₦airaland Forum

thehomer:
You may have answered something but not my question.



But you're not bound by your parents in the sense that you won't necessarily do whatever they ask you to do without thinking.



You think it is pride, I think it is simply exercising my ability to think that makes me ask this question. I don't see what size has to do with anything. After all, I'm bigger than ants, bacteria and atoms I'll exist longe than certain elements so I don't see what your point here is.



Are you saying that one should do what God wants because you think that without God, they won't exist? Well without your parents, you won't exist so is that a good reason for you to do whatever they ask? I don't mind where I end up after death so that too isn't a reason to do what your God wants.



I disagree. In fact, I think that with God, justice is meaningless and is a delusion that religious people have accepted to make themselves feel better when they're suffering here on earth.

I did answer your question, you only find answers in what you agree with.
Like I said, up until my early adult years, my parents served as a source of guidance. Now I'm old enough to make my own decisions. God, we can never match in essence and wisdom.

1) Exercising ability to think is being open to find out how we all got here, I'm pretty sure you've got your mind, it is your life live the way you see fit. Seriously dude ants?

2) Doing what God wants out of love is for ones good. It's all about the restoration of paradise to what it was before the first humans lost it due to sin. Only those who have gone through the renewal of their minds will be let in. Sin, death, rot, Satan will all be cast into the bottomless pit.

3) According to you, the universe doesn't have a creator, therefore we came by as a result of random chance and time, thus you and a rock on the ground, or a chicken are equal. Every day you eat that meat or fish, no that you're commiting murder, have at the back of your mind that those animals aren't getting justice.

thehomer:
The key phrase being "said to be". I don't think dead people would get justice that is why I believe in justice here on earth.

So why exactly is someone bound by God? Your parents gave birth to you but you're not bound by them are you?

I have answered this before I'll say it one more time. My parents gave birth to me, and all through infancy to my early adulthood, I was under their care and guidance. how much more God, I personally think it is pride asking why someone is exactly bound by God, compare your size to that of other things in the universe, your little time here on earth compared to space time. Well you were created by God, your soul and spirit returns to Him, Your decisions will determine where you'd end up after death. If there's no God Justice is meaningless, it is just delusion we've accepted to make ourselves feel better.

Kay17:
Mr Tevinsolt,

Is this a moral justification or a legal justification?

It is moral justification, you can call it a legal justification in some sense. God created the universe and all that's is in it, so he is sovereign. Many of the laws around the world are based on what is moral but not all though.

thehomer:
So it is merely separation from your God? Well that's better than those who say it is fire and brimstone.
If a person doesn't care about being separated from your God and doesn't want to be a reflection of your God. Does this mean the person isn't bound by him? Since it appears that being with your God after death is the reason for being bound by him.

hell is said to be a place of fire and brimstone and a place of utter darkness. You didn't create yourself so you don't get to decide and you don't live even in this life recklessly thinking that breaking the law won't land you in Jail, how much more the person who created the universe and your being? Justice ultimately will be served, all things done in the dark will be brought to light, those who never had justice while alive, would after death.

.

thehomer:
What if the person doesn't want to go to your God's heaven?

Hell is separation from God. There the person can rebel all they like it won't mean a damn thing.

undercat:
You certainly took your sweet time about it.

Okay. Your position is that God defines morality and He defines it in such a way that it is binding on Himself, so that He will have an incentive to not be immoral.

Firstly, I don't think that if God is the one who defines morality, the morality which He defines is an objective one. I said this earlier. Some of the reasons I think so are that

1. God is conscious and consciousness is subjective. It is difficult to see how a God with a subjective consciousness can decide what an objective morality is. Morality, having originated from His mind, cannot be objective.

2. I also said this earlier, what happens where there are two Gods (imagine something like the holy trinity) and each God has a different morality?

Secondly, and more to your point, I see a paradox when you say that God, because He is good, makes morality binding on Himself to prevent Himself from going bad. Is God all good or not? If He is not all good, what sort of morality has He defined? Provided the objective morality we speak of is one which is the encapsulation of all that is good, such a God could hardly have defined it.

What say you?






I notice that you don't capitalize properly when you use "his" to refer to God. I hope you are not one of these two a penny atheists on nairaland.

Yeah I took my time, cuz I have a life, and things to do during the day
1) First off conciousness is not subjective, perspective is. I'm aware of my conciousness/existence there is no two way about it.
2) what does it have to do with anything? What happens when two people with equal abilities totally have different views on life have to live together, they either compromise or do their own thing.
3) you posed a question asking, If God is bounded by the morality he has created the way humans are bounded by it. You asked if there would be consequences If he breaks his own moral.......clearly it is you suggesting that he is not perfect. And I think I did fairly well explaining that scenario. Bible claims God is holy, Righteous, eternal. What he expects of us is in accordance with his being/essence. God cannot behold sin, wages of sin is death, but cause of his love and mercy, he himself paid the price to "offer" those who will recieve it a way out of condemnation and be presented spotless without blemish. This is the fundamental message of the bible.

PastorAIO:
Bingo!!!

Did you make a point? cause I didn't get it.

undercat:
The question was not whether God cares about us, but whether there are any consequences to his going against a moral law he has set, just as we get to go to hell for breaking moral laws.

I already answered your question, I'll do it one more time. If the God in the bible goes against his own moral code, there would be consequences, this would affirm the justness of God but not his perfect character or it could just be that God is willing to take upon himself the punishment of his creations to provide redemption at the same time satisfy justice, this way his perfect character, justness is upheld. A God that would go against his moral codes without, and punish his creations is a tyrant and a flawed God.

YungwizzzyPt7:
I see so many innocent guys going to jail!!

are you effing kidding me? that's the first thing that came to your head?
and when Yarima wants to marry another 13 year old as usual, you'll start screaming there's no law against Child abuse.

PastorAIO:
My point is that my personal opinion on this matter has nothing to do with the conversation. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You are trying to defend your view of the bible but you've ended up talking gibberish.



A) Oh, I guess you think it's okay to kill people then, after all they are going to die one day.

B) the murder may care about the rest of his family but not about the guy himself. e.g.. victim and murderer may be brothers and the murderer doesn't want to upset the mother but killing his brother.

C) It doesn't mean that a deep instinct in us is not being violated.

if your personal opinion doesn't matter to the conversation, I don't why your discussing with me honestly, what I'm saying is not gibberish, you're just not following through with your thoughts.
A) I don't think it is Ok to kill, because I believe God created them in his likeness, hence they have innate value. A human life isn't the same as an animal life or just any plant life. an example would be the value of a currency and just a mere paper.
B)I'm sure you heard of psychopaths haven't you?
C)I think you just gave an answer to your own argument.

thehomer:
Does this mean humans aren't bound by your God's moral laws?

I'm saying we only get to do what we want for a short period in our existence, after that the soul goes back to the creator and he has the final say on what happens then. to answer your question, no it doesn't mean humans aren't bound by "my" God's moral laws.

sinequanon:
No. This is incorrect.

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical abstraction.

An objective fact would be something that is falsifiable in nature.

If you said that all rabbits have a tail, your assertion could be tested for objectivity by searching for a tailless rabbit. If you were to succeed in your search, the assertion would be falsified. We wouldn't automatically say the creature is not a rabbit.

However, if I were to dig two holes and then dig two more holes such that two of them coincided, I would end up with three holes. What gets called into question is not the mathematical abstraction itself, but my application or interpretation of the mathematical abstraction, 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 4 is not an objective observation about a "real world", but part of a method by which we are instructed to interpret the "physical" world. It cannot be falsified by the "physical" world.

Slightly more obscure examples happen in quantum physics. 2 + 2 = 4 was applied to electron states passing through two slits. The actual answer was not as expected. The answer is 3. What gives? Well, the method of counting electron states had to give to the non-falsifiable abstract standard. In QM, it is known as the Pauli exclusion principle.

2+2 = 4 is an absolute logical truth, the Pauli exclusion principle. there is more to it than just simply saying 2+2=3. Even atomically when an S orbital hybridizes with p orbitals to form sigma bonds, the # of orbitals in = # of orbitals out. thus we have Sp = 2 orbitals Sp2 = 3 orbitals and finally Sp3 = 4 orbitals. the only way you can get 2+2=3, is to combine one of the 2s to form just 1 entity to get 2+2= 3. Even in that case we can still say 3 is a product of 4 different things.

PastorAIO:
I never said that I thought killing of babies is immoral. However it is a generally held opinion. Furthermore, in many places in the bible Murder is condemned. Even though in just as many other places the bible condones murder.

It is a general opinion in societies around that world that taking a life is wrong. A)most people don't want to die so their lives would be taken against their will. B) It will cause immense suffering for their loved ones who will miss them. That's not good. C) Humans have an inborn instinct to protect the youngest of their species. to kill a baby would be violating this instinct. ......

If you don't think it's Immoral, then is it moral or are you just neutral? whatever view you hold on morality do you apply it across the board?

A) I don't think any living thing wants to die, but it happens either naturally or external influence?
B) why would a murderer care about that?
C) you would surprised how common abortion is. what about dead beat parents? lots of them abound among us.

thehomer:
What about the person who doesn't want to be a reflection of your God's being and character? Is such a person bound by that God's moral laws?

One of the attribute we possess as humans is free will. God won't stop a person that wants to do things his/her own way, "God won't force anyone into heaven against their will".

undercat:
This doesn't actually address the question.

it perfectly does, of course there would be no consequence, and I'm sure we his creation wouldn't have any moral code to uphold. Everything is allowed.

Weah96:
Have you read the bible?

yes, have you?

undercat:
So God defines morality and He is bound by it.

Is He bound by it the same way man is? What do you say would happen to God if He pays no heed to a moral law?

I don't imagine there would be any consequences.

If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

undercat:
@tevinsolt. I understand that you may have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your take on this.

Morality is embodiment of God's character. God is good, holy, omniscient just and so on but these are the ones that pertain to morality. what we are expected by God to morally carry out is what God himself can never break. subjective morality would be looking a murderer in the face and saying "from my perspective you are wrong, but i understand that in your perspective you are right" in that case there's no such thing as right or wrong. Because if there's no God, then human life is not any more valuable than any other life or substance found in the universe, so killing, cheating or any other actions we consider bad when done to further your endeavors is neither wrong nor right, it's just what it is. Survival of the fittest.

davien:
William lane Craig uses presuppositions to arrive at his desired "god did it" conclusion.
First of all...."nothing" has never been established as a real state of anything.
We only have a "something" and examples of "something from something" but no examples of "nothing" not even the classical definition of "nothing" is known...let alone "nothing producing nothing" in the classical sense.
I don't know if you understand me....should I direct you to a source explaining this?

sure why not

PastorAIO:
What's your point?

You can't compare african slaves in US to Jewish captives in Babylon.

For a start Babylonian captivity only lasted about 70 years.

Why didn't they return home?

And please if you're going to make any historical claims you'll need to back it up with evidence.

what historical claims? you mean about blacks, well my evidence is, I was taught in global history in high school.
and the funny thing is many blacks do think they're Hebrews in captivity, well they're delusional, that's what captivity does to someone and their offspring

Historicity is not the main point here, why do you think killing of babies is immoral?

This is what they call intellectual dishonesty, and this is its peak!
when i was in high school I learnt how to read in context and understand literal style.
sadly op you missed out.

davien:
And how did you deduce the universe to not be an uncaused cause?

this is the explanation of the Work of William Lane Craig a Theology philosopher

There is no other logical possibility.

Either some things are caused, or nothing is.

If nothing is caused, then I never wrote this. But I did write this, so at least some things are caused.

If some things are caused, either their causing is the result of a previous cause, or it isn't. In other words, either something caused it to cause, or nothing caused it to cause.

If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Infinite regress would mean that we have iterated, one-by-one, through every single item of an infinite series. But an infinite series always has more items than those that have been iterated through. We would have iterated through something that cannot be iterated through, which is logically incoherent.

If we were to go backwards through each previous cause, and there were an infinite number of past causes, there would necessarily be some cause in the set of previous causes that we would never, ever get to. If that were not the case, it would not be infinite. If there is some supposed prior cause in the set of previous causes that we could never get to while iterating backwards through all previous causes, then, iterating forward from that cause to the present state, we would never arrive at the present state for the same reason that going backwards we could never arrive at the previous state -- namely, the infinite (or unending) number of causes in between the two.

Infinite regress would mean that we have completed something that cannot be completed. We have traversed something that cannot be traversed. We have itemized what cannot be itemized, counted what cannot be counted, spanned what cannot be spanned.

Infinite regress is logically incoherent. Therefore, not everything is caused by a previous cause.

This means, necessarily, that EVERY series of causes has its own first cause, and since this first cause is a FIRST cause, it is uncaused.

What we also see is that since this first cause is never the result of a prior cause, since it is in fact a FIRST cause, it does not cause involuntarily. In other words, nothing made it cause: it did it voluntarily -- on its own. The first cause, in every series of causes, is therefore necessarily volitional: it is willful; it has personhood.

Every uncaused first cause, since it is uncaused, either began to exist without cause, or else it did not begin to exist, and is therefore self-existent.

If it began to exist without cause, then having nothing, adding nothing to it, something results. Or, in other words:

0 + 0 > 0.

This is the same as claiming that zero is not zero, which is logically contradictory. I like to call this "Atheist Math".

Therefore, since nothing can be caused by nothing, every uncaused first cause is self-existent. It is eternal, permanent, and not subject to change over time. It simply... is.

When anyone talks about some kind of uncaused, self-existent, willful, eternal, personal entity that is the first cause of things, the label generally applied to such an entity is "God".

So we see that not only must some type of God necessarily exist because of the impossibility of the contrary, but also that He must be an uncaused first cause for the same reason.

In fact, Christianity is the only worldview that is logically coherent. All other worldviews fall victim to inherent logical contradictions within their most basic presuppositions, particularly wherever they diverge from Christianity.

For example, due to the lack of divine sacrificial substitutionary atonement in Islam, when Allah, who is always just, forgives, He is not just.

Due to the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish prophecy is rejected by the Jews.

Due to the multiplicity of disagreeing gods in polytheism, wherever there is divine disagreement, things are and are not at the same time and in the same way.

The Christian God never contradicts Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); He fulfills the prophecies of the Jews (Acts 3:18); and the sacrifice of Christ makes it possible for the Christian God to be both just and forgiving at the same time (Hebrews 2:17).

Ultimately, only the Christian worldview provides a coherent understanding of reality and is not inherently contradictory.
- See more at: http://www.godcontention.org/compare-religions/how-can-god-be-an-uncaused-cause#sthash.xWgkYJ6d.dpuf

PastorAIO:
Okay, things are starting to make sense. You've 'educated' yourself by using that link. Now I know that your 'education' comes from gotquestionsdotcom I'll know how to proceed.

I never said that babylon attacked Judah just once. Please try to think. The creme de la creme of Judah were taken to captivity. The remnants were left. It was those that were left in Judah that rebelled and were attacked again. It wasn't the jews in captivity.

Let me say that again slowly. Please read it very slowly.

1) There were some jews taken in captivity. They were treated very well but they often got homesick.

2)There were some Jews left behind. They stupidly decided to rebel again in spite of Jeremiah's repeated warnings.

The Jews in Judah did not rebel due to the condition of their upper class in babylon.


So when you say they rebelled cos the babylonians stripped them of their land and culture you are totally and utterly WRONG!!

Even gotquestion doesn't support you on that one, that is if you actually read the gotquestiondotcom.




Actually they have. And guess what. In liberia where many of them went back to, they kept their US passports!!
any small yawa like this and those guys run back to the US.

After the captivity they had to beg many of those jews to go back to Judah. They didn't want to leave. They were enjoying life in what was at the time the greatest civilisation in the known world.

Someone asked you already, what is the context? Ansa na!?

only few left for Liberia, but most stayed because for 400 years their ancestors have settled in the land, moving back to a land totally strange and different in culture is probably not the first choice of action. It didn't mean they had it rosy, it didn't mean they did not fight to gain freedom, and it wasn't all blacks that were slaves, those up North were freemen and some rose to be quite wealthy even in the slavery ridden south, but according to history most blacks were going through hell. the captivity of Israel where skilled men were taken to SERVE under the king was after prior captivities and former of others.

davien:
So to stop "god" from being illogical due to infinite regression..its an "uncaused cause"?

no to stop whatever you think is the cause of all these, there must be an "uncaused cause" for the Universe to have started to exist then the "First caused uncaused" is personal.

thehomer:
Laws like people not working on the Sabbath or they get killed, not mixing garments, not eating certain foods and many other laws. Is the Sabbath law a moral law? I ask because people were killed for working on the Sabbath.



How does this then make it right for this same God to order the killing of their children and infants? How does it make it right for him to order that the female virgins be kept as "spoils of war"?



I get off saying it is immoral because it is immoral to order the killing of innocent children. It is immoral to order the rape of women. Do you think that ordering the killing of innocent children is moral or immoral? Is ordering the rape of women is moral or immoral?
What do you think survival of the fittest refers to? And how is that relevant here?

Still you haven't shown me, or quote where it says God approves of rape. It'll be moral, because first of all he gave the life, and decides when to take it back, second the babies won't go through life as orphans, third prevents the kids from eventually following the path of their progenitors and as a result attacking the Israelite. Which actually did happen because King Saul didn't do as God asked of him.

If there's no God, then can you explain why it is immoral to kill babies, then I will explain why I said "it is the survival of the fittest in an unguided world"

PastorAIO:
you can be captured and not feel any pain. You can be tortured and yet not be in custody. captivity does not equal torture.



When the captivity ended how many Jews returned to Israel?

Why did more Jews remain in the diaspora than existed in Israel itself?

It just so happens that you are right. They were given a fair shot at realizing hte babylonian dream. First of all it was not all of the jews but only the Nobility, the educated and the highly skilled workers that removed to babylon. They were brought to babylon to practice their skills in the service of Babylon with ample reward for their efforts. Some of them even rose to become the highest officials in the land, like in the story of Daniel.


So when you shed light on torturing babies you came to the conclusion, without condoning it, that the person who does so will be happy.


O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.





I agree with you. At least you are not one of those clowns that consider the bible to be God's own words given to us via prophets.

Israel was taken captivity not just once but many times over after series of rebellion by Hebrews. I mean it is bizarre, why rebel when they were being done huge favors by those wonderful Babylonians, who stripped them of their land and culture. Why haven't African Americans returned back to Africa, where their ancestors were taken as slaves? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) I think you should educate yourself more, use that link.

writing about something doesn't equate approval. context is important friend and any Historians will tell you there are different literal styles in the bible.

Emmalot121:
There is nothing like 'infinite regression of causes' If you slice your yam, it won't slice to infinity, you will definitely get to its atom. The atom contains three major subatomic particles, so does God, Trinity.

I believe you just repeated what i said? but pls stop liking God to an atom, because Atom is so much more than three "major" subatomic particles.

davien:
where did "god" come from?
And what spark made "god" metaphysical?

God by definition is the uncaused caused, an infinite regression of causes is illogical

shadowgwalker:
magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

lmaoo I do believe in God but common on bro, really?

nope, it is one of the gift of the spirit among many others.

PastorAIO:
I do not recall any record of the Babylonians torturing the Israelites. Please can you point me to your sources.

From what the psalm says they were weeping because of homesickness. Nobody was torturing them. Plus, according to historical records, as far as I'm aware, Babylonians didn't torture or taunt their captives.

If it is a matter of revenge then the psalmist should seek to inflict homesickness on babylonians in return, not smash their babies heads against rocks.


We'll leave the fact that, according to the bible, the captivity of Israel was actually Yahweh's doing to punish them for not listening to him. If they want vengeance surely they should turn their vexations towards Yahweh.

No, let's leave that and stick with the issue at hand that we are discussing. Namely, Objective Morality.

You said:

and:


First you say that it is objective that torturing babies is wrong. Then when I show you that it is condoned in the bible you say that context matters.

Are you now saying that torturing babies is not objectively wrong in the context of being forced away from home and feeling homesick?

If i get you right, captivity is not torture, no they were just removed from their land to be given a fair shot at realizing the Babylonian dream!
let us address the comprehension troubles we're having here. Writing about something doesn't necessarily mean, the writer condones it. If I decide to write about "rape", it doesn't mean I condone it, I'm just shedding light on it. You see this is the difference between you and I, I see this in the bible and I think they have the embarrassing stuff in there too not just the good stuff, which makes it even more credible because it doesn't portray the authors as perfect, but humans just like any other in need of God's grace and mercy.