Keith

I have proven that there is an urgent and practical need for an objective moral standard. I pointed out that without God, no one can objectively say that the 9/11 attacks against America were morally wrong, or that America is morally justified in fighting against terrorism. Without God, on what basis is it morally justifiable to go after the terrorists?

Keith

No. What has been provided is an arbitrary and subjective Amoral system which says that moral right/wrong are determined by each society's own concensus. This necessarily means that for Nazi Germany, the genocide against the Jews was morally justified.

Mageth

Well, for one thing, so God can demonstrate His sovereign authority over all of creation. This point is critically important if we are to know God the way God intends for us to know Him.

I don't want to know any God that commands people to kill their children.

I have proven that there is an urgent and practical need for an objective moral standard.

No you have not.

I pointed out that without God, no one can objectively say that the 9/11 attacks against America were morally wrong, or that America is morally justified in fighting against terrorism.

And I pointed out that, with your definition of God and our moral imperative to obey him without question, you do not have any basis for saying the 9/11 attacks against America were morally wrong. God could have told them to do that, in which case it would not be morally wrong. Or God could tell you or anyone else to commit an act of terrorism, in which case it would not be morally wrong.

Without God, on what basis is it morally justifiable to go after the terrorists?

As I've told you several times, under the moral system agreed upon by the majority of the world which holds that terrorism is wrong and should be punished.

Biff the unclean

Well that should be easy enough to fix. According to Matthew 17:15 epilepic seizures are caused because the kid has a demon in him. Just have it cast out and give him the car keys.
So if the bible can say something so stupid as epilepsy is caused by devils why would you take it's advice on anything. How come god doesn't know what actually causes seizures? :banghead:

Keith

Then support the claim if you are able. Cannot be rationally disputed? On who's rationality? If God doesn't exist, at best you've got some facts. Who's interpretation of the facts ought to be deemed "the most rational"? The phrase "rational thought", like "morally right" presupposes an objective standard of some sort. What is your standard?

Mageth

No. What has been provided is an arbitrary and subjective Amoral system

Not "Amoral system". An amoral system would be one with no moral guide; we've provided you with a system which does provide moral guides; those reached by consensus in societies.

which says that moral right/wrong are determined by each society's own concensus.

Yes. This is true and has always been true. But that's not an amoral system.

This necessarily means that for Nazi Germany, the genocide against the Jews was morally justified.

If Nazi Germany indeed had such a moral system, then yes, that moral system could be used to justify such an act under that moral system. Just like the moral system in the OT that was supposedly given by YHWH to the Israelites was used to justify the genocide against the Canaanites, among other atrocities. That does not mean Germany's moral system at the time justifies the Holocaust for all of society.

That's why it is good there were and are other moral systems - of the U.S., other countries, and a developing global moral system - that held (and holds) that Germany's treatment of the Jews (and other actions by Germany) was immoral and had to be stopped. In other words, other moral systems were used to justify stopping Germany.

That's the way the world works and has always worked.

Mageth

How would you know (without God) what is/isn't morally consistent?

That's easy. If God commanded the Israelites to kill children that curse their parents, and thus it was moral to kill the cursing children and immoral to let them live, but now tells people it is immoral to kill children that curse their parents, then God is morally inconsistent.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon, a rocket scientist, or a God to see that.

Pain Paien

So you're saying god feels it necessary to justify himself to humanity? Doesn't sound like the actions of a supreme being. If the goal in doing this was actually demonstration of his power, why wouldn't he be making such demonstations today, to make himself clear? Obviously he would know that I find ancient fairy tails insufficient. Also, why is it only clear to you, and not all Christians, that the passages in Leviticus are not meant to be morally relavent to them? One would think god could do a better job.

Killing children is not consistent with the ethics you say god has set forth for you, as you have said yourself. If god existed, the point of being consistent would be obvious: to avoid appearing arbitrary and capricious.

That analogy is inapt, unless you are saying that the Israelites are disabled (as "god's people") and should thus be held to what, by our ethics, would be considered a lower moral standard. If you had two sons, each of essentially equal capacity, but one was admittedly your favorite, and you told your favorite he had to kill kittens who scratched furniture, and the other that this was evil, then that would prove you were morally inconsistent. If you disagree with this analogy, you have to provide evidence that Israel warranted these special laws that, by our standards, would be morally reprehensible.

Nope, I'm afraid you haven't done any such thing. That example was successfully disputed when you first used it. How is the practical (and subjective) consensus by a society or group of societies that terrorism is wrong because they would would not want to be the target of it any less useful than an "objective" one? All this has been answered already. We don't need a mythical god to tell us terrorism is wrong because we know on our own that we wouldn't wish to have it happen to us, and as such have the right to work to stop it. All this is simple pragmatism, and you've failed to provide any reason why these rules have to be written in the sky for them to work.

Also, since you've implied it again: what makes you think you (or anyone else for that matter) know "god's objective morality"? Other Christians who have just as much claim to this elusive concept don't agree with your conclusions. It is a fact that legions of Christians claim that the passages of Leviticus we've discussed are meant to be commands for all people living today. What makes you able to divine the ultimate truth, whereas they are unable? This problem is precisely why you cannot claim objective morality to begin with; because the bible (which you claim is the clear source of objective morality) is so inescapably ambiguous.

Joe V.

Keith, did you intentionally ignore my last post?

Who says your god has sovereign authority over any of us??? Why are you the one making this claim and not your god? Why are you his apparent representative on this world, and why should we listen to your claims?

Tell me, please, why doesn't the United States Constitution recognize your god's authority? I don't regard your god or your precious Bible as a legitimate source of morals because the United States government does not recognize them as such.

- Joe

Pain Paien

That could be construed as a condescending emotional attack.
Shame on you.