The tenability of unsourced claims as they pertain to objective morality

Is it possible for a believer in objective evil to determine what actually is evil without either invoking his god (or claimed objective standard) or undermining his entire position?

For the sake of expediency, “God”, here, can refer to any deity of a belief structure which is viewed as creating some ultimate standard for evil. This includes polytheistic belief structures in many cases. “Evil” can usually be read to include both good and evil.

Here’s the common stance: In order to determine what is ultimately right or wrong, one must make an appeal to a source which has final standing. Without such an appeal, right or wrong has no universal meaning, only local meaning, and that is ultimately meaningless. (On an aside, that only addresses the value of local meaning on a universal scale – something obviously addressed simply in terminology. It says nothing of the local value of local meaning.)

With this stance comes some questions. If that ultimate source is necessary for ultimate right or wrong (and exists), how can one know what he/she/it has to say on any given human moral affair? Is it possible for one to have access to all this source has to say? Are humans limited in access?

The common answer to the first question comes in the form of holy texts. The Torah, Bible, and Koran are “the big three”. They give specific decrees on things that are right and wrong while claiming to be from God. In them murder is universally wrong. Theft, sex before marriage, dishonoring one’s parents. All, and many more, are described throughout these books. They and other holy texts act as the most direct source to knowing what is right or wrong as declared by an ultimate source.

The second question is where moral claims by believers run into trouble. Is it possible to have access to all an ultimate source has to say by virtue of holy texts? Obviously not. It isn’t possible for all moral situations and conundrums to be addressed via individual books. More directly, not all such instances are actually addressed.

So does this limit human access to this ultimate information? If holy texts account for the only manner by which one can attain such knowledge, then yes. If there are alternative routes, then those must by explored. Meditation, inference, and prayer offer the most promising paths. But first it is necessary to tie everything together.

The accuracy of any declaration on right or wrong is called into question in any holy text since they are all written by fallible human beings. This must be acknowledged for the sake of truth-seeking. However, for the sake of argumentation, it will be necessary to side-step the issue. Instead, the focus must go on to the second question. The possibility of having access to everything God has to say is nil if holy texts are the only source. What this importantly means is that if a moral issue arises which is not addressed within any holy text, then it is not possible for a believer to make an objective stance. One topical issue can be grabbed from the headlines to make the point.

Abortion is not addressed in any of the big three holy texts. Vague passages can be interpreted as such (much like Dr. Seuss’ “Horton Hears a Who” has been abused), but nothing is ever really said. This means that if a believer is to make a claim that abortion is objectively evil (remember, or good) here, he has no ground on which to stand. At least he has no ground by his own position that objective evil must come from an objective source. By chance he may be right that his objective source believes abortion is evil (he has a 50/50 shot, afterall), but his determination is based upon some other source. What that source may be or is bears no importance here. It is enough to say that it is emphatically not God.

For the further sake of expediency, it should be readily pointed out that even should abortion prove to be the wrong example for this exercise (though it isn’t), then others abound. Is capitalism evil? Communism? Social security? Even wearing mismatched socks? No holy text says anything of these issues or a number of others.

Back to the third question, human access may not be limited to just holy texts if meditation, inference, and prayer are options. These all fail, however. Should meditation and prayer reveal any information on a moral question, they are not valid beyond the targeted person. While it is possible that God revealed that something is objectively evil to a particular person, that largely argues for a local meaning. That is, Susie may know that it is objectively evil to spin in circles after sunset because God told her, but that information is entirely reliant upon Susie – the standard can only be determined to be subjective (even if it really is objective). As for inference, that can only be done using holy texts or prayer in the first place. So let us not forget the very first question: is it possible to determine what is objectively evil without invoking God. Susie may have an alternative source, but it is still God. She may be able to infer from what God has revealed, but she still must invoke his existence.

So what if a believer says “X is objectively evil” but has no holy text or revelation to back up such a claim? That is, there is no source which says “This is what God says about this issue” and there is no source which could directly indicate what God says. How can the believer then say something is objectively evil? This necessarily undermines his entire premise. If something can be determined to be objectively evil without first invoking God, then there is some other method by which the believer is making his statement. He obviously cannot logically maintain saying he knows objective standards exist because God exists and God exists because objective standards exist.

In short, no, a believer cannot “determine what actually is evil without either invoking his god (or claimed objective standard) or undermining his entire position”. He must invoke his god or undermine his whole argument. As has been demonstrated, he must cite his god (or objective standard). He often cannot do that. In those situations if he then says he has determined that something is objectively evil anyway, he is either wrong or he has admitted that his objective standard is not actually necessary for purposes here.

On a final note (one for clarification), this argument can be applied to any declaration on evil by a believer in objective standards. If it is necessary for objectiveness to exist in order for evil to exist, then the position is still undermined whenever a believer declares something evil without any sort of source beyond himself. The argument is precisely the same, but the terms are clarified: “evil” always means “objective evil” in the given context.

Advertisements

38 Responses

  1. Is it not possible for anyone to determine what is evil without invoking an objective standard. Any person who attempts to base what is evil on a malleable standard is only offering a personal opinion.

    When we say, “Murder is wrong”, we need a moral authority. There is no logical candidate for that authority other than God.

    So I agree when you say, “Without such an appeal, right or wrong has no universal meaning, only local meaning, and that is ultimately meaningless.”

    God has revealed Himself to us through three main avenues. The first is through His creation. The fact that we are and that we are geared toward seeking what is right and true and that we recognise what is right and true points us toward the creator.

    The second is through His direct communication with people and through a man’s own conscience.

    The third is through His word.

    All men are created with the capacity to seek God, and God’s heart is turned toward men by their faith. Thus all have access and none can claim ignorance of what is real.

    The bible was written and reproduced and translated by fallible human beings. But God is capable of overseeing His word. There are numerous perfectly mundane reasons for why we can trust (with a little common sense employed) a simple reading of God’s word in any language.

    Abortion is addressed in the bible. Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. And a man’s conscience tells him that to intentionally and unjustifiably kill an innocent human being is wrong, wrong wrong.

    Capitalism is not evil. Communism is not evil, oppression is. Social security is not evil, stealing is. Wearing mismatched socks is not evil, but wearing them with sandals is.

    That last one was a joke. :)

  2. Nice Dr. Suess spam, BTW. :)

  3. I was only reciting the stance I was addressing when I said local meaning is meaningless.

    I’m not arguing against the validity of the various sources for God’s word. I briefly mentioned the issue, but necessarily had to side-step it to make my main point: if God is silent on a particular issue, no one can say that particular issue is good or evil. To do so would be to undermine the position that morality requires God.

    Also, socks and sandals are an evil faux pas and I got rid of that spam.

  4. :chuckle:

    So .. which sins do you think might not be recognisable as such according to the bible? I think do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not commit perjury and do not steal pretty much cover everything.

    Can you think of anything that might not safely come under the umbrella of those four?

  5. Is it okay to kill one to save many?

  6. Grant, what about the fact that god killed millions in the Bible?

    That Moses ordered every everyone to be killed except for virgins, which the soldier may keep for themselves?

    Or what Jesus himself said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:26.

    If we are to literally base our morals on the what god and his prophets did, that would be bad, wouldn’t it? But even if you say we should base our morals on what god ordered us to do, it still shows that god and his prophets are not showing a good rolemodel, are they?

    Please enlighten me, Grant.

  7. Michael – It is never OK to do wrong even if you think good might come of it. People should do right and risk the consequences.

    Darren – God determines that some people should die and He directed men to kill some people. His current standards are that proper authorities should judge and execute murderers.

    I don’t know how I can enlighten you. Perhaps you don’t like that God is a God of justice? Or perhaps you have some charge against God that He is unjust? The facts are all there to read for yourself. Perhaps you’d like to explain a bit better how you think I should respond to your post, cos I’m lost.

    Merry Christmas. :)

  8. I’m sure you’ve delved into Biblical detail more than I, so perhaps you can enlightened me, Grant, but I don’t believe that moral issue is ever broached. Isn’t God silent on how one should act? And what if the choice is kill 25 ex-cons or 25 monks living peacefully out of sight (or some other generally positively viewed group)? Should the choice be entirely arbitrary and random?

  9. OK, I’ll clarify my position, Grant. You said that god is just, and should punish those who did wrong. Well, if he is just, shouldn’t he send a non-Christian philanthropist instead of a Christian murderer? Why judge someone on whether he/she believes in you iinstead whether he done good life? That’s one problem I have.

    Secondly, I don’t think you’ve answered my question on why god and his prophets get away with such barbaric actions. Jesus ordering his disciples to hate their family, god drowning the entire world when only humans did wrong, Moses allowing virgins to be slaves for the soldiers. I mean, how can they be moral? How can we take them as rolemodels?

    Please answer me, Grant. :-)

  10. Michael – The bible says ‘Do not murder’. That covers your scenario.

    Darren – You haven’t clarified your position, you’ve only confused me more. What murderer did God send?

    I will not attempt to defend God against all your accusations of injustice. Indeed who exactly do you think will be able to bring charges against Him?

  11. Sorry, big typo. I mean why god would send a non-Christian philanthropist instead of a Christian murderer to hell.

    Now, I’m saying that if we are to use god AND HIS PROPHETS as role models, that would be bad. And if god can murder anyone as he sees fit, but we can’t, then he is exactly what we call a tyrant.

  12. If you believe God is a murderer or judges people unfairly then I guess you’re entitled to your opinion. I believe God is justified in all He does.

    Is it going to help if I provide a defence for God? I’m certainly not going to pretend I’m needed for such a task and I see no reason for anyone to ever be.

    What do you think you will gain by accusing God of being unjust?

  13. I’m not saying that the Judeo-Christian god is unfair. I’m saying that he isn’t a good being that we should base our morals on, whether he exists or not.

    Another point is that god actions is entirely inconsistent with what he orders us to do. Yes, it is said: “Thou shalt not kill”, but god and the Jews killed millions, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife”, but Moses allows the rape of virgins? This is thus another evidence that god and his prophets are not good role models. I don’t think anyone thinks that a “Do as I say, not as I do.” leader would be a good one.

    Remeber, Grant, I’m not trying to accuse or debate on whether god is unjust, but whether he and his prophets are suitable as a moral objective standard.

  14. Is it okay to kill one to save many?

    Well, according to Spock it is :)

    But I think this is what happens when we try to define things from the proscription end of dealing with good and evil.

    The real question when we think of what is good, is ‘Is it good to sacrifice your life to save others?‘ I think it certainly is. Indeed, that is the very definition of ‘heroic’ in our society.

  15. Now, I’m saying that if we are to use god AND HIS PROPHETS as role models, that would be bad. And if god can murder anyone as he sees fit, but we can’t, then he is exactly what we call a tyrant.

    I don’t think a Christian is obligated to use God’s prophets as ‘role models’ – indeed; all of them appear to have failed in some significant way. The stark reality is, if everyone were just to follow the Ten Commandments, the world would be an inestimably better place. Of course our problem isn’t knowing what we should do, but being able to do it – and that is why Christ is necessary.

  16. I’m saying that he isn’t a good being that we should base our morals on, whether he exists or not.

    And I say He is.

    Another point is that god actions is entirely inconsistent with what he orders us to do. Yes, it is said: “Thou shalt not kill”, but god and the Jews killed millions

    Jewish people committing murder when God said, “Do not murder” is not charge against God.

    God is the final authority. When He says, “Do not kill” our disobedience is murder. When He deems it necessary to kill it is not murder. Unless you know of a court that might try Him. I take it you’re willing to make such an accusation. I’m not.

    when God said , “thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife”, but Moses allows the rape of virgins?

    Charging Moses is no charge against God. But I believe you’re inventing these charges. Nowhere does Moses allow rape.

    I don’t think anyone thinks that a “Do as I say, not as I do.” leader would be a good one.

    God says, “Do not murder” and He kills people. He has also given proper authorities on earth the right to execute murderers. So your characterisation of God is flawed.

    And you’re continually trying to slide in the deeds of men as if they are some valid accusation against the morality of God.

    Remeber, Grant, I’m not trying to accuse or debate on whether god is unjust, but whether he and his prophets are suitable as a moral objective standard.

    I see little difference. If a role model is not just then he is no good role model.

  17. Michael – The bible says ‘Do not murder’. That covers your scenario.

    Inadequately, perhaps. But it certainly does not cover a hypothetical such as there being a fire and a person has the choice to either save the 25 ex-cons or 25 monks.

    The real question when we think of what is good, is ‘Is it good to sacrifice your life to save others?‘ I think it certainly is. Indeed, that is the very definition of ‘heroic’ in our society.

    Is God clear on this? If he isn’t, then you’re left up to your own personal interpretation. What’s more, if God says nothing relevant, then your claim that heroism is good is not based upon anything you consider objective.

  18. Is God clear on this? If he isn’t, then you’re left up to your own personal interpretation. What’s more, if God says nothing relevant, then your claim that heroism is good is not based upon anything you consider objective.

    It would seem not only to be clear Michael, but one of the major points of the gospel:

    Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

    Sounds like a heroic act to me.

  19. Jackhudson, thanks for agreeing with the point that the prophets failed morally. And yes, how I wish the Ten Commandents were followed by everyone. It’s just that the preachers themselves are not following it.

    And Grant, that’s just great. Then god is no different from the tyrants of the past, eh? The Chinese and Japanese emperors of old seems to act exactly like the Judeo-Christian god. They have final authority, and they can kill anyone as they wish, and not be charged. Guess what happens when the particular emperor gets bloodthristy. Seriously, what role model is this?

    And please, I am not accusing god! I am stating my view that GOD AND HIS PROPHETS ARE NOT GOOD ROLE MODELS OR LEADERS! Stop saying that I am trying to accuse god.

    BTW, here’s where Moses allowed rape (or slavery):
    Numbers 31:15-18
    And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
    KING JAMES VERSION – see for yourself.

  20. Jackhudson, thanks for agreeing with the point that the prophets failed morally. And yes, how I wish the Ten Commandents were followed by everyone. It’s just that the preachers themselves are not following it.

    Why would I need to ‘agree’ with you when it was something I never disputed? You are agreeing with the Bible in this case.

    Then god is no different from the tyrants of the past, eh? The Chinese and Japanese emperors of old seems to act exactly like the Judeo-Christian god. They have final authority, and they can kill anyone as they wish, and not be charged. Guess what happens when the particular emperor gets bloodthristy. Seriously, what role model is this?

    The God of the universe made humans, knows human hearts and mets out justice in accordance with that understanding; no human ruler can make the same claim, so they are quite different.

    But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    That doesn’t say ‘rape’.

  21. I meant the point that I was trying to make. I hope this doesn’t become a war of semantics.

    And you assume that god did create us, which I don’t agree. After all, what evidence is there that he exists? Or why is he true, instead of the Islamic, Greek, Roman gods? Answer that.
    That wasn’t my point, though. I was just making an analogy about god’s actions. Whether he created us or not is not a matter. The thing is that both can do whatever they like, and never be charged.

    And if Moses didn’t mean rape, what did it mean? Slavery is also another possibility.

  22. And you assume that god did create us, which I don’t agree. After all, what evidence is there that he exists? Or why is he true, instead of the Islamic, Greek, Roman gods? Answer that.

    If you are arguing that the God of the Bible is somehow morally deficient, then you are, for the sake of argument assuming He exists; nonetheless I personally find that there are a myriad of historical, philosophical, natural, and personal evidences for the existence of God; which would be a fine topic for another thread.

    That wasn’t my point, though. I was just making an analogy about god’s actions. Whether he created us or not is not a matter. The thing is that both can do whatever they like, and never be charged.

    The difference is one has right to do what He would with human life, as it is His to give and take a way – the same isn’t true for a human ruler.

    And if Moses didn’t mean rape, what did it mean? Slavery is also another possibility.

    Or marriage.

  23. I know, I know. OK, for the sake of argument, god exists. And he created us. And he can never be charged, since he created us all. Thus, parents can take life away from their children as they wish, since they gave their children life (this time assuming that god does not exist). It’s exactly the same logic you’re giving. I gave you life, thus I can do whatever I like to you.

    And marriage? Well, why do you have to kill everyone else except virgin girls? Couldn’t the soldiers take care of the elderly and the boys? I also do not think the marriage would be a nice one.

  24. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

    This is basic Phi 101. You said that heroism is good and are using this piece to vaguely interpret things (subjectively) to your position. Okay, even if I grant you that, then you’re still stuck with the position that it would be objectively good to sacrifice one’s life for Hitler. And what if there’s a choice for whom to sacrifice one’s life? Civil War soldiers chose sides by the arbitrary method of original state residence. Does the Bible say it’s good to lay down one’s life for Lincoln or Davis?

  25. I know, I know. OK, for the sake of argument, god exists. And he created us. And he can never be charged, since he created us all. Thus, parents can take life away from their children as they wish, since they gave their children life (this time assuming that god does not exist). It’s exactly the same logic you’re giving. I gave you life, thus I can do whatever I like to you

    While my mother held that argument to be true, (as in, “I gave you life and I can take it away again!”) while our parents conceived us, they did not in fact order our existence, and so they don’t have the right to cause us to cease to exist.

    And marriage? Well, why do you have to kill everyone else except virgin girls? Couldn’t the soldiers take care of the elderly and the boys? I also do not think the marriage would be a nice one.

    I know it’s hard for us to imagine in our times, but such actions harken back to a time when it was believed that beliefs had consequences and that some belief systems were so pernicious as to necessitate their complete eradication. The eradication of those who hold certain belief systems and act on them (in our own time I can think of Nazism or Stalinism) within the borders of the nation of Israel was considered critical to that nations survival; at least as God had conceived of Israel. Indeed, the remainder of the Old Testament after the Exodus is primarily a chronicle of the failure of the Israelites to deal those ideas and actions which corroded her original purpose for existence.

    Apparently, within that plan, the adoption and later marriage of young women was possible.

  26. This is basic Phi 101. You said that heroism is good and are using this piece to vaguely interpret things (subjectively) to your position.

    Well, no, I’m not ‘vaguely’ doing anything. Plainly read the passage said that Christ happily laid down His life for others. Nothing vague about that at all.

    Okay, even if I grant you that, then you’re still stuck with the position that it would be objectively good to sacrifice one’s life for Hitler. And what if there’s a choice for whom to sacrifice one’s life? Civil War soldiers chose sides by the arbitrary method of original state residence. Does the Bible say it’s good to lay down one’s life for Lincoln or Davis?

    Why would I be stuck with such a position? It’s absurd to contend that if I argue that it is good for example, that a fireman sacrifices his own life to save that of people perishing in a fire, that therefore it is good for someone to serve Hitler. That is beyond Phi. 101, it’s basic logic.

    Such an action is based on ‘the good’ – i.e. that it is good to seek to preserve and protect the lives of those who are in danger. One could not ‘serve Hitler’ on one hand, and seek to do that very good (of preserving and protecting human lives) on the other. In fact, Christ addressed that issue as well when He tells us we cannot serve two masters; we have to choose to serve one or the other.

  27. Sorry, jackhudson. What do you mean by “order our existence”?

    And on complete eradication, it seems to be a great bias to only select virgins women to live. What’s the rationale for killing everyone else, since the virgins are allowed to live? Moses did make a dumb decision, it seems.

  28. What do you mean by “order our existence”?

    I mean bring about our existence as a product of intent; to create the circumstances into which we might exist. We reproduce, but God creates.

    And on complete eradication, it seems to be a great bias to only select virgins women to live. What’s the rationale for killing everyone else, since the virgins are allowed to live? Moses did make a dumb decision, it seems.

    Interestingly, the history recorded in the Bible affords us an answer. On at least one occasion (recorded in the book of Esther) the vengful ancestor of a conquered people sought to eradicate the people of Israel. Similar circumstances happened at other times.

    I am speculating, but a woman married into the Israelite culture in her youth was less likely to be the source of that kind of threat.

  29. Erm…. Don’t our parents intend to give birth to us?

  30. Inadequately, perhaps. But it certainly does not cover a hypothetical such as there being a fire and a person has the choice to either save the 25 ex-cons or 25 monks.

    It’s not inadequate. It says, “Do not murder”. How does that not cover your, and any possible, hypothetical involving murder?

    And Grant, that’s just great. Then god is no different from the tyrants of the past, eh? The Chinese and Japanese emperors of old seems to act exactly like the Judeo-Christian god. They have final authority, and they can kill anyone as they wish, and not be charged. Guess what happens when the particular emperor gets bloodthristy. Seriously, what role model is this?

    God is different because He has a long history of having kept His word and having not shown unrighteousness. In fact the testimony of His righteousness stretches back into the eternal past. Beat that! ;)

    And please, I am not accusing god! I am stating my view that GOD AND HIS PROPHETS ARE NOT GOOD ROLE MODELS OR LEADERS! Stop saying that I am trying to accuse god.

    I see little need for whatever distinction you’re trying to make here. What distinction are you trying to make?

    BTW, here’s where Moses allowed rape (or slavery): Numbers 31:15-18

    I figured that’s the one you were thinking of. It doesn’t say rape in that passage. And rape is condemned elsewhere. Do you have any real evidence that Moses condoned rape? Or are you just going to make accusations and then continually adjust them every time you are shown up?

  31. It’s not inadequate. It says, “Do not murder”. How does that not cover your, and any possible, hypothetical involving murder?

    That doesn’t address the issue. There is either A or B – ex-cons or monks. “Neither” is not an option. For instance, if you act, the monks die. If you do nothing, the ex-cons die (and inaction is not morally different in this instance from active action). Furthermore, I offered another scenario. There’s a fire and Bob has a choice. Save Group X of 25 people or save Group Y of 25 people.

  32. That doesn’t address the issue. There is either A or B – ex-cons or monks. “Neither” is not an option. For instance, if you act, the monks die. If you do nothing, the ex-cons die (and inaction is not morally different in this instance from active action).

    You’re out and out wrong. There is never no choice but to murder.

    Furthermore, I offered another scenario. There’s a fire and Bob has a choice. Save Group X of 25 people or save Group Y of 25 people.

    Not saving people through the inability to do so is not murder! What planet are you on?!

  33. You’re out and out wrong. There is never no choice but to murder.

    I was assuming you had taken intro philosophy and were on board with the obvious conclusion that doing nothing is almost always the same as doing. For instance, I see a little girl drowning in a pool. If I just walk on by, I am as culpable as if I put her in there in the first place.

    Not saving people through the inability to do so is not murder! What planet are you on?!

    Please read more carefully. “Furthermore, I offered another scenario.

  34. I was assuming you had taken intro philosophy and were on board with the obvious conclusion that doing nothing is almost always the same as doing. For instance, I see a little girl drowning in a pool. If I just walk on by, I am as culpable as if I put her in there in the first place.

    I disagree. It is heartless and a morally indefensible act to walk on by when you could help, but it is much worse to actively murder someone.

    How could you say otherwise?

    Your other scenario has nothing to do with murder. What relevance does it have?

  35. I disagree. It is heartless and a morally indefensible act to walk on by when you could help, but it is much worse to actively murder someone.

    How could you say otherwise?

    I have philosophical groundings. Where does God address this issue? Where does he compare and contrast murder and not helping?

    Your other scenario has nothing to do with murder. What relevance does it have?

    The entire point here is that if your god says nothing of a particular subject, you have no basis for your claims (by way of your own argument). The fact that you are willing to make claims (not here, but on the previous point) suggests that you get your morality from somewhere other than God or the Bible.

  36. I have philosophical groundings. Where does God address this issue? Where does he compare and contrast murder and not helping?

    If you cannot derive your philosophy from the law of God then there is something wrong with you. “Do not murder” is clear and straightforward and covers every scenario concerning murder. “Love your neighbour” covers the role of a man who is witness in another’s time of need.

    The entire point here is that if your god says nothing of a particular subject, you have no basis for your claims (by way of your own argument). The fact that you are willing to make claims (not here, but on the previous point) suggests that you get your morality from somewhere other than God or the Bible.

    What subject does God not deal with? You’re probably capable of listing unending hypotheticals that do not appear in the bible, but when are you going to describe a situation that the law does not cover?

  37. If you cannot derive your philosophy from the law of God then there is something wrong with you. “Do not murder” is clear and straightforward and covers every scenario concerning murder. “Love your neighbour” covers the role of a man who is witness in another’s time of need.

    You’re grabbing a lot of information that God obviously never gave you.

    What subject does God not deal with? You’re probably capable of listing unending hypotheticals that do not appear in the bible, but when are you going to describe a situation that the law does not cover?

    25 monks. 25 ex-cons. Fire. Who do you save.

  38. 25 monks. 25 ex-cons. Fire. Who do you save.

    I missed this hypothetical before. I am not sure it’s all that difficult – I save the ex-cons, because that is whom I assume the monks would want me to save, charitable bunch that they are.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: