A right to choose what? A right to evade a biological consequence and in turn obligation (in dignity)? Women have all the choices in the world to do whatever they see fit with their body. But when they enter into any consensual activity that results in the introduction of a third party, how can there be any sense in that argument?
Thejackster,
Your arguments are based on false representations of the Bible.
First you present the flood as an evil thing. But the story presents the flood as an act of justice toward injustice. Genesis 6 presented how humankind had lost its way, and how the flood was necessary to "reset" history. And it should be noted that the flood tarried for about a hundred years, allowing enough time for people to change their ways. Also there is the view of the angels birthing titans through earthly women and corrupting the world (Enoch described this in detail).
There is also the position that the flood was not worldwide, but regional, destroying an evil civilization.
The point is that God judged an evil generation. God has the ontological ground to judge evil and its perpetrators.
Second, on the killing of the first born sons of Egypt, you must remember that the Pharaoh of Egypt had ordered the genocide of Hebrew males many years before the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh slaughtered many Hebrew males, of which Moses narrowly escaped, to maintain power over the Hebrews and keep them in perpetual slavery.
And remember that the Hebrews were slaves and untrained in war. Therefore the plagues were the necessary toward setting the Hebrews free from slavery.
How many lives were lost in America's civil war toward ending slavery? Will you argue that Lincoln was evil for fighting the war that cost many fathers their sons, to end slavery?
Pharoah could have yielded after the first plague and let the Hebrews go. But instead, he insisted on keeping the Hebrews in "chains." His evil toward the Hebrews cost his nation the first-born sons.
For further discussions on genocide, you may refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/11/28/
Third, Leviticus didn't call for the death of homosexuals, but those caught in the act of homosexual sex. This was to deter homosexual sex (and other sexual practices that were listed) from the public, not to persecute homosexuals.
Fourth, children were not killed simply for disobeying their parents. The text was referring to youths in their late teens and early adulthood who were a menace to society and bringing dishonor to their parents.
"Kill non-Christians"
Fifth, there were no Christians and non-Christians at the time.
"Kill people who work on Sunday"
Sixth, Sabbath was on Saturday. And Jesus challenged the legalism that became a burden to the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was intended for humankind, and not the reverse.
Seventh, Genesis 3: 16 apportioned punishment for sin to man and woman. Man gained dominion over woman, while he began to toil for his "daily bread."
On slavery, you may also refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/12/23/
Eighth, though men were allowed to take multiple wives, it was not so in the beginning. The formula for marriage in Genesis is that "two shall become one."
Ninth, The rape you purported actually referred to consensual sex. Don't be misled by the language. In that society where a woman's opinion was of little or no relevance, men "took" hold of women as desired. It was a woman's role to submit. Hence we are speaking of a man taking hold of a woman (as in wooing her and receiving her submission) and consensual sex thereafter.
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.
"Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics."
But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.
"It just means we don't know yet."
If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.
"Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics."
But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.
"It just means we don't know yet."
If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.
I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense.
That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd.
You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned?
I looked up Dr. Dennis Scania and there are some quotes from him, but it is odd that he doesn't have Website or Wikipedia page. My apologies for letting that slip.
As for the rest, especially Hawking who is obviously atheist, I wasn't presenting them as theists, but in the context that scientists concur that the universe appears fine tuned.
"Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with hundreds of articles and dozens of books written on the topic. Today, it is widely regarded as offering by far the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God" (Robin Collins).
http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/
It is reasonable to say that the universe is fine tuned, hence why atheists have come up the anthropic principle based on the multiverse theory. But that falls short of explaining why this universe is fine tuned.
I think it's best to take one argument for discussion and then move to another after thoroughly discussing one.
I will start with fine tuning.
"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop" (Dr. Dennis Scania).
"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all" (Dr. David D. Deutsch).
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty” (Stephen Hawking).
Fine tuning has already been established by the top minds and there shouldn't be any argument about that. The question that one should reasonably ask from fine tuning is why and how the universe was fine tuned. My conviction is that God fine tuned the universe.
"I could go on, but there really is no point. You can reply if you like but I have no intention of further wasting my breath."
Best to save your breath because the discussion with you didn't go anywhere. As far as I'm concerned none of your arguments made any sense.
You certainly took the text out context to reach the misguided opinion.
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
An amplified look shows the second scenario to mean a man violating a virgin by taking away her virginity through the act of fornication, and not rape. "Seize" is more in the context of a man convincing a woman to give up her valued virginity. That she didn't cry for help as in the preceding preceding scenario shows that it was consensual. That they are found shows they had conspired to keep their sexual relationship private, until their sexual relationship could no longer remain private.
To save the virgin from shame of losing her virginity outside of marriage, seeing that no other man would approach her for marriage in the very conservative society, the man must marry her. The payment of money is in the context of a dowry.
And in speaking of progress, scientific inquiry thrived the most in a Christian background.
That the universe began is not an assumption but scientific fact. The Kalam argument argues for a transcendent and timeless cause since the universe would not have caused itself. The argument is a reasonable position and cannot be substituted by any other theory as rational.
Fine tuning argument presents constants that whereby where changed would have greatly altered the universe that we know. Arguing that we evolved to fit into the universe is trumped by the fact that the constants were in place to begin that evolution that you speak of, without that evolution would not have began.
Morality cannot have been solely based on sociobiology since it would have been solely subjective, while there has been a universal understanding of moral principles.
NDEs isn't merely subjective as it has been debated in medical circles. People who have been declared dead all over the world have returned with out-of-body experiences and details that they would not have been known of considering that they were not conscious or even dead at the time the experiences occurred. NDEs thereby qualify as an argument.
It's better you make an argument to show the fallacy of what I present, than simply say that what I present is a fallacy and not produce any convincing argument to show the position. You cannot just make statements like "free will doesn't exist," while free will is still debated and hasn't been conclusively dismissed by skeptics. There are agnostics who believe in free will, without the metaphysical explanation of free will of course. You can say in your opinion free will doesn't exist and present your argument with sources for pure determinism. That would be a better way to discuss than reaching conclusions without even taking the journey. That just shows that you are closed minded and not even willing to engage in a discussion.
"I have given express and detailed rationale, substantiated by examples and external resources."
I differ. The frustrating thing is how you have dodged direct questions, and claim to be rational in this discussion.
It's simple logic. If there are things that can never be acceptable in any context, then we have objective morality. Write a five page essay if you like, but until you effectively show how there is NO objective understanding of right and wrong, you haven't contributed anything to this discussion.
"Thankfully you have pointed out that none of this is true and there is no reason to praise Jesus. Thank you for that."
Wrong! I was only saying that some Christians don't preach the message of Jesus with love. You are putting words in my word again.
"That's part of it, but it is also the repeating of what I hear from Christians."
That is true. Sadly, some Christians don't do a good job of representing the faith or explaining difficult subjects like what happens to someone when he or she dies.
"Until you support your claim and refute my counter you have lost this debate."
Perhaps in your alternate world, not in this one. You've done nothing but dodge questions with semantics and haven't shown that people don't have a universal understanding of right and wrong. That would be obvious to anyone reading our exchanges.
"I am not especially interested in debating homosexuality with you. It was an example, and apparently a poor one given your woeful misconceptions."
Of course this debate is not about homosexuality. You brought it up to divert from objective morality. I told you society has resisted homosexuality more from fear than moral reasons. You said its bigotry, but bigotry is only the negative reaction toward homosexuality not the cause of the negative reaction. The cause of the negative reaction is fear.
Only recently was homosexuality no longer considered paraphilia in this country. Another paraphila is pedophilia. And you KNOW how society has generally feels about pedophiles.
People believe homosexuals are promiscuous and spread AIDS.
These sort of outlooks have led to the negative opinion and reaction toward homosexuals.
And concerning reproduction, I was only speculating a sociobiological reason that could have added to society's fear of homosexuality.
"If the society practices child sacrifice then it follows that the society considers child sacrifice to be moral."
Do you know why societies practice child sacrifice?
No normal society can consider such an evil to be moral. Most societies that practice such savagery only do so in the context of their religion, to appease some deity. The people where this evil is practiced only go along not to become non-conformist. But no one would ever want to see his or her child sacrificed.
And the Rocky Road Ice Cream was again TERRIBLE. OWN IT AND MOVE ON.
I have studied on the afterlife and can tell you that it is an extensive subject. That is why it is frustrating that your are reducing a difficult subject to nonsense. I mean, where did you get that the Bible said you will "burn" if you don't believe in Jesus. Do you know what the Bible means by "believe" and "perish" respectively, in what context and where in the Bible?
I think you just want to make outrageous statements for the fun of it, just to get a rise out of people. Either that, or you are insistent taking one of several views on the afterlife in Christianity (the literal eternal hell) to represent what all Christians believe.
Yes, how could Christianity have any bearing on ending slavery if the slave owners were Christian while keeping slaves?
Okay, by that reasoning, because Stalin and Mau killed millions of people, atheism killed millions of people. Therefore, atheists cannot be good people, since atheists like Stalin and Mau killed millions of people.
See how your logic adds up?
The frustrating thing is YOU DON'T KNOW THE DOCTRINE ON THE AFTERLIFE YET HAVE THE NERVE TO TALK AS THOUGH YOU ARE WELL INFORMED ON WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ON HELL, OR THE RESURRECTION, OR THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH.
YOU DON'T KNOW OF THE IDEA OF HELL ORIGINATED AND HOW THE IDEA HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS IN.
DON'T GET INTO SUBJECTS YOU DON'T KNOW OF, WITH MISINFORMED PRESUPPOSITIONS.
I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time. There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief.
"Everything we know of your God does not verify that God is holy, good, and merciful."
You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion.
By saying we do not have objective morality, you answered "yes" to my questions. That would make you an immoral person in the eyes of the world that reasons that denying food to a starving child would be wicked in all circumstances and that raping a woman would be wicked in all circumstances.
As for your "side step" in bringing up those who cannot reason morality due to their mental state or other reason, the unusual doesn't determine the norm. If I state that all dogs bark, the statement is true even though there may be a few dogs that cannot bark for one reason or the other. When I say that people can reason right from wrong, the statement is true even though there are is a minority that cannot do so one reason or another. That there are some who are mentally impaired to reason that stealing, cheating, and killing are wrong only means they cannot do so because they are impaired, not that stealing, cheating, and murder have not been understood in a universal sense.
And people are afraid of homosexuality. Cultures all over have expressed some homophobia. And this is perhaps due to the social biology that you have been arguing for. Cultures have likely favored heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships because heterosexual relationships lead to the next generation which would sustain the culture. Cultures have also likely done so because homosexuality blurs their understanding of gender essentialsim. You cannot just say that the world has been negative toward homosexuality because they are bigots. That is just a terrible argument.
And social deviance is about deviating from the norms of a society. If you had a society that practiced child sacrifice for example, opting not to participate in the practice would be deviating from the norm of the society. Child practice is not moral. Therefore it doesn't follow that social deviance is necessarily moral.
That social biology may lead to practices such as child sacrifice, which is generally an evil thing, points to the obvious truth that morality was not an invention of our social biology. If morality were simply based on social biology then we wouldn't be able to speak on morality since societies have developed practices that aren't always moral. Based on the fact that humans have a general consensus of right and wrong that transcends their culture speaks volumes for objective morality.
THE ROCKY ROAD ICE CREAM WAS A BAD IDEA. LETS NOT EVEN TOUCH THAT AGAIN.
Ultimately, when interpreted correctly, the Bible can be a good reference for morals.
The statistics you presented on prayers coming through is simply nonsense. I'm sure the stats doesn't cover that there are many prayers not answered until many years after they are said. What if the 30% percent fall into that category? If you read the Bible, you will find that many times people waited for for years before receiving an answer.
"Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying."
Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles when he told them that the prayer of faith would accomplish anything they set their mind to. And it so happened that all the great miracles recorded in "the Acts of the Apostles" were fulfillment of those things Jesus had promised.
When Jesus said that anything asked in his name would be granted, he was telling the truth in that many outstanding results have been accomplished in the name of Jesus, since the apostles have passed away. There are many accounts of miracles happening after the apostles in St. Augustine's City of God. There have been many other miracles established since then in the name of Jesus, up to modern day, some of which I have personally witnessed. But since your fond of calling people liars to further your "hardness of heart," you will also say that I'm lying.
Jesus didn't mean that we had an unlimited wish-list. There is a text in James that addresses those who don't receive answers to their prayers: those who pray amiss, missing the will and purpose of God. You see many pray for stones to turn into bread instead of understanding why Jesus didn't do so, even though he had the power to.
Prayers are most powerful when they are humble and to better others. When we seek the kingdom of God first in our praying our prayers are more readily answered.
Speak for yourself when you say that prayers don't work, because prayers have always worked for me.
"The Bible also says burn in hell if you don't believe in God. What does that have to do with loving others?"
Common man, the Bible doesn't say that. If you want to have a sensible conversation, don't misquote or misrepresent the Bible.
"Christianity had nothing to do with abolitionism, they were Christians before they took slaves."
Christianity had no influence on ending slavery?" Common man, do the research before you say something that stupid.
"So, you must be saying that the only repentance that works is toward the people you have wronged and God has nothing to do with it."
Well, the Bible says the all of morality is summed up loving others in the same way that we love ourselves.
"The "Whites" have repented toward those that were enslaved and God has nothing to do with it."
Actually God had plenty to do with it in that abolitionism had Christian influences. And Newton converting to compose "Amazing Grace" shows that Christian influence.
"If you permanently destroyed a soul than that's one thing, but doing something to the temporary realm is another."
There is actually a teaching on the complex subject of the afterlife called annihilationism, which is where I lean toward. In the teaching, all wicked people are destroyed, and the context of forever is in that the effect is permanent.
"So, even if all the people you wronged still remember all the bad stuff you did, as long as you repent to God, everything is ok?"
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said everything is okay, but that reparation was the necessary in owning up to an evil consequence upon repentance.
Returning to the example of slavery, I said, that Whites today generally don't think like their prejudiced fathers is an example of what repentance means. And that Whites have generally stood by Blacks in making sure the enjoy the same civil rights that Whites do is an effort in reparation. It doesn't negate the evil of slavery but remedies for the evil effect of it.
Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace" did so out from remorse from being a slave trader. He turned from his ways and encouraged the abolition of slavery. Does that take away from what he did to the slaves while he was a trader? No. But his sincere actions must also be taken into consideration, that he realized and did his best to change and address that evil.
It has everything to do with what we are talking about and I know what I'm talking about. You are making statements on the afterlife without really knowing much about the doctrine on the afterlife.
How can you know whether it is just or unjust if you don't even know the doctrine(s) on the afterlife?
"I didn't argue there weren't souls."
You said we can't verify that a soul exists. Make up your mind so that we can have a conversation. Stop moving the post.
If you want to talk about eternal justice, we must first establish the premise of the soul. If we establish the premise of the soul, the deeds of the soul would have eternal consequences.
"Will you please make up your mind. Do souls get punished forever or do they come back to Earth?"
I have made up my mind long time ago. The Bible speaks of the resurrection and all souls returning to earth. You don't seem to know much about Christian doctrine, yet seem eager to speak evil of it.
