re: Trump Admin wants to allow adoption organizations to deny gay couples

quote:

---

There's PROOF that people who never came in contact with the Bible have many moral beliefs in common across cultures that haven't even contacted each other.

---

Has anybody stated otherwise?

quote:

---

Rebut what? You've been reduced (again) to name calling. I don't need to rebut that you think I'm obtuse. I don't really care.

---

The argument to him citing the bible with the bible?

Also I haven't been reduced to name calling. I said moral intuition was universal, you said it's not because there is no evidence of a single standard moral code among all people groups and I said that's the case because of culture and you twisted my words to say that I contradicted myself when I clearly didn't. The culture is overriding the univeral intution. That should have been very clear. You were, by objective opinion, being obtuse. That's not name calling.

quote:

---

Has anybody stated otherwise?

---

No but Choo tried to explain it by saying the intuition God gave them to come to that moral opinion was perverted because they didn't believe it came from God, even though they had 0 contact with Jews and had no choice but to "pervert" it.

quote:

---

No but Choo tried to explain it by saying the intuition God gave them to come to that moral opinion was perverted because they didn't believe it came from God, even though they had 0 contact with Jews and had no choice but to "pervert" it.

---

I don't recall everything he's said, but from a Christian perspective that's not entirely accurate IMO. It's perverted because we have free will and have the freedom to rebel against our own conscience. Now some people might justify that by telling themselves that their moral instinct is just some evolutionary herd morality that they don't have to listen to (thereby erasing God from the equation), but there are countless episodes in the Bible of people knowingly rebelling against God. They know God implanted the morality but they're rebellious and want to go their own way.

quote:

---

the agencies each abide by their own principles

---

But to the left that's terrible news.

quote:

---

Ok, let's leave aside objective because nothing you've claimed supports objective morality.

---

lol oh wow nice bait there.

quote:

---

How is that any less of a heads-i-win-tails-you-lose than what Foo said, that made both of you lose your shite?

---

Because I'm not claiming that that's a fact. I'm claiming that's a possibility, which Choo denies is possible. I also don't base my argument on being correct. This entire thing started because I denied that you had to have God to have objective morality, that intuition as a driving force for whether or not we believe murder is bad is a possibility, and he tried to deny that using an "unfallable" source, the Bible. Our arguments are completely different.

quote:

---

Except it is entirely false, even by reading the Bible, to say God's nature has been unchanging. I mean, it's just 100% false and not even a defensible assertion.

---

Of course it is defensible because you're talking about the application of His Character vs. His character, itself. His character (which is the basis for His moral righteousness) doesn't change.

quote:

---

No, you haven't argued it. You've asserted it and, then repeated the assertion. You've no basis for actually asserting it other than reasserting it.

---

Incorrect. I gave the logical progression that by necessity would result if God did not exist. Objective morality could not exist. Period. For evil to exist, good would have to exist. For good to exist, an objective standard for goodness would need to exist (to compare actions to and determine if they are good or bad). For this moral law (standard of goodness) to exist, you would need a moral law giver. There is no moral law giver in nature, so you would need something transcendent to nature to provide this moral law. This something would need to be personal since morality is personal by its very nature.

quote:

---

Old Testament - New Testament. /the end

---

You'll have to be more specific. I know what you're getting at but you'll need to actually provide an example to talk through.

quote:

---

Yeah. Actually, it is and has been and the proof is all around you in hundreds of cultures that were never exposed to the bible but shared similar moralities.

---

You can't say that because some elements of moral viewpoints are shared across the world that those viewpoints are objective. You're missing the discussion when you say that because objective vs. subjective is the difference between originating in the person or the mind of the person vs. originating outside of the person or mind of the person. Think about it like this: laws of logic or mathematics are objective because they exist independent of an individual (or an entire culture/society). When I die, math doesn't die with me. When you destroy a speed limit sign that says "55" on it, you don't destroy the actual number "55". "55" is an immaterial concept that exists outside of the sign. Likewise, objective morality would need to be an immaterial concept that exists outside of the human brain. You're describe subjective morality and claiming it's objective because of the number of people that agree with it. That's not how it works.

And I already provided an explanation from my worldview as to why so many different cultures can have similar moral views. My explanation also provides value to that morality that doesn't exist if God doesn't exist.

quote:

---

And yet there are IMMENSE commonalities.

---

Yes, and my worldview can explain that and provide meaning to it. It can also explain why there are immense commonalities but also immense dissimilarities.

quote:

---

There's no such thing as an objective standard using your application and even God's doesn't meet your application.

---

God's standard originates outside of humanity and is applicable to all humanity, therefore it is objective from a human standpoint. It's the only moral standard that is, which is what I've been saying.

quote:

---

I mean, if he were, then you'd be following everything in the Bible to the letter of the law and you aren't. And, if you say, "but the New Testament", I'll respond, "yeah, exactly, his nature changed".

And, you'll just say "nuh uh" with no actual rebuttal. We've done this stupidity before.

---

False. The differences between the old and new testaments are due to how God wanted to interact and provide His message to His people, not because His character changed. The old testament provided sign posts that pointed to Christ and redemption through Him. The new testament provided the destination of Christ that the OT sign posts pointed to. Christ fulfilled the OT laws that showed the people of God that they couldn't measure up and He was the fulfillment of the bloody sacrifices that couldn't fully atone for sin. The Bible is a single thread.

quote:

---

That's hillarious that's the same question I have for you. You say that God gives us all intuition and therefore me saying that intuition is another basis of objective morality is false. That's a ridiculous opinion because it disregards the reality that God may or not exist.

---

You're not understanding. It's not the "intuition" that is at issue here, but the origination of that intuition. You are claiming that such intuition comes from within and I'm saying it comes from God ultimately. If it comes from within, it's nothing more than a personal preference because each intuition is a little different from another, making it subjectively based on personal experience or feeling. If it comes from outside ourselves (from God), then it has its roots an an objective moral standard, tarnished by our sinful natures.