of course, you may not like it in heaven, that is part of the reason God gives you a choice and free will.

Irrelevant see above.

Being in the direct presence of God will be a greater pleasure than any sexual pleasure. You do know that God invented it?

See above.

Yes, because we will see all the factors that led to that judgement and we will see that He was being totally just in His judgements.

No.

Except Jesus is the only one that is also divine, so that he alone shares God's essence.

There are many things in life that appear contrived, but in actuality are not.

So what?

lpetrich

(Arguments against the existence of the Xian God...)
Including the argument that some have made that they have more personal happiness since they deconverted? Not a great argument, but it does show that the Argument from Personal Happiness can cut both ways.

Which one won't be doing if one is singing hymns all day.

How are white robes not meant literally? And how does one "receive righteousness"? Why weren't we always super-virtuous?

God the Orgasmatron? And how can a fictional being invent anything?

(Me earlier: And more seriously: would one be completely happy if many of one's friends and relatives end up in Hell instead?)
And how can we be sure of that?

Especially when not getting to be with many of one's friends and relatives might seem like Hell.