[Mr. Vega]

I like the Gnostic idea that the god of the Old Testament is actually Demiurge and Jesus is the first prophet of the true God. Makes the Bible much more fun.

[AdmiralRalwood]

No, because the Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament.

Are you going to eventually answer any questions, or just repeatedly vomit words?

[Aesaar]

I see where you're coming from but I think God's uniqueness has very much bearing on it.  At the very least, I think you'll agree that the creator is greater than the creation or anything in it.  In that sense the creator is an objective standard from the point of view of the creation.  Now you may argue that God's standard is subjective from the point of view of himself, but if there is no pantheon of gods to compare one standard against another, is there any difference between subjective and objective?

It's like a thought experiment I heard the other day.  If there was only one object in the universe, would it have any velocity?  Velocity can only be measured relative to two distinct objects, so if there is only one object, velocity becomes meaningless.  So then you can ask, well, will that object have mass?  Since mass varies as a function of velocity, then you can argue that mass becomes meaningless as well.  Well then, will it have any gravity?  Gravity becomes meaningless too, since it depends on mass.  You end up with a big NAN cascading through the laws of physics and generally confounding all your expectations.

See, the issue with this is that God isn't the only thinking being in the universe.  We're here too, and if we disagree with him, there's absolutely nothing that makes him more or less right beyond the fact that we didn't create the universe.  The only thing he has that we don't is more power.  The only way your argument would actually work is if we didn't have free will and those who disagreed with God were legitimately broken.  But that's not the case, is it?

And no, I don't agree that the creator is inherently better than the creation and everything in it.  If I have a child, I'm not automatically better than that child is or might be.

I was speaking more in the sense that when the creator imposes rules on the creation, the ultimate justification for the correctness of those rules lies in the creator.  To use the most basic example, if you asked me to defend the proposition that 2+2=4, I could fall back on set theory or induction, but those are just transformations of the original question.  Ultimately the only answer is "that's the way the universe works".

That's from a theoretical perspective.  Now if you're looking for examples and facts and tangible evidence from a practical perspective, I would refer to my previous point that God's creation demonstrates his nature.

You're equating moral rules with the laws of mathematics, but it seems pretty obvious that those unbreakable rules God imposed on creation don't cover morality.  If they did, we wouldn't be able to disagree with them.  If God's moral rules were objectively correct, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.  The answer would be obvious to every thinking person.  We wouldn't be able to disagree any more than we can disagree about 2+2=4.  But this isn't the case.  Different cultures have all independently arrived to the conclusion that 2+2=4.  They have not all arrived to the same consistent conclusions about morality, and probably never will.

And "God's creation" isn't good.  It's not evil either.  It's cold and empty and uncaring.

I haven't exhaustively responded to every point in this thread.

In other words, you're pretending the points you'd rather not respond to don't exist.

So when you look at images from the Hubble Space Telescope, you don't feel any wonder or awe or appreciation of beauty?

This equals good how, exactly?  I can think a nuclear explosion is beautiful, but that doesn't mean I think the use of nuclear weapons is good.

At the end, it comes down to faith.  Faith is a postulate for life just like Euclid's statements are postulates for mathematics.

Faith is subjective.  I don't have faith in your god.  If I believe we are all touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage, and I believe he gave us free will so we wouldn't have to deal with objective moral standards, why am I wrong?

Actually though, at the end of the end, all things will be revealed and God will show his cards.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster will appear and say you're wrong.  One is as likely as the other.

Well, I'm glad you're not the arbiter of God's objective morality then.  Because I disagree with (and by your standards have "failed to adhere to") all four items on that list.

And how do you know your interpretation is the correct one?  Faith again?

[Bobboau]

I see where you're coming from but I think God's uniqueness has very much bearing on it.  At the very least, I think you'll agree that the creator is greater than the creation or anything in it.  In that sense the creator is an objective standard from the point of view of the creation.  Now you may argue that God's standard is subjective from the point of view of himself, but if there is no pantheon of gods to compare one standard against another, is there any difference between subjective and objective?

It's like a thought experiment I heard the other day.  If there was only one object in the universe, would it have any velocity?  Velocity can only be measured relative to two distinct objects, so if there is only one object, velocity becomes meaningless.  So then you can ask, well, will that object have mass?  Since mass varies as a function of velocity, then you can argue that mass becomes meaningless as well.  Well then, will it have any gravity?  Gravity becomes meaningless too, since it depends on mass.  You end up with a big NAN cascading through the laws of physics and generally confounding all your expectations.

Yes there is a difference. If I was the last person alive, would that make my every thought and perception fact? No, I would still have the same problems of subjectivity that I do with 7 billion other minds to interact with, The only difference is I would not have anyone to point out when I was wrong. As a result I would THINK I was completely right about everything, but be far less right than I would be if I had some other minds to confer with. Truths are either objective or they are subjective, Objective means independent from a mind, subjective means dependent on a mind. If the moral standard issued by God comes from it's mind, then it is subjective, if it would still be the truth if there was no god (for example, hypothetically, not the only way to achieve this) then it is objective. To say something is "objective from someone's point of view" is a contradiction.

'greater' is a very ambiguous word you can be greater on one respect and lesser in another and there is no reason a creation cannot exceed a creator. Indeed we have a great many machines that we have built that perform far better than we ever could hope to our selves in certain areas, and it is common for children to grow into greater people than their parents. So no I do not accept that by virtue of creating the universe a God would necessarily be utterly better than it's creation in every conceivable way.
In fact you might say the Bible it's self supports this in Genesis 11:6 "If ... they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them". he was afraid of us 

Your thought experiment sounds a lot like what I was saying about morality and people. It makes no sense unless there is more than one of them because morality is about people interacting. That is why I say morality is objective in that it is a property of people.

[karajorma]

So when you look at images from the Hubble Space Telescope, you don't feel any wonder or awe or appreciation of beauty?

What the hell does that have to do with goodness? Are you seriously going to try to claim that evil people can't make something beautiful?

Surely by your logic, a deer carcass rotting in the sun proves that God is evil.

Actually, he must know what he's doing.  He created a being with free will, and that will was so free that it took an action that was a) entirely unprecedented, and b) contrary to the will of the one who created it.

But if you're going to put it to a vote, two-thirds of the angels did not follow Satan into rebellion.

And two thirds of humanity don't acknowledge God (less if start trying to decide which of the Abrahamic religions is right) so he ****ed up the second time then.

Besides, why do you imagine creating free will is that hard? AI is a staple of science fiction precisely because most writers think we just need more powerful computers before we can do it for ourselves.

[InsaneBaron]

Scotty, if it helps, I'm willing to tackle the question head-on.

When Jesus is asked about the most important moral laws, he answers, "Love God above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself." I'm supposed to love my neighbor because God loves them. And You. Are. My. Neighbor. This means that attacking, harassing, or discriminating against you, or even hating you mentally, would be extremely grave sins on MY part. (I've made this same argument against WBCers BTW).

Jesus also tells me, "Do not judge, that you will not be judged." I don't know your situation. Even if I don't approve of your actions, I have NO authority whatsoever to say "Your going to hell because of X." I am not capable of knowing with any degree of certainty whether you're guilty of a sin- sin kinda requires that the person in question believes that what their doing is wrong and does it anyway. What I DO know with a certainty is that you're a child of God like me, and therefore I ought to love you as myself, do what I can to help you, and pray that I can meet you in Heaven someday.

[SypheDMar]

For the record, I thought that Goober did answer the question by saying that what Jesus said is right-er than what Moses said. It's obvious lots of Christians believe in different things, and it's not sacrilegious for homosexuals to believe in Christ if said homosexuals want to.

That said, the world has every right to celebrate our own achievement, through "Satanism" or otherwise, and damn God and anyone that gets in the way of that freedom.

[Scotty]

Scotty, if it helps, I'm willing to tackle the question head-on.

A valiant effort, but I think you deflected off to the side there.  It's not about emotion, it's about morals.  You don't have to hate someone to want them dead, and by the very letter of the book that describes the God you worship, God thinks I should be killed because of certain actions I've participated in.  Whether He hates me or loves me is totally inconsequential to that fact.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to adhere to God's objective morality, you must believe that I should die for what I've done, regardless of your actual feelings toward me.  To disagree with this statement is to disagree with God's Word.  There is nothing in the New Testament that supersedes this and any attempted explanation is wishful thinking at best.

[Hades]

homosexuals are gay

[Mars]

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

The New Testament is still bound by the old, unless you listen to the other half of the Bible.

"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." Luke 16:16

An exhaustive list of these contradictory verses can be found here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

[SypheDMar]

Scotty, if it helps, I'm willing to tackle the question head-on.

A valiant effort, but I think you deflected off to the side there.  It's not about emotion, it's about morals.  You don't have to hate someone to want them dead, and by the very letter of the book that describes the God you worship, God thinks I should be killed because of certain actions I've participated in.  Whether He hates me or loves me is totally inconsequential to that fact.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to adhere to God's objective morality, you must believe that I should die for what I've done, regardless of your actual feelings toward me.  To disagree with this statement is to disagree with God's Word.  There is nothing in the New Testament that supersedes this and any attempted explanation is wishful thinking at best.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If the assumption is that the Old Testament is an ancient and outdated text regarding history and customs, then the New Testament is written to fix that. Or that the Israelites imposed their customs and **** in the Bible, or however you want to interpret it.

[Scotty]

or however you want to interpret it.

Bingo.

[Edhotmetal]

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

The New Testament is still bound by the old, unless you listen to the other half of the Bible.

"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." Luke 16:16

An exhaustive list of these contradictory verses can be found here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Could you explain how those verses contradict each other? It sounds to me that Luke 16:16 says that the law and prophets consist of everyone up until John, not that they became null when John came around.

[InsaneBaron]

Scotty, if it helps, I'm willing to tackle the question head-on.

A valiant effort, but I think you deflected off to the side there.  It's not about emotion, it's about morals.  You don't have to hate someone to want them dead, and by the very letter of the book that describes the God you worship, God thinks I should be killed because of certain actions I've participated in.  Whether He hates me or loves me is totally inconsequential to that fact.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to adhere to God's objective morality, you must believe that I should die for what I've done, regardless of your actual feelings toward me.  To disagree with this statement is to disagree with God's Word.  There is nothing in the New Testament that supersedes this and any attempted explanation is wishful thinking at best.

Hating someone is not just an emotional decision. It's a moral choice. And Jesus tells me it's wrong. It's that simple.

Here's the thing: there are a lot of things the ancient Israelites did (Divorce, for example) that Jesus strongly condemns. With Divorce, the problem was (according to Scott Hahn and John Bergsma) that numbers of Israelites were literally killing their wives because they wanted to remarry. Moses permitted divorce simply because it was the lesser of two evils. Not everything that Israelite authorities enforced was God's "law", and some of the stuff that wasn't was pretty bad. And Jesus called them out on that frequently.

That said, I admit I'm ashamed when I see people like WBC use the Bible to justify vile actions that they wanted to do anyway.

One other thing to point out: I ought to die for my sins. By all rights I ought to be burning in Hell right now. That applies to everyone; we're all sinners.  But that's the thing: God gave us all a second chance. At worst, you're in the same boat I am in regard to guilt and punishment. EDIT: or to put it another way, EVERYONE ought to die for what they've done. That doesn't mean I or anyone else have a right to kill them, and God is more interested in giving people second chances than giving them exactly the punishment they deserve.

[Aesaar]

One other thing to point out: I ought to die for my sins. By all rights I ought to be burning in Hell right now. That applies to everyone; we're all sinners.  But that's the thing: God gave us all a second chance. At worst, you're in the same boat I am in regard to guilt and punishment. EDIT: or to put it another way, EVERYONE ought to die for what they've done. That doesn't mean I or anyone else have a right to kill them, and God is more interested in giving people second chances than giving them exactly the punishment they deserve.

Homosexuality isn't a choice.  According to the Bible, purely because of who he is, Scotty deserves to die.  To quote Christopher Hitchens: God can create us sick, and then, on pain of eternal torture, command us to be well again.

Hell, this applies to original sin as well.

And we're supposed to agree that's objectively good and moral?

[Edhotmetal]

God didn't create anyone sick. He created us perfect but sin and sickness entered the world because of Adam and Eve. God sent us his Son to make us perfect and healthy again. If we choose not to be restored and healed God can send us to hell because down inside we know what is right and wrong even when no one tells us.

[Scotty]

Yeah.  I totally choose to be attracted to guys.  That's God's honest truth.  No way it's not a choice, not a one.

[InsaneBaron]

Yeah.  I totally choose to be attracted to guys.  That's God's honest truth.  No way it's not a choice, not a one.

We choose what we do, not necessarily what we desire.

But look, that's not what I came back to this thread for. I've made it clear I don't condemn you any more than I condemn myself. That said, I'm done.

Aessar, try quoting someone more serious than Hitchens.

[Bobboau]

Aessar, try quoting someone more serious than Hitchens.

try quoting some literature more serious than the Bible.

sin and sickness entered the world

entered from where?

[Aesaar]

Yeah.  I totally choose to be attracted to guys.  That's God's honest truth.  No way it's not a choice, not a one.

We choose what we do, not necessarily what we desire.

But look, that's not what I came back to this thread for. I've made it clear I don't condemn you any more than I condemn myself. That said, I'm done.

Aessar, try quoting someone more serious than Hitchens.

Why should I?  Just because you don't like him doesn't invalidate the good points he's made.

But sorry you're gay Scotty.  You have to pick between sex or eternal torture because God both made you the way you are and decided he doesn't like that part of you that he made.  Why can't you appreciate how good and moral God is?