LuftWaffle

Good night folks. I'm off to bed. I'll try and respond tomorrow.

12 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

Our souls are immortal during this age, not our bodies. After this age, during eternity, GOD will give us all immortal bodies to go with our immortal souls; it is with these that we will spend eternity in either Heaven or the Lake of Fire.

Are there any scriptures that led you that conclusion?

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

That is a valid argument.  But, don't we treat physical death as non-existence?   I mean, George Washington no longer exists.  The molecules of his body are still in the ground, but in regular parlance wouldn't we view him as not existing?

I'm happy assuming death as non-existence for the sake of argument and I agree physical bodies eventually disintegrate, but I don't wanna get bogged down with the cessation of existence business. For me the key issue is the language of death and destruction.

I suppose you can see it as a cumulative case. On one hand you have the conditionalist argument that states that only the saved will have eternal life. The unsaved therefore will die. This makes no claim about what's left when they die. Only that they die.

Then a futher case can be make that nothing will be left over, but that is a seperate argument which I have no interest in. Does it really matter if whether I believe there'll be corpses left over after the second death or nothing? Or how long the corpses will remain?

Quote

I think the way we use the concept of existence with respect to human life is different than how we speak of inanimate objects existing in the realm of human experience.  Don't you?

Well, hang on, your language here is a little loaded because, when you're saying "existence with respect to human life" you're talking about human life and it's existence, which is obviously not true for inanimate objects. Existence proper, however is just being. Things that are in the world exist, but not all things that are in the world are alive. So existence cannot possibly be identical to alive.

I mean, suppose you asked a doctor to check whether a person lying in a hospital bed is alive, will he point at the human body resting on the bed and say, "well he is there, so he must be alive", or is being alive different from merely being here, i.e. existing? Would consciousness for instance be a sufficient condition for the doctor to say the person is alive?

Just now, Yowm said:

No. Jesus spoke more of hell than He did of heaven.

This is a theological apherism which assumes the traditionalist view. There are about 10 prooftexts for the traditional view and virtually all of them support the conditionalist view better when interpreted in light of scripture. The verses however describing the ultimate fate of the wicked using words like death, destruction and perish are in the hundreds. Likewise whenever the bible refers to everlasting life this is only ever in reference to the saved. The traditional view however claims that both the saved and the unsaved are immortal.

Quote

If you start allegorizing things that make you uncomfortable or goes against reason, then there is no end  to that hermeneutic and  you will end up denying the essentials and  those things that you don't agree with.

Now, you're attributing motive to me, which is unfortunate. You're pretending that I'm allegorising things because I'm somehow uncomfortable with verses. All I'm asking is that we try and be good exegetes. If I argue that Jesus has a sword for a tongue you'll point out to me that it's a symbol from Revelation and isn't meant to be taken literally. Why does this rule not apply when the shoe is on the other foot. Why are we reinterpreting the gospels' words like death and destruction according to a literal interpretation of images seen by John in Revelation?

Quote

Too much  has been taught on hell and it's torment than to start allegorizing or symbolizing it.

Appealing to tradition will not work. I am well aware that my view isn't traditional, which is why I've done my homework. This is not an argument.

Quote

That is a tool of the theological liberals that I don't buy...it runs the same old approach of "Hath  God said?"

Namecalling and guilt by association! Not cool brother.

Why is it that I am the one being accused of doubting scripture while I'm trying my best to offer scriptural backing for my beliefs? If we can together agree that scripture should be the authority when why am I holding that end of the deal and you're resorting to appeals to tradition, namecalling and attributing motive to me?

I'm going to ask you a third time and then I'll give up:

Suppose the ultimate fate of the wicked was death/perishing and the ultimate fate of the saved is everlasting life, would you grant that the many verses I've cited support that proposition? This is really an uncontroversial question but the fact that it's so difficult to answer demonstrates that there's not even a willingness to give the proposition a fair look.

Just now, Yowm said:

I'm not at my computer, but for now...

Revelation 14:10-11 KJV
[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: [11] And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

Hi Yowm,

Firstly let me ask, doesn't it surprise you that most of the proof texts for the literal eternal torment of the wicked is pulled from the book of the bible that has the most symbolism in it, whereas the verses I've offered for my view barring psalms are not? 

Now in terms of the smoke rising up for ever and ever, this is a figure of speech which is also found here:

And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.
(Isa 34:9-10)

Smoke rising forever seems to mean utter destruction, not a place where people are kept alive and tormented eternally.

Likewise unquenching fire refers simply to a fire that cannot be put out until it has burned up everything in its way.

Ezekiel 20:47  Say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree. The blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it.

These images of worms not dying, of smoke rising forever and unquenchable fire are figures of speech which is being taken from the book of Revelation which is full of symbolism to make a case for a literal eternal torment, while one can draw scripture upon scripture from the historical narrative in the gospels, to the letters of the apostles to make a case that the wages of sin isn't living forever in torment but death. That the those who do not believe will perish and die.

Would you at least be willing to grant that if the proposition that the wicked will die is true, that the verses I quoted would support such a view? I'll add some more verses, because this is really the essence of the issue. Is the bible a book about God giving life to those who deserve death, or is the entire biblical story about spending eternity in a place of bliss rather than a place of misery?

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
(1Jn 5:11-12)

How easily have we become accustomed to apply a filter to the bible and to autoreplace life with heaven and death with hell. All I'm saying is that perhaps the filter should be abandoned. Perhaps life should just mean life, and death should just mean death.

13 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

I don't want to keep arguing with someone who says that weeping and gnashing of teeth and the "smoke of their torment arising FOREVER can be seen as NO eternal torment.

I have proven myself just by those scriptures.

615   //  apokteinw  //  apokteino   //  ap-ok-ti'-no  // 

from   575  and kteino (to slay); v

AV - kill 55, slay 14, put to death 6; 75

1) to kill in any way whatever
1a) to destroy, to allow to perish
2) metaph. to extinguish, abolish
2a) to inflict mortal death
2b) to deprive of spiritual life and procure eternal misery in hell

And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.
(Isa 34:9-10)

The language of smoke rising forever is a figure of speech indicating utter destruction.

Do you believe that Edom is still burning to this day?

Weeping and gnashing teeth does not prove what you need it to prove. Mary Magdaleen wept and the pharisees gnashed their teeth at Jesus. Weeping and gnashing of teeth when used elsewhere in the bible doesn't refer to torture but to anger and regret. I'm certain the unsaved will be angry and have regret when they lose out on life.

But tell me, why did you say that the soul cannot die, when Jesus said that men can only kill the body, but God can destroy both in hell?

Are you selecting 2b as the meaning of death because it suits your view? Why not 1 or 1a or 2 or 2a? What exegetical principle led you to 2b?

18 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

No they don't. The idea of weeping and gnashing of teeth and eternal torment are plenty clear enough here Be careful here because you are casting doubt as to the veracity of God's word just like Satan did when the serpent asked Eve Hath God said.....and ye shall not surely die. Same difference here. 

The soul doesn't die. The lake of fire would not even exist if there was such a thing as annihilationism or conditional immortality.

I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion using scripture, theology and philosophy about this issue. If you're going to attempt to get personal and paint me as a danger, then that isn't much of an argument.

Now, you said that the soul doesn't die, and yet Jesus says:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Mat 10:28)

Are you sure that you're not the one on the wrong side of God's word?

The only evidence that you've offered for you claim is that souls must be immortal because otherwise the lake of fire wouldn't be necessary and I'm assuming that you're assuming that the lake of fire is a place souls live forever in torment. In essence then you assuming what needs to be proved. I believe the lake of fire will in fact be how the unsaved will be killed, so my view is perfectly compatible with the existence of a lake of fire.

23 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

I believe that Scripture teaches that everyone will exist forever, either in Heaven with Christ or in the Lake of Fire with Satan. It does make a difference because if those who aren't saved believe that they will not spend eternity in Hell but cease to exist, then they can feel that they really have nothing to lose; even if they do believe that those who are saved will live forever.

But surely you can agree that we should believe what the bible teaches and not what is most scary to unbelievers? Do you believe that all human beings are immortal? If so then why does Paul state that we are perishable and mortal and that we must put on immortality through Christ

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
(1Co 15:53)

If both groups are already immortal and imperishable, wouldn't that go against what Paul is teaching here?

15 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I see no Scriptural support that the dead in hell will exist but not be conscious.

What is the scriptural support that both the saved and the unsaved will live forever? The entire traditionalist doctrine is based on the belief that both the saved and the unsaved will live forever in different locations (heaven and hell) whereas the bible is full of descriptions giving eternal life to the saved and death, destruction and perish for the unsaved.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
(Joh 3:16)

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
(Mat 7:13-14)

Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.
(Psa 68:20)

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
(1Co 15:53-56)

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 6:23)

Humour me for a second, if you don't mind:

Suppose, just for the sake of argument that the proposition is true: That the bible teaches that only the saved will inherit everlasting life, and that the unsaved will be killed/destroyed: would you grant that above verse I quoted are consistent with that proposition? Would you admit in fact that the verses that would be consistent with the proposition would be a great number indeed because the bible talks about life and death all the time?

4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

The Bible says otherwise.....

“And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66:24)

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matt. 25:41,46)

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)

Isaiah 66:24 refers to dead bodies being consumed by worms and burned up by fire. I'm sure Shiloh will affirm that in Jewish culture nothing is worse than for the bodies to be exposed to decay and devoured like this. The loathsomeness of this scene is the fact that these corpses are exposed and being devoured by worms. Isaiah isn't sketching a scene that supports the traditional view of people living forever in torment will immortal worms eating immortal bodies, but rather a scene of large scale slaughter.

The verse in Daniel juxtaposes the everlasting life to the shame and the contempt. If both groups were living eternally, then wouldn't it have been much better if the verse in Daniel had read, some will awaken to everlasting life in heaven, others to everlasting life in hell. Daniel says that only one group gets everlasting life, and you're assuming that the shame and contempt is felt by those in hell, but it's much more likely that the living are the ones viewing the lost with shame and contempt as the Isaiah verses so clearly shows, contempt and shame is felt toward the dead.

In terms of Matthew the word eternal fire, is just a reference to fire from heaven. The traditionalist side makes the assumption that eternal fire means a fire that burns forever and thus the fire must have something to burn forever. But eternal fire when used elsewhere in scripture is a figure of speech referring to heavenly fire.

...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jud 1:7)

In terms of Revelation 20:14-15, wouldn't you say that there's a book of life, is support for the view that only those whose names are in the book will inherit life?

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

What is the difference between cessation of life and cessation of existence?  Sorry for the 20000 questions. 

Chairs exist, but they aren't alive. Square-circles neither exist nor are they alive. So there's an obvious distinction between existing and living. The focus on cessation of existence places the burden of proof on me to show that the unsaved will vanish, but I hold a more modest view, which is merely that the unsaved will not live.

If we take John 3:16 then it seems to teach that one group, the saved, will inherit eternal life, and those who do not believe will perish and die. I take this at face value. Does that make sense?

8 minutes ago, BacKaran said:

Or are you saying there is hell that kills then nothing?

I believe that the saved will inherit eternal life (literally) and the unsaved will die and be destroyed (literally). Whether the end result is that nothing will remain of the unsaved is not a necessary part of my view. In other words attempting to disprove cessation of existence does nothing to disprove my view, because it's not essential to my view.

Thanks for opening this thread, Shiloh.

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 

I am confused.  Do you believe that those who go to hell will suffer eternally and consciously?

No, I don't believe in eternal conscious torment. I believe the unsaved will be killed/destroyed and thus, not be conscious. Whether or not they are utterly annihilated is to me irrelevant, which is why I want to draw a distinction between cessation of life and cessation of existence.

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Both are eternal, for sure.   My question is, why does accepting Christ result in eternal immortality, but rejecting Christ results in eternal extinction?  And does the Bible define eternal (or 2nd)  death as complete and utter cessation of existence?

I'm not sure I see the problem with accepting Christ leading to eternal immortality, but rejecting Christ resulting in eternal death.

I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing cessation of existence. My view is that the unsaved will be killed/perish/destroyed, whether or not bits of their corpses remain are irrelevant to me. So, I'm not arguing for complete and utter cessation of existence, I'm simply arguing that everlasting life is a gift to the saved and that the unsaved will experience cessation of life.

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Why would accepting Christ as Savior have the eternal consequence of living with Christ forever, but rejecting Christ not have the eternal consequence of living separated from God for ever?

I believe the second death is eternal. The distinction is as follows, as I see it: for the traditionalist it is between going eternally to the happy place (heaven) or the sad place (hell), but for the conditionalist it is between living forever and being dead forever. Both consequences are eternal for both views.

That's the conditionalist hypothesis, and I think it has significant scriptural support. In fact, that seems to be the essence of the entire salvation story, that Christ purchased life for us.

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye said:

modifued same term as Evangelical Conditionalism. Check out the site and they have a FB group  feel free to pm me

ahh, ok.

On 3/21/2017 at 5:01 PM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Hell/Gehenna however is not Annihilationism as Scripture will attest

Revelation 14:11   And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name

JWs and Seventh Day Adventists wrongly believe in Annihilation. But that one passage alone, and there are others, is plenty evidence enough to the contrary. It speaks of being tormented forever. Therefore, you are not annihilated. You don't cease to exist.

 

Would you believe me if I told you that most of the proof texts for eternal conscious torment including the one you cited above, upon closer examination seem to support the conditional immortality view better than it does the notion that the wicked will live forever in torment?

Cessation of existence isn't a necessary aspect of the view I hold.
In terms of SDAs and JWs also believing in annihilation, I'm a Trinitarian who mows the lawn on Saturdays

On 3/21/2017 at 3:56 PM, Hawkeye said:

Hey Opy,

It seems you are trying to argue for a Universalism standpoint of hell. This is biblically inaccurate, the Bible is very clear that at the final judgement those who were not found in the Lamb's book of life go to perish, destruction, hell. It's important to notice there are 2 words in the original language that are both translated to "hell". The first is Hades/Sheol. This simply means "the grave". In context, it is not fire/brimstone etc. It's the grave/underworld. The second word is Gehenna, which is the lake of fire you speak of.

I lean toward the stance that hell is not eternal conscious torment, as I lean more toward Modified Annihalationism. (I have plenty of reasons & scripture to back it up, but this is not a debate thread for it), but it seems that the Great white throne judgement passage in Revelation is crystal clear- if you do not accept Christ (having your name written in the lamb's book of life). Then you are sent to  said lake of fire (Gehenna). Eternal life is not given to non-believers, it is a gift for believers as referenced in Romans 3:23, John 3:16, John 5:24. Non believers are given death (perish, cease to exist etc).

Anyway, hope it helped. I have found the site "Rethinking Hell" to be very helpful and you may check it out- but I don't see anything in scripture pointing to Universalism.

P.S I'm not responding to any debates on Conditionlism vs Traditionalism  not in this thread

 

Hi Hawkeye,

I've also become convinced that the traditional view of eternal conscious torment is incorrect and that the bible seems to rather clearly teach that immortality is granted only to the saved. I've never heard the term "modified annihilationism" though, what does it mean?

I prefer to avoid the term annihilation and focus on the (im)mortality aspect, so I like the name Conditional Immortality, because that avoid the red herring of whether the unsaved cease to exist.

On 3/12/2017 at 6:34 PM, tinyprayers said:

I'm bringing this last thread on this first page back to first place. It's wild that this forum doesn't get more traffic given the topic.

If God predestined all things as he says and for his glory and by his will, why would he offer us redemption after opening Hell for our appointment should we refuse?

Would you mind clarifying your concern. Are you concerned that God is offering redemption, predestination, or is your concern about hell?

On 1/17/2017 at 11:36 PM, Bonky said:

 From Leviticus chapter 25...

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I don't see anything about a contract.  I also don't see anything in the Bible that states, in general, that anyone needs to sign a "contract".   If anything I see a clear indication that a particular race or nation of people are treated better than others. 

 

Atheists tend to consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to Christians. As a result of this, they get severely triggered when it is shown that atheism entails moral nihilism and that the moral high horse they're sitting on, has "Property of Jesus Christ" written on it. Their recourse in such instances is to take jabs at Christianity and their goto for this is usually the slavery issue. As such I am pretty familiar with all the verses about slavery because it's impossible to have a conversation about moral ontology without having to deal with these red herrings. Atheism's inability to ground morality in anything but mere subjective preference, doesn't evaporate simply because the word slavery appears in the Bible. You need to deal with it.

Having said that, the primary purpose of slavery was endentured servitude. It was a system by which citizens of Israel could work off any debts. Servants if they choose, could get a piercing and remain with a master if they liked working for that master. Jacob for instance slaved for Laban as a way of earning the right to marry his daughter. This flies in the face of the misleading atheistic narrative that slaves were to be treated as mere possessions. That is was atheists are going for were they bring up the slavery issue, is to make it appear as though slaves were dehumanised and considered to be mere things. This couldn't be further from the truth, and you and I have had this conversation before.

In terms of the verse in question, yes Israelite citizens had better rights than slaves coming from outside nations. This is true for almost every nation on earth where the citizens of a nations enjoy better priviledges than foreigners. What's the problem? 

Enslavement of enemy forces was actually a mercy since it gives them a chance at life, instead of being killed on the spot. War happens, but of course in our day and age where most softhanded Western liberals have never had to fight for anything, the idea of hurting people in war seems barbaric.

Lastly keep in mind that Israel's policy was that one could become an Israelite if one accepted the beliefs. Israel wasn't so much a race as it was a family with lots of adopted children. Those in the family got special treatment, simple.
So a foreigner could become a citizen of Israel by accepting the Israelite faith. See for instance the book of Ruth and the loads of Egyptians who escaped Egypt with Israel and so on.

What I mean by contract is that slaves were considered as part of a man's wealth in an economic or contractual sense, not that slaves were to be treated inhumanely, which is what you were hoping for.

The reason I didn't elaborate too much on the contractual thing is because a) we've had this conversation before and b) this is a red herring to get away from the fact that atheism cannot make sense of morality.

Quote

I don't think women being treated as equals is "superficial".

Which is why I added, "In the grand scheme of things". It seems we're both in agreement that people not dying is far more important than women's rights to vote. My point was that both you and Siegi were trying to prove moral inconsistency by reaching for Western luxuries such as a woman's right to vote, same-sex marriage and pot legalisation. These issues are important in the West because the West is rather safe and peaceful, were citizens enjoy the kind of freedoms and self-actualization unheard of in history.

Quote

"Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it."

No, but I don't see how this challenges my views.  

It challenges your claim that morality is obscure and that it evolved in a messy fashion. My point is that the fundamentals were always the same.

Quote

Christian values sure took their time giving us these modern views.

Christian values or human stubbornness?  I'm glad though that your argument has moved from "I don't see any evidence of moral progress as a result of Christian beliefs" to "why did it take so long". I get that you'll never accept that Christianity did good in the world, so I'll take this as a half-hearted concession.

Quote

I'm not familiar with your term "Christian West".  I decided to look it up and I came up pretty dry.  It's almost as if you made this up

hmmm. https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-adjective.htm

Christian West refers to the West that is Christian. Sometimes nouns can be used as adjectives. My point is that Western civilisation has traditionally been and still is largely influenced by Christianity. As such you'll find statements like "God save the queen", "In God we trust", "Soli deo gloria" and such in Western countries' things. You'll also find that the great universities of the West that have shaped and bettered the world are steeped in Christian tradition, founded by Christians and covered in plaques and spires that make them look more like churches than institutions of learning. It is from here that we get great mind like Newton, Tesla, Pasteur who believed that those who studied the sciences were honouring God. Then you can look at the fact that most grand old hospitals in the West are named after Saints, that the greatest and oldest Humanitarian organisations are the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, that the Greatest moral reformers of the world, Mother Theresa, Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and so on were all Christians. Some say the American constitution is the greatest constitution ever written: and I believe that this too is thanks to it's formulators belief that men are created equal and that as such they have inalienable rights endowed by a moral authority, right?

But sure, go ahead and believe the made up atheist story of Christianity, which reads roughly: in the beginning was a primordial soup from which people emerged randomly after as many years as it takes for this totally scientific process to occur. Some wicked (according to our best subjectivist definition of wicked) people invented religion as a way to control others back when people were gullible and would believe anything. These people had slaves and genocided a lot. Then the inquisition and crusades happened, which, in conjunction with slavery and genocide is basically all we need to know about Christianity. Then we got science which has shown that we don't need god (lowercase is super important even though it's a proper noun) anymore. Some Christians try to be as clever as we are by attempting to argue for the existence of God, but if they were rational they'd realise that any argument that leads to God is either circular, or is undercut by slavery.

Quote

I think rationality can be a basis for moral structure and nothing more is needed. 

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

5 hours ago, Bonky said:

No not just the church.  I mean what is the point of having an objective morality defined by a God if it's not disseminated down to humanity clearly.   Why does it seem that we've chiseled away at our views of what a civilized and free society looks like?  

Is there an objective Biblical defense for allowing women to vote?  I don't see that there is.  Is it Biblically wrong to own people as servants and or slaves?  I don't see how that could be objectively defended.  It wasn't until recently that we modified our social contract in the free world to make these modifications. 

I don't think it's wrong to own people as servants in a contractual sense (which is how the bible defined it), so I'm not sure what your point is with that. In terms of women voting: don't you think the very fact that this is the issue you're raising is pretty telling in and of itself? People instinctively know that murder, rape, theft, adultery, hypocrisy, pride and so on is wrong. Even murderers won't claim that murder is right, instead they'll try to tilt the scale by attempting to justify murder by saying the person had it coming, or that murdering so-and-so was for some greater good. It seems to me then that apart from superficial (in the grand scheme of things) issues like woman's rights and social status, mankind indeed is pretty consistent in its moral sense. What changes are the justifications, not the morals themselves.

Pro-choice advocates believe that murder is wrong, they just don't believe that it's a baby being murdered, or they elevate the autonomy of the woman above the rights of the fetus. Both parties agree that murder is wrong.
Even dictators will not command genocide because they believe subjectively that genocide is a good thing, they believe it's a means to a better end.

Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it.

In terms of the finer moral points like equal rights and so on these virtues gradually arose in the Christian West, and basically nowhere else. Now this makes sense: If morality is objective then it is discoverable: progress is possible, just like scientific progress is possible if one believes that there are right and wrong answers in nature, another deliverance of the Christian worldview... You're welcome
 

But if morality evolved as you say, then what becomes of right and wrong? Ask an evolutionary psychologist where anti-social behavior comes from and they'll say it's our evolutionary instincts. Ask the same evolutionary psychologist where our social behavior comes from and they'll also say it's a result of our evolutionary instincts. Should sociopaths be sociopaths because their genes determine their behavior and should the virtuous be virtuous because their genes determine otherwise? Do you have a particular preference?

22 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Whether the arguments is circular or not, depends on the answer to that the following question:

Can you define the objective character of morality in terms that do not depend on the existence of God?

if not, then I don't see how the argument can rest on its feet.

My point is that objective morality does depend on God, which is why the existence of objective morality would constitute evidence for there being a God. It seems you have a problem with the fact that the premises of an argument lead to the conclusion, but that's exactly what a valid argument is supposed to do.

On 1/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, Bonky said:

Let me see if I'm making sense here.  I've admitted before I'm not educated or moral arguments so I'm probably going to fail.  If we were lions, then rape or killing wouldn't really be immoral because we wouldn't have the capacity to consider our actions and the consequences of those actions.  So that would be kind of analogous to flipping coins.  The issue is we're NOT lions, we have advanced brains/nervous system that allows us to consider our actions and how it impacts us and those around us.   We are social creatures and how we interact with each other goes a long way into stabilizing our communities.  Some where along the line we figured out that we can not only survive but have an enjoyable time doing it.  

Hi Bonky,

Saying "We are social creatures" is basically just a statement about the statistically average behavior of human beings, but it says nothing about how humans beings ought to behave. A Sadistic psychopath will state that their own behavior is not statistically average and that they are not social creatures. Morality entails far more than mere descriptions of what sort of behavior one can expect from the average human being, but instead is a set of normative rules about how the world ought to be.

Hi Siegi,

To do quotes you need to click the button that looks like this -> ˝ in text box where you type your posts

On 1/10/2017 at 1:53 PM, siegi91 said:

Hi Luftwaffe,
Oh Mann, I have no idea how to use the quoting feature on my tablet. I hate Big Bang posts ....:)  let's try, nevertheless.

I never said that unresolved issues are not worth thinking about. I actually believe the contrary. I spend most of my time thinking about unresolved issues. I would be a pretty poor physicist if I did not do that. 

What I had in mind, when I mentioned constructivism, was actually based on mathematical (or logical) constructivism. Take for instance the claim

1) Every even natural number greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers

We have no idea whether this is true or not. All the numbers our computers are crunching seem to confirm the claim. Alas, we do not have access to all possible numbers, which are infinite.

sieglinde

While I'm glad that you're not arguing for Positivism I'm not sure that the mathematical concept of "constructivism" can be applied to ethics. I think pretty much all mathematicians agree that infinity isn't really a thing, it's just a placeholder for the concept of an unending set of numbers. So it's a mathematical impossibility to determine certain outcomes ad infinitum, but why should such a notion be applied to ethics. I don't believe ethics have infinit variables. Some moral dilemmas are complex, but never infinitely complex, so I think there is a best answer to every moral dilemma, albeit sometimes hard to find.

So, I guess I don't see the need to categorize ethics in the same way as certain mathematical concepts. In fact I think doing so probably commits a category error.

Quote

Now, I would like to address your comment that if morality is subjective, then it is not superior than flipping a coin, presumably because of evolution being driven by random mutations (among other non random things). I make the assumption I understood that correctly.

If that is the case, then I am not sure how that can be used to prove objective morality.

The point is that, if our moral sensibilities railing against the idea that "rape is benign" is merely an incidental impulse of our evolution, it's just like saying "fire is cold" rails against our sense of touch and claiming that our sense of touch is just an illusion seems just as silly.

Now if our moral sensibilities are mere incidental traits of our evolution what's wrong with flipping a coin to make moral decisions? What is your principled case for not just flipping coins when making moral decisions?

Quote

We first need to ascertain that there is this real thing and that it is independent from our evolutionary past, and biology.

Any argument for subjective morals will be based on evidence that's less obvious than any argument for objective morals. Think about it.
One can look at the reaction of a four year old child when they are wronged and it's obvious that they perceive a wrong has been committed. Then one can listen to the waffling of an ethics professor claiming that morals are subjective who still expects that his students not murder him and take his belongings.

You have as much a burden of proof to show morals are subjective as I have to show they're objective. In fact most atheists who are subjectivists only became subjectivists after they learnt about the logical consequences of moral objectivism. That is how obviously true objectivism is, and how obscure the notion of subjectivism is.

Can I prove to your satisfaction that morals are objective? Probably not, because I can't show you a moral and weigh it and measure it, which is what you're demanding.

Quote

As concerns the cumulative case for God, I think that this would be material for 10 threads. My point was that the claim

1) The existence of  objective morality is evidence of the existence of God  

Leads necessarily to circular reasoning.

For, if the objective character of morality is independent from God, like atheistic moral realists believe, then claim 1) is a non sequitur

If, on the other hand, this objectivity depends on the existence of God or is defined in terms of God's will and nature, and cannot exist without Him, then 1) is circular.

I don't think objective moral values are independent of the character of God, but I don't see how having them grounded in the character of God makes the argument circular.

The moral argument as offered by most apologists is a basic Modus Tollens argument taking the form:

1. If P then Q,

2. Not Q

3. therefore Not P

Here's the argument:

1. If God does not exist then objective morals do not exist.

2. Objective morals do exist

3. Therefore God exists

If the argument were circular as you claim then "God exists"would have been assumed in the premises 1 or 2, but it's not there. So I guess I'm not seeing the circularity.

Quote

Even if we assume that objective morality does, indeed, exist. And this is why I dismiss it. Where it would lead, if it were convincing, is not so relevant to me. I am quite emotionless about the possibile evidence of God's existence. Especially when provided by such  arguments, which do not say anything about what that God might think of people like me

Well, Siegi, if you dont find the argument to be satisfying all your questions, is that the fault of the argument or you wanting more than where the premises and conclusion leads. The argument is a simple piece of evidence intended to reason toward a theistic conclusion based on the existence of right and wrong. Simple as that. If you want to know what God thinks of you, then read the words of Jesus.

I for one, am a huge fan of the moral argument for the existence of God, because those who disagree with it, never really attack the argument itself. You're not alone in wrongly trying to claim that it's circular, or trying to divert away from it by talking about slavery in the Bible, or claiming that it doesn't prove all the tenets of Christianity and so on. The very fact that all these excuses are made instead of actually tacking the premises and the conclusion of the argument is actually something that should show you something.

15 hours ago, siegi91 said:

 

Morality is a fascinating subject, like all subjects that occupied philosophers for millenia and it is still, to my knowledge, unresolved. sieglinde

 

Hi Siegi,

The fact that an issue is unresolved does not mean that it's not worth thinking about. After all in science there still isn't a unifying model between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics, but that doesn't mean that science is meaningless or wishy-washy. Also, sometimes people refuse to accept what is obvious, because they don't like what it entails, and I suspect many moral relativists aren't so by choice but because of their worldview that cannot accommodate non-physical realities such as morality, God, souls etc.

Quote

I would call myself a moral constructivist, if there were such a label. If we cannot construct a cold and emotionless, generally accepted objective proof that moral claim X is right or wrong, then it is meaningless to attribute any of such values to that claim.

This is reminiscent of an idea called Logical Positivism which was popular in Germany and Scandinavia half a century ago. Here's a link to a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Basically the idea is that something should be considered meaningless unless it can be empirically verified or logically deduced. Unfortunately Logical Positivism itself cannot be empirically verified nor logically deduced, so idea committed suicide shortly after its inception. The reason I think it remains popular is because it allows people to dismiss issues they don't want to talk about, by describing them as meaningless based on this arbitrary rule for meaning, without really dealing with the claims. In other words Logical Positivism is a lazy cop-out. As you can probably tell, I don't think much of this view

The other thing is that meaning is actually very straightforward, so the claim is rather silly. In order for something to be meaningful all it needs is a definition. So it's possible to have meaningful conversations by simply defining what one is talking about. This is how philosophers have been able to have meaningful conversations about ethics and morality for millenia as you rightly pointed out.

Quote

Because of my constructivism, I also tend to reject the law of the excluded middle to moral claims. If we cannot construct a generally accepted proof of a claim being right or wrong, then it is not even the case that the claim is right or wrong.

Without a generally accepted proof of "constructivism" being a right or wrong claim it's not even the case that "constructivism" is right or wrong. See the problem?

Quote

  Let's suppose morality is objective, now what? Who decides what is right or what is wrong?

If morality is objective, it means that it's not a matter of deciding what is right or wrong. That's the whole point!
Moral obligations aren't down to mere preference and no person gets to pick what they want morality to be, just like the shape of the earth is an objective fact and not a decision.

So your question of who gets to decide what is right or wrong doesn't apply to objective moral values. This is only a problem for relativists.

Now, what you might be referring to are moral dilemmas where the lesser evil or greater good isn't immediately obvious. In the case of objective morals there is still a right answer, the answer just may require careful consideration of all the influences. That's why moral dilemmas don't disprove objective morals, in fact moral dilemmas are at home in moral objectivism. If morals are subjective, then flipping a coin is no less random than the evolutionary happenstance that brought about our illusory moral preferences, isn't it?

Quote

Honestly, not many would debate the claim "killing kids for fun is wrong", we accept it by default,  but there are a lof of claims that are highly controversial. For instance, is the death penalty right or wrong? Most Europeans would say it is wrong, others might disagree. The assumption that morality is objective does not help us at all to resolve such issues.

The controversy around the death penalty isn't tricky because morals are subjective but because the issue is complex.

Let me illustrate what I mean this way:

Suppose you fill a balloon with helium and you tie a number of objects to the string, will it go up or down? It depends, right?
How much volume does the balloon have, what do the objects weigh, how pure is the helium, what's the air pressure, what planet are you on and so on?

If we tie a feather to a standard party balloon we have a clear case, and we know the balloon will go up.
If we tie a Grand piano, an anvil and a tombstone to the string we also have a clear case. The balloon will not go up.

But what about a slight wet, empty box of matches? Now we have a difficult one, right? So are we now to conclude that gravity is subjective because we have a hard time figuring this one out? Of course not. This is a knowledge (epistemology) problem and has nothing to do with the essence (ontology) of gravity.

Likewise some moral questions are complex because some moral values pull the scale one way and others pull the scale another way, such as the death-penalty which have pros and cons.

Quote

We could say morality is objective because it emanates from God. But which God? Hindus might believe that separating humanity in casts emanates from god, Christians would say this is nonsense, since God made all humans alike. And as long as we do not have independent objective evidence of the existence of those Gods, we are back on square one.

The moral argument is a theistic argument, not an argument for the doctrines of Christianity. Asking which God is therefore irrelevant, because it's not what the argument is attempting to show.

The moral argument forms part of a cumulative case for God and cumulative cases are a perfectly valid way to reason. In fact most court cases are based on cumulative reasoning. Does the fingerprint at a crime scene prove a murder? No, it proves that a particular person was at the scene there. Should fingerprint evidence therefore be dismissed because it doesn't prove everything you want it to prove, of course not.

So why should the moral argument be dismissed because it doesn't lead all the way to what you want it to lead?