Why not drop the Mythology?

Originally posted by rwingett
Opinions differ on many matters. But many do not. All civilizations hold that murder is wrong, for example. Basically, that which helps or promotes human welfare is to be preferred to that which hinders or harms human welfare.

I disagree. Some civilizations love their neighbours, others eat them.

Ever heard of cannibalism?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I disagree. Some civilizations love their neighbours, others eat them.

Ever heard of cannibalism?

Cannibals ate their enemies, not their comrades.

Just like the Israelites slew the Midianites, and not their own kin.

It all depends on how you define 'murder.' It's exact definition has changed over time, but murder has always been illegal.

Originally posted by rwingett
Cannibals ate their enemies, not their comrades.

Just like the Israelites slew the Midianites, and not their own kin.

It all depends on how you define 'murder.' It's exact definition has changed over time, but murder has always been illegal.

Cannibals ate their enemies, not their comrades.

But was it wrong for them to eat their enemies?

It all depends on how you define 'murder.' It's exact definition has changed over time, but murder has always been illegal.

So it is possible for an absolute to change over time?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Cannibals ate their enemies, not their comrades.

But was it wrong for them to eat their enemies?

It all depends on how you define 'murder.' It's exact definition has changed over time, but murder has always been illegal.

So it is possible for an absolute to change over time?[/b]

We now universally condemn cannibalism. But it is not an absolute, or universal truth. It is a manmade convention. Conceivably it could change, but it is almost certain it will not. Because as long as people do not like being eaten, they will continue to make cannibalism illegal.

I see you chose to sidestep my example of the Midianite massacre as an example of biblically sanctioned 'murder'.

Originally posted by rwingett
We now universally condemn cannibalism. But it is not an absolute, or universal truth. It is a manmade convention. Conceivably it could change, but it is almost certain it will not. Because as long as people do not like being eaten, they will continue to make cannibalism illegal.

I see you chose to sidestep my example of the Midianite massacre as an example of biblically sanctioned 'murder'.

We now universally condemn cannibalism. But it is not an absolute, or universal truth. It is a manmade convention. Conceivably it could change, but it is almost certain it will not. Because as long as people do not like being eaten, they will continue to make cannibalism illegal.

Do you think old people like being uethenaised? Or why is it being made legal? Do babies like to be aborted?

I see you chose to sidestep my example of the Midianite massacre as an example of biblically sanctioned 'murder'.

Christ said, It was said of old, hate your enemy, but I say unto you love your enemies.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]We now universally condemn cannibalism. But it is not an absolute, or universal truth. It is a manmade convention. Conceivably it could change, but it is almost certain it will not. Because as long as people do not like being eaten, they will continue to make cannibalism illegal.

Do you think old people like being uethenaised? Or why is it being ...[text shortened]... /b]

Christ said, It was said of old, hate your enemy, but I say unto you love your enemies.[/b]

Some terminally ill people prefer being euthanized to living in agony. The option should be open to them.

Babies aren't aborted. Fetuses are aborted.

If Christ says to 'love your enemies', then why did god command Moses to slay the Midianites?

Originally posted by rwingett
Some terminally ill people prefer being euthanized to living in agony. The option should be open to them.

Babies aren't aborted. Fetuses are aborted.

If Christ says to 'love your enemies', then why did god command Moses to slay the Midianites?

Some terminally ill people prefer being euthanized to living in agony. The option should be open to them.

So we can change the definition of murder to suit our situation?

Babies aren't aborted. Fetuses are aborted.

What is the difference? Where do you draw the line? Both a baby and a fetus only require oxygen and nutrition to survive after conception.

If Christ says to 'love your enemies', then why did god command Moses to slay the Midianites?

Your question assumes a moral law here. Within the Theistic framework God is the moral lawgiver. Within your framework, man is the moral lawgiver and it is merely a matter of preference. So my question to you is whose moral framework are you using here?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Some terminally ill people prefer being euthanized to living in agony. The option should be open to them.

So we can change the definition of murder to suit our situation?

Babies aren't aborted. Fetuses are aborted.

What is the difference? Where do you draw the line? Both a baby and a fetus only require oxygen and nutrition to surviv ...[text shortened]... ly a matter of preference. So my question to you is whose moral framework are you using here?[/b]

I am questioning your moral framework. You claim god is the source of morality, but he clearly acts immorally many times in the bible. Ordering the slaughter of the Midianites, Slaying the firstborn of Egypt (and their cattle), Destroying Sodom and Gamorrah, Wiping out almost all of mankind during the Great Flood. Do you think that mass slaughter and genocide are moral acts?

Originally posted by rwingett
I am questioning your moral framework. You claim god is the source of morality, but he clearly acts immorally many times in the bible. Ordering the slaughter of the Midianites, Slaying the firstborn of Egypt (and their cattle), Destroying Sodom and Gamorrah, Wiping out almost all of mankind during the Great Flood. Do you think that mass slaughter and genocide are moral acts?

I believe the answer lies in God's love and his justice.

God is just and must punnish sin. But He is also loving and must forgive sin. God is both absolutely just and unconditionally loving. Each attribute complements the other. God is "justly holy" and "holy just." That is, his justice is administered in love, and his love is distributed justly.

The perfect example of how God's love and justice kiss is in the cross. In his love, God sent his Son to pay the penalty for our sins so that his justice could be satisfied and his love released. For "the wages of sin is death. So when Christ died for our sins the Just suffered for the unjust that he might bring us to God. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2Cor 5:21)

God's justice demands that sin be punnished, but his love compels him to save sinners. So by Christ's death on the cross, his justice is satisfied and his love released. God is like a judge who, after passing out the punnishment for the guilty defendant, laid aside his robe, stood alongside the convicted, and paid the fine for him. Jesus did the same for us on Calvary.

In the Old Testament context, this was the way God punnished sin.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I believe the answer lies in God's love and his justice.

God is just and must punnish sin. But He is also loving and must forgive sin. God is both absolutely just and unconditionally loving. Each attribute complements the other. God is "justly holy" and "holy just." That is, his justice is administered in love, and his love is distributed justly.

The ...[text shortened]... r us on Calvary.

In the Old Testament context, this was the way God punnished sin.

So according to you, mass slaughter and genocide are moral acts. Is that correct?

Originally posted by rwingett
So according to you, mass slaughter and genocide are moral acts. Is that correct?

I never said that.

I think you need to realise that within the framework of our discussion, God is the creator and man the creation. They are not on the same level.

God's judgement on sin is part of His moral law. He is the judge. Because man is a fallen creature, he is sinful and fallible. To protect man from his own sinful nature, God has set moral laws for mankind.

If man violates God's moral laws, God allows mass slaughter and genocide as part of his judgement on mankind.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I never said that.

I think you need to realise that within the framework of our discussion, God is the creator and man the creation. They are not on the same level.

God's judgement on sin is part of His moral law. He is the judge. Because man is a fallen creature, he is sinful and fallible. To protect man from his own sinful nature, God has set mora ...[text shortened]... set for him by God, God allows mass slaughter and genocide as part of his judgement on mankind.

I never said that.

I think you need to realise that within the framework of our discussion, God is the creator and man the creation. They are not on the same level.

God's judgement on sin is part of His moral law. He is the judge. Because man is a fallen creature, he is sinful and fallible. To protect man from his own sinful nature, God has set moral laws for mankind.

If man violates the moral laws set to him by God, God allows mass slaughter and genocide as part of his judgement on mankind.

Edit: Please ignore the post above this one 😉

Originally posted by Mixo
It's so easy to dismiss the beliefs of ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and Iron-Age Northern Europe as "Mythology" but the book of Genesis is just as naive and incredible. Why do so many christians undermine the credibility of christianity by defending that old tat when the gospels are all they need to base a sound religion on?

Because Genesis is no more or less unbelievable than the Gospels. If you believe in them you just refuse to see the imposibilities. If you dont believe in them they look like 'old tat' also known as 'mythology'. I doubt that any of the believers of the other Mythologies you mentioned would have dismissed thier beliefs as "Mythology".