RHP Spirituality Forum Q & A / 2015

Originally posted by josephw

A) The ghastly and depraved notion that people imagine that God didn't send His son to suffer the punishment for their sin and die because of it, and then rise from the dead according to the scriptures.

The belief that the execution of one man did not have the significance that his followers believe it did is more ghastly and depraved than the belief that torturing of billions of people in burning agony for eternity for a thoughtcrime is "perfect justice"? Are you being serious? Do you really think not believing Christian claims about Jesus Christ is the most ghastly and depraved notion that the human imagination has ever conjured up? Do you have your tongue in your cheek?

An even more ghastly and depraved notion are the ideas that people conjure up when they misrepresent what God's Word actually means by what it says. For example; "burning in agony for eternity".

Why are you telling me about this misrepresentation of "what God's Word actually means" rather then confronting the Christians here who propagate it?

It's fascinating how some of the Christians here quite often cannot bring themselves to address each other directly about their disagreements.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]Q. "Do you believe that it is possible to construct [at least one] good objective
secular moral system without needing a god or religion to base morality on?"

A) No. Human originated moral systems degenerate as evidenced by history, and only a moral code instituted by the creator of mankind can have an authoritative restraining effect on human im ...[text shortened]... capacity to exercise true autonomy, which logically is required to establish his own moral code?[/b]

A) No. Human originated moral systems degenerate as evidenced by history, and only a moral code
instituted by the creator of mankind can have an authoritative restraining effect on human immoral behavior.

Wrong. History actually shows a steady [and on average] general improvement [particularly over
the last few centuries and particularly in the west] in moral values and societal development as
we drag ourselves out of the moral pit of the dark ages and replace theocratic morality with
secular morality.
The period in which belief in your god and it's "moral code" [is strongest] is a period of bloody suffering and violence
which has decreased as secular morality and ethics have increased and belief in your religion
in terms of both strength and numbers has decreased.

Q) Is it not assumed by atheism that one is without volition and therefore lacks the capacity to exercise true
autonomy, which logically is required to establish his own moral code?

Nope. Wrong on all counts.

Atheism is simply THE LACK OF BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS and nothing else.
It assumes and says NOTHING about ANYTHING other than the lack of a belief in gods.
That's it, period, end of story.

I don't know for sure what you mean by 'volition', but I am assuming you are talking about free will.
There are different kinds of supposed 'free will', some definitely don't and cannot exist.
Others might, its an ongoing discussion/argument.
However, it is perfectly possible to build a moral system in a situation where there is no free will.
Therefore it doesn't in fact matter for the purposes of this question whether it exists or not, and it
is certainly not a necessary foundation.

So my question to you:

Q. How can you claim that a secular moral system is impossible when you clearly don't have any clue
how secular moral systems work, or that you are in fact largely living by a secular moral code that
has been steadily imposed on your religion over the centuries by people with better moral values
the those who wrote your holy book?

Originally posted by josephw
Q) Is it not presumptuous to assume that a mere mortal can question the clear message of Jesus Christ and contradict His teachings with impunity?

A: The message and teachings of Jesus Christ are a matter for Christians and so whether Christians contradict doctrine or question teachings with impunity is surely an issue for those Christians to sort out amongst themselves?

Q: What revelations and warnings did the Hebrew God figure give to the non-Hebrew population of the world before wiping them all out for not obeying the Hebrew God?

Originally posted by googlefudge

Q. Ever wonder whether or not there's a supernatural conflict in the world between divine integrity and abject evil?

Nope.

A. Yes. If you accept the establishment principles of free will, marriage, family and military defense
of the national entity then you're in possession of the bedrock ethics "to base morality on".

...[text shortened]... till accept that a valid secular moral system can be created without any reference or need of god/s?

Originally posted by googlefudge
"So my questions back to you [and specifically you, although I am interested in others answers also]:

Q1. Do you now accept and realise that the "establishment principles" you listed in your answer to me are not in fact
foundational principles of morality [of any kind]?

Q2. Do you still accept that a valid secular moral system can be created without any reference or need of god/s?"

A. You may disagree with the significant role these four principles of establishment [bedrock ethics "to base morality on] have played in the preservation and perpetuation of the human race; however, you may not disagree with my freedom to accept them as fact and to express them on this spirituality forum [thanks to the freedom Russ have given all site members to express their beliefs]. I respect the tenacity with which you hold to a contrary belief and doubt that further discussion would prove constructive. Let's table it for now. -Bob

Q. Which spectrum is the most challenging to consider: eternity past or eternity future?

eternity past) ----------------------- [time/human history] ------------------------ (eternity future

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
A. You may disagree with the significant role these four principles of establishment [bedrock ethics "to base morality on] have played in the preservation and perpetuation of the human race; however, you may not disagree with my freedom to accept them as fact and to express them on this spirituality forum [thanks to the freedom Russ have given all site ...[text shortened]... belief and doubt that further discussion would prove constructive. Let's table it for now. -Bob

You may disagree with the significant role these four principles of establishment [bedrock ethics "to base morality on] have played in the preservation and perpetuation of the human race

That wasn't the question.

You put them forwards as foundational principles for a secular moral system... And most of them are not
even principles, let alone foundational ones.

It's equivalent to saying that one of the foundational principles of morality is cheese...
We don't even get to cheese not being relevant to the foundation of a moral system, because it is not a
principle, it's a [class of] objects/substances.

Your four 'principles' do not include any actual principles.

I get that you think that Marriage is a valuable and important institution.
That family is important.
That Military defence is important.

And I might even agree with you.

But they are not foundational principles of morality.

Take military defence for example.

We can take several potential actual foundational principles:
"Freedom is generally preferable to enslavement"
"Life is generally Preferable to Death"
ect.

And we can couple that with the knowledge that we live in an imperfect world where there are people who are
immoral who might like to take our stuff and enslave/kill us if they could.

And couple that with one of the foundations of the social contract we have with our national government's that
they should protect us from external threats.

Thus we gain a moral imperative for the government to build and maintain a military capable of defending their
citizens from external threats. [or if that's not possible, achieve the same through allying themselves to a greater
power that shares the same moral ethos]

So I can agree [in broad brush terms] that there is a moral imperative for governments to have the means to defend
their citizens from external threats.

But it is a result of a moral system that has foundational principles, not a foundational principle in and of itself.

you may not disagree with my freedom to accept them as fact and to express them on this spirituality forum

I am not disagreeing with your freedom to believe what you believe.

I am saying that those beliefs are wrong. And providing argument to support that position.

That is what we call debating.

You should try it sometime.


EDIT:

Q. Which spectrum is the most challenging to consider: eternity past or eternity future?

eternity past) ----------------------- [time/human history] ------------------------ (eternity future

A.?

In what context?
What are we supposed to be considering?
Do you presuppose that either or both actually exist?
What if there is neither an eternity past or an eternity future and time is in fact finite?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Q. Which spectrum is the most challenging to consider: eternity past or eternity future?

A. As an atheist and non believer in 'eternity' (in the religious sense) i am going to take your term 'consider' to mean 'imagine', to enable 'me' to answer your question. - On this premise, i would say simply that 'eternity past' would be more challenging for me to imagine. Everything to my mind needs a beginning (that's just the way the world works). Of course, the world is finite too, but as the future hasn't happened yet its more conceivable to me to imagine an 'eternity future.' (Of course humans won't exist then, just robots and giant lizards).

Q. Is it okay to be rich and a Christian?

Originally posted by googlefudge

Q) Is it not presumptuous to assume that a mere mortal can question the clear message of
Jesus Christ and contradict His teachings with impunity?

A. No, in fact it's mandatory for any functioning moral agent.

Any decent and viable morality must be objective and not subjective.

Any morality based upon the word of a being of any k ...[text shortened]... or BILLIONS of people?????

If so, then you truly don't know the meaning of the word morality.

A) That's not what I said. Your question poses a perfect example of what I mean by the assertion that people misrepresent what God's Word means by what it says. You should review the forgoing posts I made to see what I mean.

Q) How is a standard of morality produced by man objective as apposed to being subjective? Is it not logical that for a standard of morality to be objective it must be produced by an outside agent?

To assume that a standard of morality produced by the agent for which it is intended is anything but subjective is a total misunderstanding of what an objective standard of morality is! Only the creator of the agent for which the standard of morality is designed can produce any objective moral standard, especially since that creator is the standard in the first place.

Originally posted by googlefudge

You may disagree with the significant role these four principles of establishment [bedrock ethics "to base morality on] have played in the preservation and perpetuation of the human race

That wasn't the question.

You put them forwards as foundational principles for a secular moral system... And most of them are not
even principles, le ...[text shortened]... exist?
What if there is neither an eternity past or an eternity future and time is in fact finite?

Footnote: You may be motivated to start your own thread on the topic of "Morality".
I may contribute an expansion of the brief rationale already given here. -Bob

Originally posted by FMF
But didn't you yourself recently admit to waging your own "campaign" of hate against people you dislike and disagree with?

Actually, no. That was you twisting my words to fit your agenda, as usual.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Footnote: Suzi, I for one choose to let the small potatoes on this online forum conveyor delivery system go:

---> o o o o o lol At the very least people with divergent points of view are engaged in courteous conversation.

Again, so far.

But I'll let you try to answer the venom and vitriol for a few more pages until you get an idea of what I was saying.

"Be careful what you wish for."

People will twist anything to fit their agenda, as you must be able to see by now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Again, so far.

But I'll let you try to answer the venom and vitriol for a few more pages until you get an idea of what I was saying.

"Be careful what you wish for."

People will twist anything to fit their agenda, as you must be able to see by now.

"People will twist anything to fit their agenda, as you must be able to see by now." Suzi, we agree; I'll quit it if and when it's 50%+ trashed.

FMF: But didn't you yourself recently admit to waging your own "campaign" of hate against people you dislike and disagree with?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Actually, no. That was you twisting my words to fit your agenda, as usual.

You said this just the other day: "This caused some atheists to reverse course and say yes, you're right, those nasty Christians should be mercilessly "put in their place" and the persecution stepped up to even more than it was before. This is what started my current campaign against atheists. I was ready to meet on common ground, but when attacked relentlessly, I responded in kind. Plain self-defense, that's all."

Originally posted by FMF
You said this just the other day: [b]"This caused some atheists to reverse course and say yes, you're right, those nasty Christians should be mercilessly "put in their place" and the persecution stepped up to even more than it was before. This is what started my current campaign against atheists. I was ready to meet on common ground, but when attacked relentlessly, I responded in kind. Plain self-defense, that's all."[/b]

Some people refer to that as tit for tat. 😏

RHP Spirituality Forum Q & A / 2015 (OP)

"Please pose an honest question regarding topics in the spiritual realm after answering the last question previously asked."

Format Addendum: Footnote any additional answer related comments.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Q. Which spectrum is the most challenging to consider: eternity past or eternity future?

A: Both.

Q: The Hebrew God purportedly communicated this... "The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed." ...via Deuteronomy 31:8 which is the Jewish Torah and it's in the Christian Bible too. Why does anyone of any religion place any store on it when one sees what happened to those to whom the promise in the verse was made?