Johnny Skeptic

How do you know this? Consider the following from http://photomatt.net/2003/02/18/divi...phro-argument:

“The Euthyphro Argument comes from Plato’s dialogue in which Socrates asks: Is something right because God commands it [Johnny: the article says that this is called the Divine Command Theory], or does God command it because it is right? The ethical implications of this argument suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as previously thought.”

Johnny: Simply stated, assuming that the God of the Bible exists, or any other God for that matter, either his declarations of morality are right solely because he declares them to be right, in which case any other possible God’s declarations of morality would be right if he happened to show up, or in my own words “because morality has a life of its own”. Due to the difficulties involved in asserting the former, many if not a sizeable majority of Christians have chosen to assert the latter. As the article says, “Some of the greatest religious thinkers of all time such as St. Thomas Aquinas rejected the divine command theory because of the very logical dilemmas presented here. Therefore, in this sense, elements of religion certainly do and should borrow from moral concepts, but moral conceptions may exist separate from religion.”

If morality has a life of its own, which principles comprise it? If the principles of morality are the principles that are asserted by the God of the Bible, or by any other God for that matter, is it a given that his interpretation of the principles reflect the spirit that they embody, or is it possible that he has merely asserted his own personal opinion?

Luke 10:25-28 say “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” This presents Christians with a dilemma. If another supposed God showed up and said that murder is right, and that in order for a man to be saved he must endorse murder, and love him with all of his heart, soul, and mind, Christians would not be able to do it. In such a situation, some Christians would reject the alien and hope that the God of the Bible would eventually show up, to which I reply “Why wait for the God of the Bible to show up when you have evidence that some other God might be the one true God, and not just ANY old kind of evidence, but FIRST HAND evidence.

Hypothetical arguments are appropriate in debates and elsewhere. I have frequently found them to be quite useful. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C. S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?’ is a good example. Hypothetical arguments reveal inconsistencies in bad arguments. I have found them to be useful on many occasions when debating Christians. Evidence that cannot be consistently applied is not evidence at all.

Do tangible personal experiences such as miracle healings or financial blessings by any chance make up an important part of your belief system? They do for many Christians. They supposedly did during the time of Jesus and the disciples. (KJV) John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (KJV) Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." (NIV) Now that was AFTER the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church. Do we need tangible confirmations today any less than people did back then? Of course not.

I request that a moderator not move my comments to another forum because I have already started a number of threads in other forums about morality and the nature of God. If my comments are not appropriate for this forum, then I request that a moderator delete them rather than move them to another forum.

Doug Shaver

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

When God talks about justice, love, mercy, etc. etc., we are not justified in supposing that he means the same things we mean when we talk about those concepts. Have I got that right?

I'm not asking you, at this point, to justify what you say. I'm just asking you to confirm whether I correctly understand what you say.

Doug Shaver

That is not true. If it were true, I would still be a Christian. But it does not answer my question, anyway. I didn't ask whether I could believe that God said such-and-such. I asked why I should believe it.

Again, you are not answering the question I asked.

I know what is written in the Bible. I am asking why I should believe that anything in the Bible is the word of God.

Your personal dissatisfactions with your own behavior are irrelevant to my question.

Helpmabob

I think justice, love, mercy are eternal constants. My reply was to Johnny, one of whose favourite methods is to question God as if He were human. God is divine. Johnny expects some sort of parole for sinners, like lawbreakers can expect. Sinning against God is different from breaking statutory laws instituted by man. We can avoid breaking the law, but not sinning. There is not a direct parallel between the two.

Helpmabob wrote: You can, and shall, believe, as you will.
Doug, you replied: That is not true.

So you do not believe, are not determined to believe as your wits lead you? I’m afraid this makes the question you ask: Why I should believe it? impossible to answer.I find a great way of learning at minimum risk and expense is to interrogate the life experience of other people. So I am happy to tell others about my experiences, and am happy for it to be a reciprocal process. It’s a great way of learning – we all learnt to speak by observing and copying. What weight do you attribute to the experiences of others?

Dean Anderson

Wait - are you really saying that we can expect parole in our punishment for things that we can avoid doing, but we have no right to expect parole in our punishment for things we can't avoid doing?

And that that state of affairs is somehow "good" or "just"...?

Helpmabob

I prefaced previous comments on this matter with the proviso that I consider these to be hypothetical questions and answers, but I think you have the gist of it there. It is precisely because we can’t avoid sinning that we cannot expect parole. If you are a lawbreaker, you are put in prison. Two possibilities arise: 1. If you don’t break any laws there, you are let out when the term is complete. 2. If you commit further crimes in prison, which is possible, your term is extended.

As we cannot of ourselves address the problem of sin, possibility two will be our future – we will continue in sin and continue to deserve punishment. If I finished there, I would consider it good and just in human terms. But with God there is one more option: we can seek a divine pardon, which can permanently transport us out of this condition.

Dean Anderson

So we can leave Hell anytime we like, once we have had enough torture then - by simply asking for a pardon?

Got any Biblical support for that (this is BC&H, after all)?

Or are you saying that those of us who don't believe in Hell because of the incompetence of those who are explaining it to us are doomed - because by the time we realise it is true, it is too late to ask for this "pardon" and we are tortured for eternity without parole anyway - in a "good" and "just" way, of course...

Doug Shaver

That doesn't quite answer my question.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean I can't ask for a clarification, does it? This is a public forum. Don't you want everybody who reads your posts to understand them?

And the Bible, according to you, is a message from him to humankind. It is God talking to us, right? So, does he use the words to mean the same things we mean by those words, or does he mean something different?

Perhaps I misunderstood, and if I did I apologize. I thought you were saying that I could believe whatever I wanted to believe.

If someone tells me I should believe some proposition P, then I am determined to examine whatever evidence that person gives me for thinking that X is true, and to examine it in the light of reason as best I can apply that light to the proposition. That examination might lead me to believe that P is true or that it is false, or it might lead me to some intermediate state of mind, but whatever the outcome, it will not be determined by whether I want to believe or disbelieve P.

It depends on the question to which I am seeking an answer.

Helpmabob

I didn’t explain it very well. I consider the condition to which I refer that we need a divine pardon to rescue us from is that in, which we currently find ourselves. We need to seek the pardon now, because the condition exists now.My support, for the point I make, not the one I appeared to be making, is found, inter alia, in Luke 16:19-31 (the rich man and Lazarus). And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' [Luke 16:26]. I don’t suppose so: I am not a Christian because atheists haven’t convinced me otherwise. There are stronger forces operating here. More pertinently, it is not because you do not believe in Hell, but because you do not believe and trust in God that you are ‘doomed’.I think God is looking for faith, hope and love from his people in this time frame. When we confront God face to face, by then it will be too late, unless we are covered by the righteousness of Christ.

Hi Doug – I think I have answered as best I can. I have on serious alternative to suggest. Ask God. You know what your interpretation of these things is – God’s view is given in the Bible.
Yes. I just meant was that replies to Johnny are sometimes hypothetical, because of the things he asks. What is X? Although ‘P’ is true, most will not believe it.I’m not talking about specific questions – I mean on the matter of living life. Do you say that the experiences of others have no bearing on the decisions you take in life? If so, how do you decide which people’s experiences are most valid and those that can be neglected?

Doug Shaver

I did. If I had gotten an answer, I would not be an atheist today.

You say so, and lots of people agree with you. I have found no other reason to believe it, and bunches of reasons to disbelieve it.

Sorry, that was a typo, and there was another one. Let's try it again: If someone tells me I should believe some proposition P, then I am determined to examine whatever evidence that person gives me for thinking that P is true.

Well, then, I cannot give you a specific answer.
No, I don't say that.
It depends on the problem into which I think their experiences might give me some insight. Perhaps you divide humanity into two kinds of people, those you can learn something from and those you cannot learn anything from. I don't do that. I think I can learn something from anyone, depending on how I frame the question.

On any subject, and with any method of inquiry, the proper framing of questions is crucial.