re: Correlation: Prayer out of schools to increase in mass shootings

quote:

---

If a person doesn't believe in the One who created the moral law how are they bound by them?

---

A classic case of a false premise behind a silly question.

quote:

---

What makes you morally superior to him?

---

Oh, maybe about a million murders and tortures versus zero? You think?

quote:

---

For starters I've never murdered my uncle with a mortar or poisoned my brother.

---

Lg lives by moral rules of his making, just like we do. I guarantee you this: If Lg didn't like a particular rule he'd adopt/invent a new god that doesn't like it, either. If Lg wanted to do something he'd adopt/invent a new god that allows him to do it.

You see, we ALL live by moral STANDARDS of our choosing, but he's silly enough to call his own set RULES by some imagined being. The advantage he sees for himself: well, he gets to tell you that HIS standards are holy because they're ordained! He gets to just to proclaim moral superiority he can't logically prove. Too bad nobody with any real sense swallows that garbage.

quote:

---

Lg lives by moral rules of his making, just like we do. I guarantee you this: If Lg didn't like a particular rule he'd adopt/invent a new god that doesn't like it, either. If Lg wanted to do something he'd adopt/invent a new god that allows him to do it.

---

I think you are confused. This is what society does. Just look at the whole transgender thing that's going on. Look at the woman on Tucker the other day that wants the word "man" taken out of every word because it offends people. So when society deems the word "man" morally offensive, where will that leave us? Man can pick and choose what "morality" is on a whim. And if you are honest, you can see moral standard declining from what it used to be.

quote:

---

I find it very scary that so many people think the only reason not to do something evil is because some sky daddy might be watching them.

---

Who believes this? That isn't an orthodox Christian doctrine.

First of all, what is your definition of "evil"? In a worldview shaped by moral relativism, that word has no real meaning except to an individual who defines it for himself. What is "evil" for you may not be "evil" for me. For example, Christians are taught that homosexuality is a sin and something evil in the sight of God. To many if not most with a secular moral outlook, homosexuality isn't good or bad at all. Who defines what truly is "evil" in your worldview if not the individual? Because the concept of evil originates within us and can change from person to person, the societal standard of "evil" can also change.

But back on point: Christians are to conform their lives to the life of their Lord, Jesus Christ, who identified evil and went the other way. We are to do good and not evil first and foremost because it is the right thing to do according to God. We are commanded to do it, yes, but we are also told that if we are living lives of evil without repentance, it is a good sign we are not truly what we confess to be. Which leads us to...

quote:

---

Combine that with the notion that that sky daddy will forgive anything, anyway, and we've got serious behavioral deficits on our hands.

---

God doesn't forgive arbitrarily. We have to have an indwelling of the holy spirit that grants us a saving faith in Jesus Christ to be forgiven of our sins. Being "regenerated", we will have true repentance for our sins (evil actions) that God does forgive because He paid that price in Jesus' sacrifice. We are told that if we are truly saved, we will have actions that correspond to that salvation. We will have a real desire to do good (and avoid evil) as well as a sincere sorrow and repentance when we do perform evil. If anyone says that Christians have a free pass to sin, they don't know what Christianity teaches.

quote:

---

And SO frickING WHAT if morality is "subjective", even though you're wrong about that?

---

The only way morality can be objective is if it comes from a source outside of ourselves. If you're saying morality is objective, then I agree with you: it comes from God and we are all accountable to that standard.

Practically speaking, if morality is subjective then it is nothing more than preference. It's not objectively wrong to kill other people or to steal or to rape. It's not objectively wrong to enslave others or to lie to and cheat each other. If there is no objective law-giver, there is no objective law. Because of this, there is no concrete basis for judging others' actions. I don't think it's right to steal, but if my neighbor is fine with it, who am I to judge him? This applies even at a societal level. Just because we value freedom in this society doesn't mean we have a right to judge another nation or society that enslaves their own people. What right do we have to say it's wrong for a leader (with or without the consent of the majority of its people) to commit genocide of Jews, homosexuals, the elderly, or the mentally handicapped? Just because it's not cool with us doesn't mean it's not fine for others when morality is subjective.

quote:

---

The objective aspect of a humanist morality system is that the species survives and works better under a spirit of cooperation wherein each member strives to do no harm. It's OBJECTIVELY responsible.

---

So your standard is human survival? That's your standard for objectivity? First of all, that's a standard that originates within individual humans so it's not categorically objective. Secondly, not all individuals care about their own survival, much less the survival of society or of the species. Why should they? Why should I care if people are killed off in 500 years due to global warming if I've been dead for 99% of that time already? Why should someone who doesn't value their own life value the lives of others, especially strangers? Just because you think it's a good idea doesn't make it objectively right.

And on that point about survival: if that is the ultimate objective of all of humanity--nay, all of life--then morality is whatever helps survival of the species. Need to control the population? Abortion and euthanasia are just fine. Need more people? Killing homosexuals seems good. Do the rich horde wealth to the detriment the rest of society? Forcibly steal everything they have for the greater good. Are the uneducated poor a drain on resources while not contributing anything, themselves? Why not make them slaves and force them to provide something of value to those who know how to contribute. There are any number of ways this "survival" morality can be applied that would sicken most "good" people.

quote:

---

But even if you want to erroneously call that "subjective", SO frickING WHAT? Conclusions reached subjectively can also be logically valid and behaviorly beneficial.

---

How do you logically validate a moral standard? Utility to the whole at the expense of the individual? I just detailed some examples of how that can result in some pretty "immoral" behavior. "Beneficial" to who, exactly? Why should I sacrifice myself and my family for the sake of the greater society? How exactly do I benefit from the survival of the species after I'm gone?

quote:

---

But here's the REAL kicker, though: as an atheist, my system of morality can best be described as objective (and I don't give a shite if you call it "subjective"

---

I've already explained why your moral standard is definitely not objective. You can say that God doesn't exist and therefore my moral standard is equally subjective, but that doesn't make your standard objective.

quote:

---

because it doesn't change a goddamned thing about the way I treat other people),

---

If you lived your life consistently with your proposed humanistic, utilitarian worldview, you would be a pretty terrible person. Instead, I bet you live your life according to a general view of people having intrinsic value (not something that exists in an atheistic, utilitarian view but exists happily in the Christian worldview) that should be preserved through actions that do not harm others.

quote:

---

but the best way to describe YOUR morality system is fear-based speculation.

---

I can't recall the last time I had any fear of God beyond the "fear" of reference, awe, and respect. I am not afraid for my soul and I'm not afraid that God will strike me dead. You couldn't be more wrong here.

On the contrary, I strive to treat others with respect because they are made in the image of God and have intrinsic value because of that. I abide by an objectively good moral standard because it comes from a good standard-bearer. I do good to others because it is objectively good to do so, not because it benefits me somehow (mind you, I don't believe I'm saved by my good works).

Dude...awesome stuff. You can speak clearly about what I am thinking.

Appreciate your posts!

Jesus Christ. I’ve seen it all now.

But what does your roommate say?!?!?!?

quote:

---

I still contest that Christians do not have access to objective morality, whether or not they'll accept that is beyond the point.

---

Christians are in a safe place when it comes to morality. Either we have a truly objective source of morality and can judge the non-christian's morals as objectively wrong, or we are in the same subjective moral quagmire as everyone else and can't legitimately be judged for what we believe, since it is just one preference among many, being neither better nor worse than any other moral standard.

quote:

---

It's pretty easy to create something that looks to be pretty air tight given a giant blank sheet of paper, a pack of colors, and virtually no rules. It sort of reminds me of a Family Guy skit...

Ghost that never lies, but only I can see and hear him.

---

What is funny to me is that supposedly all religions are made up, yet we've got a monopoly on an air tight theology. You would think other religions would have caught up by now.

Or it could just be that the faith of the Bible is rational as we would expect in a rational universe, which we would expect from a rational God.

quote:

---

Instead I'll just look at the stark differences between the Old and New Testament and see how much "objective morality" can change.

---

Sheesh, am I going to have to explain the different types of law again? It seems like I'm going to have to do it as I can sense a shellfish or mixed threads example coming.