Number 2 has yet to be demonstrated by you. You are conflating creator and cause. Within soveriengnty there is also permissive wil. Please demonstrate how God being creator is immoral. To this point you haven't.
I didn't say that God is immoral. I said God is both moral and immoral at the same time. Let's both agree: you can't prove that God is moral, I can't prove is he is both moral and immoral at the same time. But if you can prove that God is moral please do.
There are also problems with number 4.
Number 6 also has problems. You need to define Kingdom.
I don't understand the problem with number 4. I said that God only gave laws that are moral... what's the catch? did God give immoral laws as well?
When I say Kingdom, I was referring to Heaven. If you follow God's rules you go to Heaven, or else to Hell.
So, by what method do you justify imposing the minority will onto others?
So was Christianity, but here we are today discussing about another minority. Just to be clear on how history works: all over history, minorities were the cause for change and/or progress (not in all cases, but just saying). And you might ask me how was Christianity imposed on others? Well Christianity started to spread in Europe and from here all over the world with emperor Constantine. At some point he legalized Christianity and he forced his people to give up on the old traditions (Romans were no longer allowed to worship their Gods).
Do you also realize that what you are saying contradicts your claims to objective morals. This is subjective. I will give you an example of where this fails. In the 1700s it was considered legal and moral by most people to participate in the slave trade. So, based on your claims, the slave trade was moral. You said that values are DECIDED. If morals are decided, then all you have decided is that you think gay marriage is moral. I have decided it isn't. So, why is your opinion superior to mine. The majority of people in this country do not support gay marriage. So, why don't you follow your own logic? In many ancient cultures it was also considered moral to participate in human sacrifice. So, if the scoeity agreed, you then have to agree that it was moral. Why did certain individuals rise up against Chattel slavery in the 1800s? What about Nazi-facism. Hitler had an entire society agreeing that Jews were sub-human and needed to be eliminated. By this logic, the U.S. should have not gotten involved. Who would we be to judge the moral preference of a society. If societies determine morality then, oh well, to each his own.
As I said above, minorities are the ones that make change happen. And when I said that a society makes the rules for what is acceptable and non acceptable I didn't use the word majority. You assume that if a majority agrees to something we should make that a law and respect it until the end of times... Progress and change don't work that way. Maybe you should remember the times when the Spanish Inquisition tortured innocent people in the name of God claiming that people who were the pioneers of science did the work of the devil. Those science pioneers were a minority who fought for their rights and they won with a lot of sacrifices. The majority of people in this country do not support gay marriage
I will tell you a short joke to make my point:
A woman says: All men are the same!!!
Another one answers: Why did you try them all?
Hope you got the point. You say that the majority of people in this country... I don't know which country you are from but I sincerely doubt that there was a national vote where that was asked. Maybe you should have one. That would clarify some things for the general public.
I think that the majority of people in the world are quite poor and they probably resent that. I don't see anything changing about that. I wonder why...
What about Nazi-facism. Hitler had an entire society agreeing that Jews were sub-human and needed to be eliminated. By this logic, the U.S. should have not gotten involved. Who would we be to judge the moral preference of a society. If societies determine morality then, oh well, to each his own.
Exactly. Every society is free to choose what is moral and what it is not. As I said, moral values have changed over the years and that is easy to demonstrate. Change happens.
So, why is your opinion superior to mine
I didn't say your opinion is inferior compared to mine. I'm just pointing out that society is changing more and more and you are saying that we should keep some rules in place that are more than 2000 years old. It's not about my house is bigger than yours. I don't think that my opinion is superior to yours. I just disagree with you. That's all.
For the record, people who deny God CAN make moral decisions. However, to do so, they have to smuggle in objective morality, and Christian values.
What? I would ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. For the record, people who deny God CAN make moral decisions. However, to do so, they have to smuggle in objective morality, and Christian values.
All I am saying is that without God, I want you to account for objective morality. You do understand that what you described regarding societies is SUBJECTIVE. Please don't resort to insults about my knowledge of pshychology. If you have any source for OBJECTIVE morality, I'd like to hear it. If morality changes with trends, then by definition, it is NOT objective. If it does, then you have to conceed that the way women are treated in the Middle East and a myriad of other immoral cultural customs are in fact moral. Society rules afterall. You would also have to conceed that there is no inherent value in human life. It is arbitrary. You may think there is value in human life, but without a creator there is nothing outside of man's own self-centered delusion.
I don't follow you. You are saying that objective morality was invented by the Christians? Please offer some feedback on this one because I actually don't understand it.If you have any source for OBJECTIVE morality, I'd like to hear it. If morality changes with trends, then by definition, it is NOT objective.
Do you have any source for objective morality? You are asking me to provide something even you can't prove. Why should morality be objective in the first place? As I have said, with time passing by, moral values change according to the society. And I said in my previous comment, even the Bible morality has changed with times according to society so I don't see your point. Moral values is more related to collective choice than to objectivity. That's why we have so many different cultures over the world... If it does, then you have to conceed that the way women are treated in the Middle East and a myriad of other immoral cultural customs are in fact moral. Society rules afterall.
Yes. The middle east has different moral values compared to more western parts of the world. You would also have to conceed that there is no inherent value in human life. It is arbitrary. You may think there is value in human life, but without a creator there is nothing outside of man's own self-centered delusion.
If you consider life without a creator a self centered delusion, it is your own choice.
(I will tell you a little story from my personal experience to clarify this:
at some point we had a teacher invited from a Waldorf system school. Such a school offers a high degree of freedom to the student and it promotes both mind and spirit development. I asked her: Aren't there any limits to which you can take this kind of learning?
She answered: I see no limits. I'm a cosmic being)
If you want to put a wall in front of you, it is your own choice, but be advised: you might hurt your head against the wall. Your example is actually hurting your own posistion. If there is no God then you have no free will of any kind. Your are a product of the material world. Your thoughts and ideas are just a byproduct of chemical and electric impulses and the hand a mindless nature dealt you. If you have studied psychology then I would hope you are familiar with material determinsm. The freewill problem is far worse in this model.
Yes, I'm familiar with it, but that doesn't mean that I support this theory. As in other fields, Psychology has given birth to many theories some of which are contradictory. I for one am not a supporter of this theory. I do not agree with determinism.
You say that I am a byproduct of the material world. There is still a lot we don't know about this "material" world. We actually know quite little about it. We don't even know how our body works 100% so until we find out more about that, let's keep it honest. This nature you are talking about may not that mindless as you think.
You missed my point. What I wanted to say is, according to your reasoning, why wouldn't someone want to redefine the concept of adulthood and give such rights to minors? A majority of countries start considering you an adult when you turn 18. What if someone got an idea to lower that age to, let's say, 10? That would be ludicrous and dangerous in my opinion, but if we can redefine marriage, who's stopping us from redefining anything else for that matter? A cool, innovative term would then be invented for opponents of such initiative - like, ageist, or minorophobe.
According to the General Theory of Systems, each system tends to move towards an equilibrium state. Same thing happens with people and societies. When I say equilibrium that doesn't mean right or wrong, but it's functional.
Check God's Commandment #10.
I did. It says nothing about you giving away your wealth to poor people. Don't get it.
It's not the same to say that "A is better than B", and that "A is just as good as B or even better". In fact, your transition from "better" to "as good or even better" just shows me that you're making subjective judgements. That's why I was asking to be shown a study that would confirm what you're claiming. I wasn't asking for a patronizing lecture about what psychology is, as you don't know what my field of expertise is, or what I research in my free time.
Sorry If you felt like I was offending you. Didn't mean that. In fact, your transition from "better" to "as good or even better" just shows me that you're making subjective judgements
I was just trying to make things clear so nobody misinterprets my words. I think that you can find a lot of studies on the internet that prove that. If you want to believe it or not, that is entirely up to you.
You know, I might be from the Balkans, but I don't idealize the Western society.
No need to idealize anything. I gave you example of 3 countries in the world the world where being gay is not a problem and where gay families are allowed. Lots of people here asked me for proof. Well that is proof, live proof. But again it is up to you if you want to believe this or not and how you treat the matter.
If the former is the case, then it would be inconsistent to judge God by the standard created by Himself
Disappointing answer. "There was morality before the Bible and before the scriptures so the standard exists" is hardly an argument. History is not a standard, it's an academic discipline. The fact that morality, however you define it, is rooted within humans, doesn't say anything about where it came from. It could have been installed within us by God, or it could have appeared as a survival instinct, however strange that might sound. If the former is the case, then it would be inconsistent to judge God by the standard created by Himself. However, if the latter is true, then everything is subjective, and genetically preprogrammed - morality, homosexuality, "homophobia", our opinions, everything. It would be futile to discuss anything if that was true, because our opinions would not be a result of reason and free will, but rather a mixture of our genes, and effects from our environment. Jlay covered this better than I can.
This statement is puzzling me. You are saying that someone can't be judged based on their actions? Actually you can, at least that's how the world works. If you want to enter Heavens, you are judged based on your actions...
Picasso created marvelous paintings... We judged him based on his actions... He was a marvelous painter... However, if the latter is true, then everything is subjective, and genetically preprogrammed - morality, homosexuality, "homophobia", our opinions, everything. It would be futile to discuss anything if that was true, because our opinions would not be a result of reason and free will, but rather a mixture of our genes, and effects from our environment. Jlay covered this better than I can.
Actually he didn't... He said that if God didn't created us, humans are a by products of a material world in the hands of a mindless nature. At this moment in time we know very little about that "material world". As I said to jlay, we don't even understand how our body works 100%. Until we actually know that, you can't prove that we don't have free will. How do you actually demonstrate that anyways?
He wants us to freely choose Him, and so we have a choice whether to accept or reject Him, which seems fair to me.
I sincerely do not agree with this and I will tell you why.
The Christian Dogma is very clear: if you do not follow God's path you end up in Hell.
Do you consider going to Hell being a choice? I don't know anyone who would voluntarily agree to these 2 choices...
Let me make it even more clear for you by rephrasing the statement above.
Either you agree with me(God) or you will end up in hell for eternity...(agree with me or I will shoot you in the head)