How "Christian" of him!!

[Jon Miller]

You ignore my points, you need to include all of them. What about 'by their fruit you will know them'. That excludes Robertson right there, I think.

If the guy was suppose to warn everyone, he would attempt to warn people. If they were going to repent and trying to listen to God, they would hear, and be saved.

Take a look at Jonah for example.

I don't expect you to know the story so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah

People listen to Jonah, and are spared.

JM

[Jon Miller]

God is looking for an excuse, a reason, anything at all to spare people. He is a merciful God.

We see this with Sodom too.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Strawman argument. I never said the god would have to eliminate suffering. There's a massive difference between creating a universe with no suffering at all versus creating a universe in which the god would not ever have to kill innocent children for any reason.

But young children die, do they not? It's the same basic question, how to you distinguish between those whom God has decided to punish, and those who's time is simply up? WRT to God, I don't think there's any difference at all. If it were wrong for God to kill the Egyptian first born, why is it right for other children to die young?

We're not talking about abortion! I'm talking about the right of a parent to kill a living, born child for whatever reason he wished.

You're making a distinction where none exists. Yes, I supported abortion, the right of a parent to kill a living child at their own distinction for whatever reason they wanted.

Bzzzt. Self-awareness is not a matter of degrees. You're either self-aware or you aren't. That one being may be enormously more powerful than another doesn't change the fact that the other is sentient.

How else would you interpret the statement that God knows us better than we know ourselves? Self-awareness isn't a constant. It can fluctuate depending on your mental state. Many people are more or less self-aware. It seems obvious to me that God, having perfect self-knowledge is far more self-aware then we are.

No, Ben. It is NOT immoral for you to perform surgery, in and of itself. Performing surgery is neither a moral nor immoral act. It's the circumstances of the surgery that make the actions moral or immoral, not who you are.

Yes, it would be immoral, for the simple reason that even if I meant well, I am not a surgeon, and by operating on someone I would invariably inflict harm. Primum non nocere and all. In the exact same situation, it would be moral for someone who were trained to operate on him. Thus, by virtue of training the same act can be moral or immoral for one person to do.

For starters, I can think of at least a few circumstances when a non-surgeon performing surgery would be absolutely necessary and moral. Think of a soldier wounded in combat, and needing to have shrapnel removed from him and the wound cleaned and sutured before it gets infected. Under your terrible logic, his comrade would be acting immorally by treating him were he not a trained surgeon.

I know first aid, and any treatment I would give would simply open him up to infection. I am not a surgeon. I cannot justify opening him to pull out shrapnel. All I could do is try to haul him to safety and a medic.

What would make your performing surgery on me would be the following: either you had lied to me and presented yourself as a surgeon when you weren't, or you were forcing me to undergo surgery at your hands against my express will. In either case, it's not the surgery that's immoral, it's your deceiving me or forcing surgery upon me that is immoral. If, on the other hand, I knew full well you were not a surgeon and was 100% willing for you operate as best you could (such as in an emergency circumstance), it would be totally moral for you to do it.

Again, because of the training I have recieved, it would be totally immoral for me to open you up and expose you to infection. I do not have the right to expose you to unnecessary harm even if you request me to do so.

So no, it has NOTHING to do with who you are as a person that makes something moral or immoral. Logic Fail.

That is true, were I to obtain training as a surgeon, but at present, yes, it would be immoral for me to open someone up even in an emergency situation to remove shrapnel.

Perfect. This is an obviously morally flawed belief. It is proof-positive that you really believe there is no "higher morality"--it's just the whim of the dictator. If you believe that whatever your god does is good by definition, then you've rendered the meanings of "good" and "evil" null and void.

How so? I've already said several things.

1, God is eternal and uncreated. He is always in existance. Therefore, if morality is an essential part of his being, then morality is not the creation of man and has always existed and has not changed. Evil would be contrary to the will of God and his nature.

It's not about morally right behavior, it's just about obeisance. It's slavery, and you've proven my point that you have no genuine moral compass, as you will do whatever your god commands you, not matter what it is.

No, it is not slavery, because I have chosen, out of my own free will to believe in him and his teachings. I love how you evade the use of the word 'worship'. Yes, I worship God. You're welcome to believe otherwise, but it was a free choice of mine.

Reasoning is a function of self-awareness and human sentience. Of course I don't believe it was "given" to anyone, so the question is nonsense.

The question is not nonsense. Where did Reason originate? If you believe that God made man then your answer makes sense, but since you don't, clearly reason did not originate with human sentience.

But that doesn't render morality obtained through reason, empathy and experience arbitrary, not at all. It's actually the ONLY way to dispassionately judge things as morally good or bad. Your method is to slavishly believe whatever your god does/tells you to do is good. That's not morality.

What is reason other than your own desires? How do you distinguish between what you want, and what is right?

This is ass-backwards. It's YOUR morality that is arbitrary, not mine. You said above that your morality is that you define what is good as whatever your god says is good.

You've got that wrong. I do not define my own morality at all. You, on the otherhand make all the decisions as to what is right and wrong. Which is arbitrary? I daresay mine is not.

That is the very DEFINITION of arbitrary. There is nothing immutable about those morals, they're simply rules made up by someone.

Ahh, so we get to the crux of it. Rules made up by who? The pope? John? Paul? Christ? Who made these rules up?

By your own admission, your god could theoretically reverse morality tomorrow and say it's morally right to murder, steal and lie--and you'd have to accept it as good!

It would be contrary to his nature, so he would not do such a thing.

Furthermore, you also believe that your god is free to violate the very rules he lays down as freely as he likes, as they don't apply to him, just people. How is that "immutable?" That is the exact OPPOSITE of immutable!

He is free, but he would not because that is not who he is.

Immutable means the actions are morally good or bad in and of themselves, regardless of WHO commits them. That has to go for people AND gods, or it's not immutable at all, it's just arbitrary whim.

Again, you are saying that man is equal to God, and that is just flat out wrong. Actions are moral or immoral depending on who does them. Let's put another example. Say I have a child. If I were to discipline him, would it be right for you, a stranger to do the same? No. Actions are moral or immoral depending on who does them. I am his father, therefore I have the right and the obligation to discipline him for misbehaviour. It would not be appropriate for you to discipline him for the exact same offense.

I love Christians. Like the Quakers. They generally mind their own business and don't try and get their dogma legislated. The Episcopalians are pretty cool, too. I'm a big fan of any Christian who doesn't try to make other people live by his beliefs.

So, you are a big fan of anyone who doesn't try to share Christ... interesting definition there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look, I'm going to make it really clear to you.

It seems blindingly obvious that whichever Christian does not condemn you for your sins that you like, you will get along with.

Sin is your problem, and it is why you hate me, and why you hate Papa Benedict, and why you hide behind the admonition of legislating morality.

Let's be very clear here. You support all kinds of legislated morality. Do not lie, do not steal, do not murder. What you are offended by is when they say do not commit sodomy.

We all have our blind spots our sins that we love and enjoy. However, sin is disordered. It makes us do things that otherwise we would not do. I have my own sins that I have to go back to and say that I have done wrong and keep recommitting to Christ and away from them.

The difference, is that I recognise that these desires of mine are sinful. You do not. You insist that you cannot live without them, and that you would rather die then sacrifice them and do without. That is how much a grip sin has on you.

All I hope is you can see the reason behind what I say. Judge a man not for being right where you are right, but for being right where you are wrong, and you will have considerable wisdom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It seems blindingly obvious that whichever Christian does not condemn you for your sins that you like, you will get along with.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that you be not judged

So, maybe, he likes those Christians who attempt to follow Christ's words?

The difference, is that I recognise that these desires of mine are sinful. You do not.

Considering he's an atheist, why would he?

[Kidlicious]

I'm a big fan of any Christian who doesn't try to make other people live by his beliefs.

Sometimes it comes down to standing up against what is legal.

[Kidlicious]

Judge not, that you be not judged[/q]

So, maybe, he likes those Christians who attempt to follow Christ's words?

That verse does not mean not to condemn.

[DinoDoc]

It seems blindingly obvious that whichever Christian does not condemn you for your sins that you like, you will get along with.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that you be not judged

So, maybe, he likes those Christians who attempt to follow Christ's words?

If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. - Luke 17:3

You also deliberately misinterpret the verse you quote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not at all, it is saying that you have sins yourself, so don't judge others because you are a hypocrite. You can't fully get rid of all your sins, so you are never one who can be non-hypocritical on that point.

[Kidlicious]

Not at all, it is saying that you have sins yourself, so don't judge others because you are a hypocrite. You can't fully get rid of all your sins, so you are never one who can be non-hypocritical on that point.

It means rebuke sin, and not to sin.

[DinoDoc]

Not at all, it is saying that you have sins yourself, so don't judge others because you are a hypocrite.

The context of the verse is a warning against rash, hypocritical and overly harsh judgements. It's quite clear your interpretation is false as Jesus is telling us to judge in other places in the Bible of which I've already quoted one. However, the judgment Christians are to refrain from is judgment concerning the eternal fate of anyone. We're to leave intentions, motives, and final worth to God. We are not to confuse the judgment of the actions of people with sitting in judgment over them as to their eternal fate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jesus is telling us to judge in other places in the Bible

The Bible is inconsistent in places? I'm shocked to hear of this.

Matthew 7:4

Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?

It seems to also speak to the sinful actions of your brother, rather than simply their eternal fate.

James 4:11-12

Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?

Part of this statement seems to speak to eternal fate (James 4:12), but the first part is about judging your brother and judging the LAW, not simply eternal fate.

[Jon Miller]

Instead of making theology based on one or two sentences, how about making theology based on books/stories/the entirity?

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I'd say that based on the New Testament, Jesus's philosophy was not to judge others but to ask God personally about the proper way to act and what is right and wrong. Of course others would disagree.

[Kidlicious]

Imran,

What he's saying is don't be like the Pharisees. So don't be a hypocrit. Don't hate people but act like you love them. It fits in with the context of the Sermon on the Mount.