We have talked about it, and I have read threads where you've talked about it with other people, Phedipeddes for example.
I have no recollection of discussing it with Phed either. I did also discuss the lack of an objective morality for atheists and agnostics with him but not the evidence for Christianity.
If there's something else that you've never brought to the table before.......well, I'm not telepathic. I can only deal with what you post.
In which case you shouldn't make claims about what I believe.
Tu quoque would be justifying one untenable position by pointing to another. I do not think that being guided by one's conscience is an untenable stance, and nor is the feeling of emotions. That's just the human condition, and to accuse me of tu quoque simply for pointing out that you are as human as the rest of us is stretching the obsession with logical fallacies a bit. Well, a lot actually.
I don't mind being guided by emotions when they are relevant to the question. When they are irrelevant it's likely to lead you up the garden path - as it has here. As I have pointed out, it is very much an untenable position to argue for truth by appeal to emotion and whether I suffer from the same thing or not doesn't avoid this issue.
I never said they don't apply because they are older. I said it is difficult to judge how they would have been interpreted by the society of the time because they are older. I said they don't apply because they have been fulfilled and Christ has come.
Which amounts to almost the same thing - you have rationalised them on the grounds that they are older, and added a bit of superstitious fluff about Christ.
No, it's nothing like the same thing. If you want to say that emotions are relevant, then it isn't your emotions that are relevant but those of the people at the time to whom the commands were given. And you simply have no access to what these were. And if you want to dismiss Christ as superstitious fluff, what is the point of this discussion at all! Christ is fairly important to the Christian worldview, you know.
You asked me to bring something which is extant for Christians today. I brought something - homosexuality - and you respond with "discuss it without me." That's just dodging the question.
Yep.
You point to the level of perceived emotion in other peoples' judgement calls as a means to dismiss, or at least trivialise, them while ignoring that their basis is ultimately no different to your own. Our "emotions" are pointed to as a lack of objective standards for morality, while yours are dressed up with an illusion of objectivity by reference to a book from which you cherry pick according to your emotions, and then rationalise backwards to justify.
No, I'm just pointing out that in some contexts they don't help in coming to a rational conclusion. In other contexts they are quite relevant.
But my point still stands - our consciences are downgraded to mere emotions and preferences where they disagree with your God. When they do happen to agree with your God we are dismissed as unthinking atheists who can't quite let go of their childhood faith. In short, God gets the credit when we happen to agree with him, and we take the blame when we don't.
However, when your conscience agrees with your God, suddenly the human conscience can be brought as corroborating evidence for an objective morality, which you automatically equate with the Christian God. When your conscience disagrees, that discord is explained away with theological constructs which have no more objective backing than my preference for the Geneva Convention over the Old Testament.
These paragraphs are also mixed up.
If God doesn't exist, our consciences
are mere emotions and preferences. Of course we can't escape them and they will effect our choices as all emotions and preferences do but this doesn't give us a reason for thinking that they tell us anything 'true' about the world - which could only be judged by what exists objectively outside us. So any moral statements an atheist makes
can only be an expression of his/her preferences - they are not universally true even if they have universal claims. If you don't believe this is true then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that an objective morality exists. Most atheists that have examined (thought about) this question have concluded that the same reasons they have for rejecting God also cause them to reject the existence of an objective morality.
If God doesn't exist then you are absolutely correct that my only reason for believing that he does is emotion. As you say, this isn't any better or worse, from a rational point of view than the atheist's position.
If God exists, then our consciences may be some kind of dim reflection of a true morality that has its source in God. Because it can be influenced by our cultures and ourselves, it wouldn't be perfect but it might retain something. So seeing God's character in his commands expressed to us might give us some degree of confidence that he exists. When we are talking about commands that are not expressed to us, however, we need to be more careful because we don't know how they would have been understood by the people of the time or what the intent of the commands actually was. When we are talking about actions by God, we need to be even more careful because our consciences would have been intended as a guide to our behaviour - not as a guide to God's behaviour which would be based on perfect knowledge and perfect justice.
None of this is to say whether the Christian God actually exists or not. Just that in the context of his existence, the role the conscience plays is different to that in which he doesn't.
Feel free to take on board the fact that it is totally illogical to assume that what happened in the past on one forum among one set of people, is in any way a predictor of what will happen in the future on a different forum among a totally different set of people. If you don't, then we will have no opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, but its your prerogative obviously.
There is a thread on it in The Lounge, but its a bit pointless without someone willing to seriously debate the Biblical point of view, hence the thread has turned jocular and light hearted.
Hmm. Yes, and there is no particular slant to the joking at all. Actually, there would be no problem with someone attempting to debate the biblical point of view even if they aren't a Christian - or even quoting it from elsewhere and then criticising it. You really don't need me for that at all and therefore plenty of opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.
I haven't said that it predicts anything. Just that it gives me a reason to be wary of such discussions. And no, it isn't a totally different set of people - there is quite a bit of overlap.
Secular humanists don't claim to base their morality on anything other than human concerns.
Which is a selection based on nothing (evidence-wise that is).
Christians do, and it is not in the slightest bit hypocritical of anyone who doubts the existence of their God to ask for evidence of his existence.
I didn't say it was. It only becomes hypocritical if you then proceed to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
And nor is the source of atheists' morals, yet you still brought it up.
Yet it is relevant because you are insisting on evaluating God according to your own moral standard. So it's only fair to ask what that standard is and how you know that it is true. If you say that 'God is like a tyrant', then it's only fair to ask how you know that that is a bad thing.
It is very relevant when assessing the nature of God. You have just rationalised it otherwise because you don't like some of the commands God gave to others at other times in other places. You have an arbitrary preference for "love thy neighbour" over "slaughter the idolators". I don't blame you, after all I have a similar preference myself for all the same reasons you have.
Indeed, it shows that it is in the nature of God to judge people and societies. I have never denied that. It does not mean that his character is not loving. And I don't have to choose between the commands because they were not both given to me.
The Geneva Convention was only brought into the debate because you sarcastically commented that I wasn't God the last time you checked. The point being, of course, that these pesky moral standards which condemn genocide don't depend on me being God, or even on my existence. You then used it build a straw man around.
Which is a point that you have still failed to prove. The moral standards do not exist at all until you can show evidence that they do. The existence of the GC doesn't prove a thing. If you were God, you might have some reason to claim to have the right to judge.
Read it again Sparky. I said it is irrelevant to atheism and totally contrary to humanism. As atheism and humanism are two separate, albeit related, things it can of course be irrelevant to one and a twisting of the other.
Fine then you have retracted your earlier claim that a tinpot dictator is twisting atheism. And a humanist is to atheism what a tinpot dictator is - neither has given any kind of rational reason for their beliefs - and, according to you, nor do they need to - it just has to 'feel' right.
Fair enough, but my hypothetical problems are equally irrelevant to that subject.
If you want to argue from within Christian teaching (which is what you should be doing), they are. But you will need to drop all this 'my conscience tells me it is wrong stuff' and the 'superstitious nonsense about Christ' stuff - which only make sense from your own perspective and make the very real and pressing problems you face relevant to the discussion.
Intimacy, obedience (for us), care, concern, protection, security, forgiveness, joy. I'm not aware of any dark side to being in a relationship with God.
What objective basis do you have for that definition? What about the dark side of judgement, punishment and death, all of which are included in the Biblical version of God's interaction with mankind? How do they square with God's care, concern, forgiveness, etc?
And this, of course, is the discussion we should have been having all along...
Do the commands given to the Israelites demonstrate God's character in a way that contradicts how God's character is revealed elsewhere in the bible?
Can we talk about this and leave the other stuff behind?
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"