Keith

I didn't say that they are arbitrary, and I didn't say that God's moral law is not for everyone.

What I DID say is that God has placed certain legal/moral demands upon certain individuals/groups and that God has every right to place such demands on those whom he chooses. None of that makes God's moral law arbitrary or subjective.

Keith

Jesus' moral teaching is meant for everyone, unless He states otherwise.

Keith

It seems to YOU that way. But is it surprising that you'd claim that? Are you, or most atheists, capable of being objective about such things? People (including myself) tend to see things the way they WANT to see things.

Pain Paien

How could relating that god once told certain people to do things not acceptable for others possibly be relavent? What possible applications could this have as a guide? How does god telling the Israelites (though I am not willing to concede that this command can reasonably be said to only apply to them) something at odds with everyone else's morals show his holiness? To me, it shows inconsistancy and moral relativism.

Abel Stable

Jesus also upholds the entire old law...every detail down to the smallest letter:

Matthew 5
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven
Like the above passage, for instance, is meant for everyone.

Biff the unclean

I didn't say that they are arbitrary, and I didn't say that God's moral law is not for everyone.
You demonstrated that you thought they were arbitrary by picking only the ones that appealed to you. And you contended that they weren't for everyone by saying some were only for the Israelis

What I DID say is that God has placed certain legal/moral demands upon certain individuals/groups
Thus eliminating the contention that everyone should have the same set of morals.
and that God has every right to place such demands on those whom he chooses.
Why? When did we surrender our right to self-determination?

None of that makes God's moral law arbitrary or subjective
If it doesn't apply to everyone equally it's arbitrary and if all it is is "the will" of some non human imposed by threat of harm on humans then it is subjective by definition

Jesus' moral teaching is meant for everyone, unless He states otherwise
Then it is special favors to whores and stone fresh mouthed little brats to death. Morals like Jesus had will land you in jail in these more secular times-- on a morals rap.

It seems to YOU that way. But is it surprising that you'd claim that?
No, it isn't surprising at all when you consider that I've read everything you have said in this thread. Every peice of verbal gymnastics and tap dancing around issues. I could be falted for stating the obvious

Are you, or most atheists, capable of being objective about such things?
Of course. Because we aren't saddled by superstition. Our FAITH would not be shattered if we found out we were wrong about something

People (including myself) tend to see things the way they WANT to see things.
That might be fun. But I make my living in the sciences and if I did that I wouldn't get paid. I also wouldn't be able to live with myself were I so immoral that I would lie even to me.

Keith

It is relevant in the context of God wanting us to know him. It is relevant because without the history of the Israelites, there would be a huge gap in our understanding of the relationship between God and man. My whole point about atheism is that is seems to make objective morality impossible. It seems to necessitate arbitrary moral relativism. That is a shockingly HUGE price to pay for getting rid of God. The fact that you want to view Christian morality as suffering the same flaws is understandable. But it seems atheists can do little else but claim that God's moral law is arbitrary and inconsistent. This has not yet been proven.

Keith

I agree, and how about this one..."If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me, for whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it" (Luke 9:23-24)

If every word Jesus preached was meant to be taken literally, are we supposed to carry a cross every day and must we each eventually have to die for him? Yet some atheists will insist on the literal interpretation--when it suits them.

And what did Paul mean when he declared that "we are not under law but grace"? (Romans 6:15)

Keith

Keith: "What I DID say is that God has placed certain legal/moral demands upon certain individuals/groups"

Biff: "Thus eliminating the contention that everyone should have the same set of morals."

Keith: Everyone should have the same set of morals? Well you're virtually on target. Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense:

WE MUST OBEY GOD.

Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it.

Pain Paien

Why would god want us to know that he told the Israelites to do something it is immoral for anyone else to do? What significant knowledge can possibly be gleaned from the passage? Other than that god sees nothing inherently wrong with killing children, of course. If you are not meant to live by god's example, why should you know about situations where god is not consistant with your ethics? As best as I can see, the only important thing the passage expresses, using your interpretation of it, is that god is not consistant morally.

This point has been acknowledged in this thread. While it has not even been proven that atheism disallows an objective moral system, that is irrelavent to this discussion. What has been made clear, however, is that in this thread only you have a problem with subjectivism. You have failed to supply any need for objective morality, but a large amount of support has been provided for subjective ones.



Your assertation that a non-objectivist morality is necessarily "arbitrary" has already been refuted. A practical and reasonable morally subjective system has been provided. So, assuming you merely misspoke, I will say that again, only you see this practical moral relativism as a price to pay at all.

The fact is that Christian morality DOES suffer these flaws. Obviously and incontrovertably Christianity is not clear (and thus harmonious) on ANY important moral issues. This is an assertation with such factual backing that it cannot be rationally disputed. This fact alone, however, does not dispute that Christianity might have the one objective morality and that the many Christians who do not agree with it are simply incorrect. Logic and this fact combined, on the other hand, do indeed provide the necessary counter.

Nonsense, and easily refuted nonsense at that. This thread alone evidences that atheists can do more than claim it. It has been clearly demonstrated using your very own source as well as the historical and current reality of Christianity. While the arbitrary nature of Christian morality has not been conclusively proven, the inconsistency HAS been proven beyond any doubt (under your very own reasoning). Your concession that god's morality can on certain occasions be only applicable to some and not others is clearly an inconsistency. That god's "moral law" does not apply universally meets precisely with the definition of inconsistency. Apparently you do not see this negatively, however.