Originally posted by Proper Knob
What punishment should they face and who will dish out this punishment?

Hmmm it should be a program of rehabilitation, for every chicken they eat they need to look after one, if they eat a sheep they also need to look after one, if they eat a cow they need to buy a field and look after one, something like that. If they fail or are negligent or cruel they will be fined.

Originally posted by FMF

Do not harm (he proposed the murder of hundreds of millions of people); do not deceive (he made countless false statements and generalizations about people); do not coerce (he proposed putting people in concentration camps for thought crimes). Are you unable to make an evaluation like this of the morality of what Dasa proposed without recourse to Ancient Hebrew mythology?

I am able to agree with how Dasa ought not to speak. That is not the issue.

The issue is that as an Atheist, what is their ultimate grounding of that standard so that it is objectively measured.

Because all men are made in the image of God, we all have included a conscience.
We do not have to BE a theist for that conscience to inform us that Dasa's speech is bad.

Both the man saying "I believe God exists" and the man saying "Well, I lack belief in God" have a God created human conscience . Man, in general, is created in the image and likeness of a moral God.

Taking your point to another level, one Atheist once said to the effect - "Well, theists if you NEED God in order to act right, then go ahead and imagine Him."

His point is succinctly made. But it is really not the point. The theist is not claiming "An atheist does not have a conscience at all." He can discern something off morally as well as the Christian can.

When pressed to explain WHY something is morally off, Atheism's ground for saying so, is WEAK. It amounts to something like personal choice out of taste or preference.

God's unchanging and eternal nature is offended. And we were created in the image of God. That is why objectively I know evil speech when I hear it.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Do not harm (he proposed the murder of hundreds of millions of people); do not deceive (he made countless false statements and generalizations about people); do not coerce (he proposed putting people in concentration camps for thought crimes). Are you unable to make an evaluation like this of the morality of what Dasa proposed without recourse to An ...[text shortened]... we were created in the image of God. That is why objectively I know evil speech when I hear it.

"Both the man saying "I believe God exists" and the man saying "Well, I lack belief in God" have a God created human conscience "

No, they don't. The man saying 'I lack belief in God,' (me basically) does not agree that he has a 'God created' human conscience.

Yes, i have a conscience, but it is not created by God. You can only speak for yourself and other theists on this. It is not a given. For me a conscience is an accumulation of life experiences and upbringing. God doesn't come into it. I have the autonomy to decide what I think is right and wrong and make my own moral judgments.

Originally posted by sonship
The issue is that as an Atheist, what is their ultimate grounding of that standard so that it is objectively measured.

Their humanity perhaps, or common sense, or their hard wiring. Maybe it's something that was created, neither of us can really know. Atheists will think it's the first three things I mentioned but not the fourth.

However, the "ultimate grounding" for the "objectively measured" morality that you espouse is - to me - as you well know by now - complete nonsense and morally incoherent. I can't take you seriously on the topics of "morality" and "justice", and you know why.

Your notion of "perfect justice" is the most depraved and grotesque thing ever dreamed up by men ~ thankfully the unimaginable atrocity that you vaunt and promote is confined to your imagination and unable to affect anyone else around you, besides, perhaps, the psychologically vulnerable.

But, all that aside, if the reason you disagree with and condemn Dasa's views on rape and genocide - and if the reason you yourself don't carry out too many immoral acts ~ happens to be because you read about such things in a book, then I'll settle for that.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Why are you talking in absolutes? Why is 'no-good' evil?

For the purpose of finding the objective ultimate ground of morality, I speak in terms of absolutes here. I assume that the Atheists here also do when they together agree to condemn Dasa's speech.

If they are not talking in terms of absolutes then they don't know Dasa's speech is really objectively below the standard of what ought to be. They just then, prefer he not speak that way for some unknown reason.

My cousin is no good. He stole from his mum and sold his sister's rabbit. Does that make him evil?

It makes it true that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
He is a sinner.
That is a sinner whom God loves and sent His Son to save.

His stealing from his mother and selling what was not his but his sister's loved item, makes him a sinner qualified also for the salvation from sin through Jesus Christ the Savior of the world.

Why not go tell him this? I am sure he would find it good news.

Theists tend to talk in black and white, when reality is mostly shades of grey. Do i think Dasa as a person was evil? No. Did i find his justification for rape and genocide abhorrent, despicable, vile and hateful? Yes.

As a Christian I recognize that there are DIFFICULT moral problems in the same way there are DIFFICULT mathematical problems.

Sure, you can show me some situations that are morally DIFFICULT to figure out. That does not mean to me that God does not exist.

You may also show me mathematical problems that are DIFFICULT to solve. Admitting such, I do not reason that numbers or mathematics do not exist.

I will confess up front that you could throw at me moral problems too difficult for me to solve. However, I believe ultimately there is a last and final solving in the last judgment by God.

Flowing out of His very eternal nature, is the transcendent standard of goodness by which every moral act has its rendezvous with final Authority.

The moral buck will stop with God. In an Atheist's world, I suppose you are saying the buck will never stop.

If you believe that Evil exists, I think, that means that Good exists. And that means that God exists. An uncreated, an eternal, an unchanging Moral nature of a Moral Being and Governor exists. God exists.

Originally posted by sonship
Flowing out of His very eternal nature, is the transcendent standard of goodness by which every moral act has its rendezvous with final Authority.

Is this "rendezvous with final Authority" a reference to the fate of people who do not believe in Him?

Originally posted by FMF

Their humanity perhaps, or common sense, or their hard wiring. Maybe it's something that was created, neither of us can really know. Atheists will think it's the first three things I mentioned but not the fourth.

So you agree that the human conscience exists and informs. How it got there you admit you don't know. I have to think about where the better explanation lies.

If something like Evolution hardwired a moral conscience in humans, maybe as Evolution "progresses" it will hard wire it off another way. Perhaps in the future Evolution will hardwired that the more hate talk the more advantageous to the survival of the species.

Then Dasa's speech is not really evil perhaps. It is just against the current level of Evolutionary "progress". That is if you can think of a purposeless goal as "progressing" towards any ideal.

"Common sense" may be practical on a today's basis. I take this as just ignoring the bigger question. Sure, you can just ignore it just to get along on a day-to-day basis that today Dasa should know better.

However, the "ultimate grounding" for the "objectively measured" morality that you espouse is - to me - as you well know by now - complete nonsense and morally incoherent.

I don't know why you think God is incoherent. If anything exists SOMETHING must have always existed. And God would be the grounding for all being and all existing things. He is uncreated and eternal.

That everything popped into being from non-being and non-existence is incoherent to me.

Besides, what I really think you mean by incoherent is that you strongly do not agree with some judgments of God. Maybe I have problems with some judgments of God as well - maybe. But a ultimate grounding is explained in this regardless.

It could be that you or I simply don't know all the facts. We are not omniscient to all the facts as God. Based on our limitations, we disagree with a divine judgment.

This is a matter of human limitation. I expect in the end for God to say probably two things to me:

1.) jaywill, you were wrong and I God was right.

2.) jaywill, I was right, but you were right also. You were right to a limited degree.

I can't take you seriously on the topics of "morality" and "justice", and you know why.

Your notion of "perfect justice" is the most depraved and grotesque thing ever dreamed up by men ~ thankfully the unimaginable atrocity that you vaunt and promote is confined to your imagination and unable to affect anyone else around you, besides, perhaps, the psychologically vulnerable.

Why is an unimaginable atrocity evil ?

When I compare your life to that of Jesus Christ why don't your words and actions outshine those of Jesus in history? He's the one speaking about divine judgment.

Does Jesus need to appear before your moral judgment seat ?
Yes or No?

I don't see any way out of the significance of the impact of Jesus moral influence except to reason that Jesus never lived and He is imaginary.

Then I have to believe that human history was divided BC and AD based on an imaginary person. I don't have enough faith to believe that.

So I am going to run with there being, as Jesus said, an ultimate moral Governor.
And I am going to run with the fact that in some matters I am limited in knowing all the facts that determine this Ultimate Governor's judgments.

At least I know that He loved me to the uttermost that I would be saved.

But, all that aside, if the reason you disagree with and condemn Dasa's views on rape and genocide - and if the reason you yourself don't carry out too many immoral acts ~ happens to be because you read about such things in a book, then I'll settle for that.

I don't consider myself any better than Dasa. I consider myself a sinner saved by grace. While I condemn his speech I confess - but by the grace of God's salvation I would fair no better.

His speech and yours and mine are probably much worse than we really know.

" ... if our heart blames us, it is because God is greater than our heart and knows all things." (1 John 3:20)

Originally posted by FMF
Is this "rendezvous with final Authority" a reference to the fate of people who do not believe in Him?

Is this "rendezvous with final Authority" a reference to the fate of people who do not believe in Him?

I think the issue here is ultimate ground for a moral OUGHT. Does such exist or not?

When that is settled one can go on to "Why do I disagree with a warned judgment from such a source?"

You want, I think, to skip the matter of an ultimate standard of moral measurement to what you don't like about what God has warned will be measured against His nature as the standard.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dasa was right in some respects - meat is murder and those who kill and eat animals should face punishment.

Murder? Murder as in "thou shalt do no murder"?

Originally posted by FMF
Is this "rendezvous with final Authority" a reference to the fate of people who do not believe in Him?

Is this "rendezvous with final Authority" a reference to the fate of people who do not believe in Him?

Do you think Joseph Stalin received in this life what should come to him for his acts ?

If the answer is NO, then do you think he has a rendezvous with a final Authority concerning his life ?

If the answer is still NO, then I ask "Does evil then really exist?"

Let me ask you about your judgment that God in whom I believe should be judged as abominable.

If there is a higher authority to which God should account, what is the penalty for me denying the authority and existence of the higher authority ?

If there is a HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS against which I should deem God as evil, what happens if I decide to reject the authority of that HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS as well ?

What is my outcome if I refuse to be reconciled to that HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS that even has authority over God ?

Originally posted by sonship

Why are you talking in absolutes? Why is 'no-good' evil?

For the purpose of finding the objective ultimate ground of morality, I speak in terms of absolutes here. I assume that the Atheists here also do when they together agree to condemn Dasa's speech.

If they are not talking in terms of absolutes then they don't know Dasa's speech ...[text shortened]... reated, an eternal, an unchanging Moral nature of a Moral Being and Governor exists. God exists.

I have looked in the face of evil (literally) and I have looked in the face of goodness. Both were of human origin and both gave no support to the existence of God, only the potential and degradation of man.

I accept and understand, that for you, the ultimate goodness is God. For me, the ultimate goodness is the autonomous man who gives his life to save others. And this man isn't Jesus. It's Frank the shopkeeper or Jane the teacher.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't know why you think God is incoherent.

It is your ideology - and your definition of "perfect justice" - that are morally incoherent. I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to you. I can only judge you on the far-fetched notions and claims you come out with. You believe in a supernatural being that will torture billions of humans because He is vengeful and angry on account of the fact they do not believe in Him. This is "perfect", or so you say. To me it makes no moral sense. It sounds flaky and fabricated. Your absolute certainty that it's true counts for nothing.

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think Joseph Stalin received in this life what should come to him for his acts?

Wasn't the fate of Joseph Stalin supposedly the same as the fate you believe I will face?

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think Joseph Stalin received in this life what should come to him for his acts ?

If the answer is NO, then do you think he has a rendezvous with a final Authority concerning his life ?

If the answer is still NO, then I ask "Does evil then really exist?"

If anything, the NO answer speaks towards a lack of justice and thus a form of evil.

Of course you yourself when challenged on what you believe happened to Stalin would fail to give a satisfactory answer, and further when challenged on why Stalin was allowed to do what he did in the first place in the presence of a God capable of stopping him, would fail to give a satisfactory answer.
If asked what you mean by 'justice' you will fail to give a satisfactory answer.

I on the other hand declare Stalin's actions to be evil and the absence of some 'final Authority' does not change that nor somehow belittle my declaration or make it less valid. Further I can give reasonable rational explanations for my declaration.

Originally posted by sonship
If there is a higher authority to which God should account, what is the penalty for me denying the authority and existence of the higher authority ?

If there is a HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS against which I should deem [b]God as evil, what happens if I decide to reject the authority of that HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS as well ?

What is my outcome if I refuse to be reconciled to that HIGHER SUPER GOODNESS that even has authority over God ?[/b]

None of this means anything - even as a thought experiment - to someone who simply doesn't have any convincing reason to believe in the existence of any of these layers of authority that you are speculating about. If you think there will be a penalty if you deny the authority and existence of the higher authority you believe in, and if your fear of this penalty affects your mental well being or sense of purpose during your lifetime, then go for it by all means. As I say, if one of its outcomes is you behaving in a morally sound way, then I welcome it.