Originally posted by sonship
When I compare your life to that of Jesus Christ why don't your words and actions outshine those of Jesus in history?

Why would either of us want or need them to?

So, you believe Jesus "outshines" me. And?

What does this have to do with yours or my capacity to evaluate the moral deficit in Dasa's ideas and proposals?

Originally posted by sonship
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.

No. Quite the opposite. What I don't want is for you to skip away from the lack of moral compass which lies at the heart of your definitions of justice and morality, and which, to my way of thinking, makes nonsense of your claims about "an ultimate standard of moral measurement".

Originally posted by sonship
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.

When pressed to explain why Dasa was "morally off", isn't your personal choice - out of taste or preference - a book?

And my apologies if I've missed it, but have you yourself explained why you think Dasa was "morally off" yet? And what was it about what he proposed that was "morally off"?

Originally posted by sonship
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.

No I don't want to skip it. Let's do a mini-audit on this "ultimate standard of moral measurement" that you tout.

Here is your "ultimate standard of moral measurement" in action, is it not?

Joseph Stalin: murdered, let's say, 50,000,000 people.
OK, give the "ultimate standard of moral measurement" a spin...
Fate: He's to be held in burning agony for eternity by way of revenge.

FMF: doesn't believe the things Christians claim about Jesus.
Right then, give the "ultimate standard of moral measurement" a spin again...
Fate: He's to be held in burning agony for eternity by way of revenge.

You once admitted that it makes your Christian life feel easier to know that this is how your "ultimate standard of moral measurement" works and that this is the fate awaiting your "enemies", isn't that so? [edit: or was it something along the lines of knowing there is this ultimate justice helps me to forgive those who mistreat me? Or perhaps both rolled into one. It can be dug out, no doubt.]

To me, though, this supposed "ultimate standard of moral measurement" doesn't make any moral sense at all.

Originally posted by sonship

that wasnt 'essentially' what i was saying.

Okay. I acknowledge that as unfair of me.

i was saying that im surprised a man with your interest in debating and watching debates on youtube has never come across an atheist explanation for the existence of morality.

I have seen the debates. I have re-visited some of th ...[text shortened]... hat Dasa has objectively missed that moral mark which somehow they say exists and should be hit?

{b]"Come now. Dawkins is scared to debate Craig.

Lawrence Krauss I cannot consider really a debater on that issue.
Krauss is too use to interrupting and dodging Craig like a nervous grasshopper in a hen house.

Probably Sam Harris on the ethics matter tries to be consistent.
I am asking you[/b] fellas about Dasa's speech specifically." [/b]

They were examples to illustrate the point.

"Whose grand prescription determine's his failure to live up to this OUGHT in an objective way? Whose morality have you instituted as the ultimate standard by which Dasa's talk is measured against?

This was answered in my post to you. The standard is our own personal morality, which is a combination of genetics, environment and the society we grow up in.

"If society scolds Dasa today for his bad speech, what about someday when society agrees that the Moslems should all be rounded up and executed? Don't say society cannot come to such a point. '

society and morality could and does change, not only that but morality is already completely different in current existing societies.. for example the morals of your average southern state american are very different to the average northeastern Englishman.

That is not too solid a bases.

morality doesnt have a solid base, it changes as we can see through history and the current world

And WHOSE society anyway?
the society each individual

ISIS has a society.
Boko Horam has a society.
Al Qaeda has their society too.

yes, exactly and their society has very different morals to our own. they would argue we are morally wrong and we would say the same about them (on some issues). your point just illustrates how there is no core morality.

so there are no moral absolutes, no ultimate right and wrongs. we just go with what we as individuals (who happen to be heavily influenced by our desire to make society a safe place to live....and have babies)

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.

Morality is not an absolute thing. It is a consensus among members of a society. It is subject to revision as a society changes.

Originally posted by FMF

No I don't want to skip it. Let's do a mini-audit on this "ultimate standard of moral measurement" that you tout.

Here is your "ultimate standard of moral measurement" in action, is it not?

Joseph Stalin: murdered, let's say, 50,000,000 people.
OK, give the "ultimate standard of moral measurement" a spin...
Fate: He's to be held in burning agony for eternity by way of revenge.

If you are asking for ME to carry out the last judgment, I both decline and defer to the One who has the authority, power, and position to do that.

I just affirm that God exists and God will have the final say.
Soliciting me to sit in the judgment seat to see how I deal with anyone proves nothing to me.

FMF: doesn't believe the things Christians claim about Jesus.

Oh yes. Those mean Christians. Blame those mean Christians for putting words into the mouth of this Jesus of Nazareth.

Those words of incredible love, faithfulness, mercy yet also warning. Its us Christians fault for imagining up this character Jesus.

Right then, give the "ultimate standard of moral measurement" a spin again...
Fate: He's to be held in burning agony for eternity by way of revenge.

Unless I missed it I don't think you answered my question.
If there is a higher judge to correct God's judgment, what if I totally reject that higher judge ?

Did you reply ? I am starting from the rear and working backwards on posts.

You once admitted that it makes your Christian life feel easier to know that this is how your "ultimate standard of moral measurement" works and that this is the fate awaiting your "enemies", isn't that so? [edit: or was it something along the lines of knowing there is this ultimate justice helps me to forgive those who mistreat me? Or perhaps both rolled into one. It can be dug out, no doubt.

Unless I see that quote, I reserve response. But it is consistent with the Gospel that we love our enemies and pray for those who are at enmity with us.

To me, though, this supposed "ultimate standard of moral measurement" doesn't make any moral sense at all.

It is a self defeating complaint, I think.
You object to some particulars but you must have a standard to say what I affirm doesn't measure up against what ought to be.

You have to sit on the lap of God in order to slap Him on the face.

Originally posted by sonship
You have to sit on the lap of God in order to slap Him on the face.

And you have to stoop down to affix a bumper sticker.

Sit "on the lap of God in order to slap Him on the face"?

Nothing so grand, sonship. Nothing so grand. I'm not even sitting on YOUR lap let alone "the Lap of God". I'm simply responding to the ideology you espouse. It's a pity you feel slapped in the face. Perhaps you belong in the world of podcasts where you don't have to interact with people who find your notions and assertions outlandish and unconvincing.

Originally posted by sonship
If you are asking for ME to carry out the last judgment, I both decline and defer to the One who has the authority, power, and position to do that.

How on earth would I be asking you to "carry out the last judgment"? What put such a bizarre deflection in your mind ~ and how do you think saying it addresses what I put to you about the "justice" that YOU choose to call "perfect"?

I was asking you to explain what YOU mean by the "ultimate standard of moral measurement" when a mass murdering C20th monster receives the same "justice" (according to your ideology) as someone who lacked a belief in Jesus.

And how does your subscription to this complete absence of moral differentiation and proportionality you describe help you in any way to make your own moral evaluation of Dasa's ideas and proposals?

Originally posted by FMF

And you have to stoop down to affix a bumper sticker.

Showing vitriol and contempt doesn't prove much.
There were no bumpers in the first century AD, let alone bumper stickers.

Repeatedly the Bible teaches that a last reckoning will take place.
It is curious to me that people find this outlandish.
I don't see why it should be outlandish.

Sit "on the lap of God in order to slap Him on the face"?

Yes.
That is an expression. It means you have to smuggle in concepts from a Christian understanding of things as a platform to criticize God.

If there is a higher and more good lawgiver beyond God to which you appeal, than that lawgiver must be God. That is unless you derive your morality from a non-living force or vibration of some kind.

But I don't think that works because a mere force would be on a lower level of being than a Person.

And I don't think I meant to "skip" altogether what is horrific about eternal damnation. I meant it could be put off to deal with after an ultimate accounting by an ultimate balancer is recognized.

Nothing so grand, sonship. Nothing so grand. I'm not even sitting on YOUR lap let alone "the Lap of God".

You mean nothing so grand then as the moral measuring rod you are employing to deem the words of Jesus as wrong ?

I'm simply responding to the ideology you espouse. It's a pity you feel slapped in the face.

When you say the words of Jesus were made up by others and put fictitiously into His mouth, it is Jesus whose face you are really attempting to slap. You just don't like to realize it.

Its safer to say you're just disagreeing with me.

Its Jesus who taught -

" And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. " (Matt. 10:28)

Among all the other words of mercy, grace and love from Jesus, unfortunately we also have these words instructing mankind exactly Who should be feared and why. The reason He is to be feared (along with adored and loved ) is that unrighteousness with God meets an Enforcer whose ability is beyond that of any civil court of human beings.

Along with Christ's many, many words why God is to be loved and lived unto, there are also words of caution. My reaction is to heed these words AS WELL.

Your reaction seems to say "He didn't say it. Bad Christians made it up and told me He said it." And I think that amounts to slapping Jesus on the face. That is a slap under the disguise that others fictitiously invented the saying and attributed it to Jesus. And to some grander morality than the God of the Bible, you measure those words evil, despicable.

A franker person would just say that he found Jesus evil and despicable.
This would be like the real slappers in His face among the scribes, Pharisees, and guards who actually did slap Him before they crucified Him.

Perhaps you belong in the world of podcasts where you don't have to interact with people who find your notions and assertions outlandish and unconvincing.

Oh, I don't know about that. I seem to have interacted with you here pretty normally.

Along with all the sayings of Jesus which have been an unspeakable comfort and encouragement to lonely hearts, unfortunately, there ALSO are fearful words about God's final judgement. He also spent a moment to instruct us WHO to fear and WHY.

It is not my fault that I point them out along with His other sayings.
And while it may not impress you, it impresses me quite much that He died a horrific six hour agony only because He could SAVE us from the down side of appearing before God Almighty unjustified.

FMF: And you have to stoop down to affix a bumper sticker.

Originally posted by sonship
Showing vitriol and contempt doesn't prove much.

Vitriol? Contempt? It was a trite bit of fridge-magnetry to match yours: "You have to sit on the lap of God in order to slap Him on the face." I was meeting silly with silly. Your suggestion that I am sitting on your God figures' lap is plain silly. It belongs as a sticker on the bumper of a car driven by someone who has the same beliefs as you.

Originally posted by sonship
If there is a higher and more good lawgiver beyond God to which you appeal, than that lawgiver must be God.

There is not a higher and more good lawgiver beyond your God figure to which I appeal.

Originally posted by sonship
You mean nothing so grand then as the moral measuring rod you are employing to deem the words of Jesus as wrong ?

Your take on "perfect justice" and "ultimate morality" is the so-called morality and justice seen in gangsterism.

Originally posted by sonship
When you say the words of Jesus were made up by others and put fictitiously into His mouth, it is Jesus whose face you are really attempting to slap. You just don't like to realize it.

Its safer to say you're just disagreeing with me.

I have said that I do not subscribe to your mixture of superstition and ideology and bizarre definitions ~ i.e. that I "disagree" with it, that I don't see how it makes any sense ~ over and over again. It's not a case of me being "safer" or not "safer". I am not "slapping" anyone in the face, unless you feel "slapped", which is a matter for you. But you can't expect people to pretend that they find you convincing.

Originally posted by sonship
And I don't think I meant to "skip" altogether what is horrific about eternal damnation. I meant it could be put off to deal with after an ultimate accounting by an ultimate balancer is recognized.

What you are skipping is my response to your mention of Joseph Stalin and I think you are skipping it because it is a dead end for you. You asked "Do you think Joseph Stalin received in this life what should come to him for his acts?" But what is your own answer? What do you think should come to him for his acts?

Your "ultimate standard of moral measurement" is then shown to be nonsensical when, according to your ideology, Joseph Stalin receives ~ or "deserves" ~ the same "justice" as someone who, let's say, seriously and honestly lacked a belief in Jesus. Mass murderer on one hand. And a non-Christian on the other. Damnation, both. Is this what your slogan "the buck STOPS with God" refers to?

And to be told that this "justice" is to be meted out in a spirit of fury and vengeance? And the punishment is everlasting torture, no less? I'm sorry, it sounds demented, frankly. It is as depraved a depth as the human mind has ever delved. Far more depraved than what Dasa ever spoke of, or what ISIS seek.

Fortunately only people who think it's real have reason to fear it.