A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[Dancefortwo]

   The Bible is a collection of 66 different books that include various literary genres and different styles of writing, such as historical narrative, mytho-history, poetry, prophecy, parables, letters, and apocalyptic literature. When the text talks about talking serpents and magical trees (as in Genesis) or "all the trees of the fields will clap there hands" (as in Psalms), or the dragon and the rider on a horse with a sword coming out of his mouth (as in Revelations), I think we can apply some common sense.

Even though you have me on ignore I'm-a-gonna reply anyway.

Yes, we CAN use common sense.  People do not come back from the dead. 

The New Testament writers retrofitted Jesus into the messiah role using literary devices and manipulating the stories to fit what they thought were old testament prophecies, most of which are not prophecies at all or were completely misinterpreted.   

We know through Joshephus' writings that John the Baptist was executed after Herod Antipas marriage to Herodias which was in 34 CE, so Mr. Baptist was executed in 35 or 36, after the crucifixion of Jesus. So the NT is wrong.   It's wrong about the census in Luke.   Mark has so many geographical problems he doesn't know east from west so whoever wrote the "Mark" never set foot in Palestine.  

The stories are maniuplated and contrived.  We know the sun didn't go dark for three hours. We know the Sanhedrin didn't meet during the holy week of Passover.  It was completely forbidden by Jewish law. The only place the Sanhedrin was allowed to met was inside the Temple and only in the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and never, ever during Passover. So three of the writers have that completely wrong. 

By the time John writes his Jesus story in 90 CE  the Sanhedrin had scattered after the Temple destruction. Some reassembled in Syria.   So "John" write a different version.  He has Jesus brought privately before a high priest who interrigates him. This is another reason John is dated so late.   

There are three different versions of Judas' death and if you count the story written by Papias then there are 4 different stories. 

The Jesus stories are not true. They are a fictional accounts written by later Greek writers. The apostles of Jesus were illiterate and couldn't have written in the highly educated and aristocratic style they are written in.    Frankly, you don't use common sense and never have.

[SteveII]

P1: Objective morality is based on unchanging, inherent principles that are not dependent on personal opinions or preferences.
P2: God possesses an unchanging, inherent moral nature that is inherently good.
C1: Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences.

This is terrible, TERRIBLE informal logic. I know it sounds harsh, but by trying to be terse and precise you ended up being even more incomprehensible than if you wrote three entire paragraphs. Brevity and simplicity is very difficult. That's why I attempt as little as possible to write my arguments as informal logic sentences. I'm not any better than you at it. Here are some problems. The list is not exhaustive btw.

P1: the later half of the sentence is useless while the first half alludes to unknown unexplained principles that are yet essential to the character of objective morality all the while being linked to objective morality by a loosely defined and articulated "based on" verb. Do you mean objective morality as in moral truth are determined by a specific method of analysis or are moral truth determined by certain axioms (or both depending on the circumstances)?

P2: is tautological. God is good because he has a good nature; and also circular; why does God have a good nature? Because he is good. That could be considered an axiomatic statement but then why not just write "God is good"? If God is good is he subject to moral judgement and has been determined as objectively good or is it the other way around God is good because he alone decides what is good or even more esoteric, produces what is good. If the later, is he even a moral agent? If you are producing good just by being like I produce heat just by living (unconsciously, effortlessly, without will or desire towards it, without agency), then are you even something that is under the purview of morality and qualifiable by it or is it akin to talk about the color of my voice?  

C1: What's the difference between God's nature and God's personal opinions or preferences? Preferences can be unchanging. Plus if God is omnipotent could he not change the very nature of the universe at will? Thus change truth itself? Now we get into an interesting paradox. What's unchanging, the truth value of a set moral command or action or the principle by which objective morality is assessed (which you alluded to in P1) or are both unchanging? If both, then why?

It is not the syllogism's fault. It is valid and clear enough if you don't read into what is not there.

P1 is uncontroversial. This is the definition of objective morality. It is any moral principle that is NOT dependent on personal opinion or preference. The premise does not seek to establish how one is to do this--only the definition of objective.

P2, again, you misunderstand what work the premise is doing in the syllogism. The premise is not intended to show that God is good. It is intended to simply state the normal, traditional conception of God and that it his nature that is good.

You want me to show why God is good, but that is not possible because definitionally, God is good. His nature/properties is who he is. Why is he just? Because that is who he is. Why is he eternal? Because that is who he is. Why is he patient? Because that is who he is. Why is he omnipotent? Because that is who he is. Why is he holy? Because that is who he is. Why is he omniscient? Because that is who he is. Goodness is in the same category as the rest of these things. There is no why. This is the conception of God.

C1 follow from the definition of objective (P1) and the conception of God (P2). As to your comments about P1 and what might be a method at arriving at objective morality, I would say that this syllogism shows the ONLY method to get to objective morality. There is no other methods because of the nature of morality, the conception of what is 'good' requires moral reasoning (definitionally subjective) unless some standard can exist outside of moral reasoning.

[Bucky Ball]

This is terrible, TERRIBLE informal logic. I know it sounds harsh, but by trying to be terse and precise you ended up being even more incomprehensible than if you wrote three entire paragraphs. Brevity and simplicity is very difficult. That's why I attempt as little as possible to write my arguments as informal logic sentences. I'm not any better than you at it. Here are some problems. The list is not exhaustive btw.

P1: the later half of the sentence is useless while the first half alludes to unknown unexplained principles that are yet essential to the character of objective morality all the while being linked to objective morality by a loosely defined and articulated "based on" verb. Do you mean objective morality as in moral truth are determined by a specific method of analysis or are moral truth determined by certain axioms (or both depending on the circumstances)?

P2: is tautological. God is good because he has a good nature; and also circular; why does God have a good nature? Because he is good. That could be considered an axiomatic statement but then why not just write "God is good"? If God is good is he subject to moral judgement and has been determined as objectively good or is it the other way around God is good because he alone decides what is good or even more esoteric, produces what is good. If the later, is he even a moral agent? If you are producing good just by being like I produce heat just by living (unconsciously, effortlessly, without will or desire towards it, without agency), then are you even something that is under the purview of morality and qualifiable by it or is it akin to talk about the color of my voice?  

C1: What's the difference between God's nature and God's personal opinions or preferences? Preferences can be unchanging. Plus if God is omnipotent could he not change the very nature of the universe at will? Thus change truth itself? Now we get into an interesting paradox. What's unchanging, the truth value of a set moral command or action or the principle by which objective morality is assessed (which you alluded to in P1) or are both unchanging? If both, then why?

It is not the syllogism's fault. It is valid and clear enough if you don't read into what is not there.

P1 is uncontroversial. This is the definition of objective morality. It is any moral principle that is NOT dependent on personal opinion or preference. The premise does not seek to establish how one is to do this--only the definition of objective.

P2, again, you misunderstand what work the premise is doing in the syllogism. The premise is not intended to show that God is good. It is intended to simply state the normal, traditional conception of God and that it his nature that is good.

You want me to show why God is good, but that is not possible because definitionally, God is good. His nature/properties is who he is. Why is he just? Because that is who he is. Why is he eternal? Because that is who he is. Why is he patient? Because that is who he is. Why is he omnipotent? Because that is who he is. Why is he holy? Because that is who he is. Why is he omniscient? Because that is who he is. Goodness is in the same category as the rest of these things. There is no why. This is the conception of God.

C1 follow from the definition of objective (P1) and the conception of God (P2). As to your comments about P1 and what might be a method at arriving at objective morality, I would say that this syllogism shows the ONLY method to get to objective morality. There is no other methods because of the nature of morality, the conception of what is 'good' requires moral reasoning (definitionally subjective) unless some standard can exist outside of moral reasoning.

And yet, you cannot even say which human logic you use, and how you know it applies to these writers, and Christian Fathers who touted their own dishonesty as a virtue.

[Minimalist]

Excellent re-cap, D42 but your last paragraph contains this:

 They are a fictional accounts written by later Greek writers.

We know that 'Luke' and 'Matthew' were extensively cribbed from 'Mark.'  So the question is really where did the writer of 'Mark' get his story from?

So, this limits the number of possibilities.

a)  Mark was based on an earlier, written, source of which we have not a single scrap of evidence nor is there any hint of the existence of such a source in any of the 2d century writings we do have.  

b)  Mark made the story up, himself.

c)  The actual writer of 'Mark' was a highly educated Greek scribe who was hired by someone ( and if that someone's name was "Mark" ( Marcus) that suggests a Greco-Roman derivation rather than Jewish ) to write down an oral tale which had been circulating among one small group of xhristards for who knows how long.  Few people in antiquity could read.  Fewer could write.  Scribes made their living by writing for people who could not write themselves.  The question then becomes, WHEN?  I submit sometime after Marcion created the first xtian canon in the first half of the 2d century and gave them the idea.  It is xhristard writers themselves who give Marcion the credit for the idea which they then shamelessly stole.  

Marcion was decidedly anti-Jewish.  He thought Yahweh was a primitive scumbag.  The most likely time frame for Marcion to begin this was after the 3d (bar Kohkba ) revolt (132-135 CE).  After 3 revolts, the  Jews were decidedly persona non grata.  Hadrian threw them out of Judaea.  They would have made the perfect whipping boys!

[Bucky Ball]

1 Timothy 1:5-10:
bla bla bla

Yawn.
... Timothy is generally accepted by scholars as pseudo-epigraphic.
Jesus and the early Christians were JEWS. Acts says they continued to go DAILY to the temple. Jesus said he came to change NOTHING, "until all things are accomplished". They STILL ARE NOT. (Not one jot or tittle etc). Your exegesis is 100 % FALSE.

I will paste an outline of Romans at the bottom of this post if you want to educate yourself.

We are FAR more educated,as has been demonstrated in this thread, than you. You are a presuppositionist are are unable to approach anything without your bias.

In the New Testament, there is a general teaching that all sins are offenses against God and that sin, in any form, separates humans from God.

So you're saying that telling a "white lie" separates one from the love of your god, who has OCD ? LMAO.

While there is no explicit teaching that one sin is universally worse than another in terms of its separation from God, there are passages that suggest that some sins may have more significant consequences or are particularly harmful in certain contexts.

Actually sins in the OT are very precisely and explicitly said too have very specific ranks, but since you have no education in the Bible you are totally oblivious and ignorant of what they are.

Show ContentSpoiler:

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behaviors is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

Forgiveness "through Christ" is not what Jesus preached. He told the young man in Matthew to "keep the commandments". That's it.

Forgiveness through Christ: The central message of the New Testament is that through faith in Jesus Christ, forgiveness and reconciliation with God are possible for all sinners, regardless of the nature or extent of their sins (e.g., Romans 5:8; 1 John 1:9).

No. The Jews already had a sacrificial-temple system, and that was NEVER the function of a Jewish messiah. You made that up.

Hilarious he preaches the New Testament, yet nothing from the 4 gospels.
LMAO.

Thanks for the sermon Old Fella.
Copy-pasta from your religious site ?
Preaching the Gospel of Paul of Tarsus we see, your religion's founder.
But too bad, you got it wrong.
Paul said that faith was a gift, and no one can boast, and salvation is not from works. For it is
by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so that no-one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that in them we might walk. (Eph 2:8-10)

It's not the gospel of Jesus, as Jesus was a Jew, and the role of a messiah was never about sin.

In the olden days where you are from Stevie, before the science of Psychology looked at the field of Human Sexuality, your ancient outdated views were common. Now we know better. Too bad you don't.
But since all you apparently read is books from 2000 years ago, it's not surprising.
Human sexual orientation is not a choice.
https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/cgi/view...e_projects
If you claim it is, tell us at what age you made the (moral) choice.

As a matter of fact, in Christian Moral Theology, an action cannot be a "moral matter" if no choice is involved. (You may learn that when you get an education).
The word and concept of "homosexuality" did not exist in Western ideas until the late 19th century. You should also learn about the continuum of sexual behaviors that most humans exhibit during their life-times. You can Google Alfred Kinsey to begin your education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminolog...ing%20'sex'.

"The first known public appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation"). The pamphlet was written by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, but published anonymously. It advocated the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws.[26] Kertbeny had previously used the word in a private letter written in 1868 to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Kertbeny used Homosexualität (in English, 'homosexuality') in place of Ulrichs' Urningtum; Homosexualisten ('male homosexualists') instead of Urninge, and Homosexualistinnen ('female homosexualists') instead of Urninden."

Sermon rejected. Nothing but ignorant propaganda.

As a matter of fact, same-sex relationships exist throughout nature. They're as natural as breathing.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190987/s...sexuality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...l_behavior
https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-W...ls-Science

[epronovost]

It is not the syllogism's fault. It is valid and clear enough if you don't read into what is not there.

No, your syllogism was complete and utter garbage. Nothing especially shameful, even philosopher with far more experience than you and I often fail at crafting good syllogism. Yes, to be valid, every step must be clearly defined. Yes, what is "not there" is of importance if what is not there leads to various interpretation. Let me show you how a little bit.

P1 is uncontroversial. This is the definition of objective morality. It is any moral principle that is NOT dependent on personal opinion or preference. The premise does not seek to establish how one is to do this--only the definition of objective.

If P1 is simply a definition of objective morality; then write P1 as followed:

P1: Morality is objective.

But then you have the problem that morality being objective is a macro-category which is itself seperated in at least two sub-category: Moral objectivism and moral universalism hence my questions. Which of those types of objective morality are we talking about? That might be very pertinent to thus make another proposition explaining which of the two we are specifically focusing on at that point.

For your syllogism to be valid we would have to hold it true, but the veracity of a position is not important for it's validity.

P2, again, you misunderstand what work the premise is doing in the syllogism. The premise is not intended to show that God is good. It is intended to simply state the normal, traditional conception of God and that it his nature that is good.

If you want to say god is good then just say that. But, I will be generous and say that you would probably want to define your god not just as good since even good people do bad things once in a while, you want god to be good all the time. So, let's go for:

P2: God is omnibenevolent.

But then you have to explain how is god omnibenevolent. Is he omnibenevolent because he always do what is right and best at all time or whatever he is or do is right and best. In the first version, good is a moral fact that exists independantly of God and upon which God has been judged and found to match all the time always thanks to his perfect nature and in the second, whatever God is is considered good. God doesn't match a standard, he is the standard. In both cases, God would be omnibenevolent. I suppose you prefer the second version as the first would make God more "reduntant" you wouldn't need God to have moral objectivity if you had a platonic ideal of good divorced from an actual being. 

C1 follow from the definition of objective (P1). As to your comments about P1 and what might be a method at arriving at objective morality, I would say that this syllogism shows the ONLY method to get to objective morality. There is no other methods because of the nature of morality, the conception of what is 'good' requires moral reasoning (definitionally subjective) unless some standard can exist outside of moral reasoning.

Then we get to C1:  Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences. This is terrible because it doesn't follow directly from the first two directly. There are missing propositions. To get there.

For example, your C1 mentions that morality is grounded in God's nature and not in his personal opinions or preferences, but opinions and preferences are commonly understood part of someone's nature. My opinions and preferences are, after all, part of who I am. They are part of my identity both as a human in general and as specific human being. This is problematic since it makes God's nature undefined and you would need a proposition that establish clearly what is God's nature. The other problem is similar is that your C1 mentions again objective morality is too poorly and broadly defined by P1. So P2 should probably be about God's nature.

Then there is the problem of mechanism by which objective morality, the idea that good and evil are facts, are attached to God's nature (and supposedly not to his opinon or preferences which, unlike for us, are not part of his nature). If God's nature is to be understood as some sort of platonic ideal of good, then what does good mean in that context? Good and evil is generally attributed to actions, thoughts or events; the problem is that your restricted definition of "God's nature" seem to appeal to some sort of platonic essence and not the result of an active agent, yet action of agents are what we commonly qualify good and evil. There should thus be a P3 and perhapse a P4 (or even P5) to define the mechanism that relates to God being omnibenevolent and good being objective. There are several valid pathways there as mentionned before so you can establish your C1. 

PS: moral reasoning is not definitionally subjective (since reasoning are based on prior facts and logic) and to arrive at your definition of objective morality, god and other things, you used moral reasoning which means that your definition of God, being created and understood through moral reasoning, would be subjective. That's the problem of sawing the branch on which you stand. Now your entire syllogism devolves into non-sense. It also leads you to a fallacy of motivated thinking. If the nature of morality, the conception of what is good requires moral reasoning (which you consider subjective) and the only thing allowing moral objectivity is to reason into existence a platonic standard of good upon which all will be judged, then it seems to me you are denying a reality right in front of your nose and grasping at straws, using further, weaker reasoning to try and get out of that self-made logical trap. You seem to be starting from a set belief that morality is based on God's nature and work your way down to, morality thus being objective thanks to your definition of God and finally to an ethics of Divine Command based on God's revelations and commands. Or even more accurately, starting from a bunch of divine commands, revelations and an ethics of Divine Command to the beleif that morality is based on God's nature and finally to morality being objective.

[SteveII]

As an illustration on how that works out: in the past 75 years or so, we have have moved as a society from a belief in what it meant to be human was to ask the big metaphysical questions and then behavior flows from how you answered these 'big' questions (so if not overtly Christian, compatible with Christianity). Today we have the opposite--using desires and behavior to inform you about what it means to be human. Behaviors are now celebrated as being the 'authentic' you. This is not compatible with Christianity.

This is completely false and shows, once again, that you know very little about modern or Ancient philosophy. Plus, the idea that Christian beliefs flows from the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity that cares about humanity and wishes to have relationship with it in particular and in general is dubious at best. Early Christians were not even in agreement if Jesus was actually divine or just a simple normal man with some good ideas. The early Hebrews of the pre and post Babylonian Exile did not believe their God was such a God. They very much thought their God could be vengeful, violent and cruel. To them, cruelty, violence and power were too closely tied together that to have a being of power that would never display such traits was impossible and contradictory. To them, people with power MUST be cruel or vengeful else they are not truly powerful and God MUST be powerful. Even many Medieval Christians perceived God as an entity capable of monstruous cruelty and violence.

I have no idea how that connects to the comment above, but anyway, you are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about because you do not know very much about the contents of the Bible--so when you assert things like this, is sounds like you are reading off of the "What's the most outlandish characterization we can make about Christians and their God" atheist bullet list created by someone who never actually read the Bible.

Anyway, your sources would be appreciated. I get to use the actual Bible:

Psalms 23
1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3 He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk through the valley
of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
forever.

In case you think I am cherry-picking, read any other 10 random Psalms (of the 150) and tell me what the people thought of God.

Have you ever read Proverbs?

Have you ever read Ecclesiastes?

Maybe you will reply that these are hundreds of years later. So let's go to Moses in Deuteronomy 28 at the very founding of their nation speech:

1If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God:
3You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.
4The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
5Your basket and your kneading trough will be blessed.
6You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out.
7The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven.
8The Lord will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The Lord your God will bless you in the land he is giving you.
9The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him. 10Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you. 11The Lord will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you.
12The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. 13The Lord will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. 14Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them.

Even with the promises of punishment in the next chapter, your characterization of their belief is just silly nonsense.

Did you know that Job was probably the oldest book of the OT? (pre-Israelites) The concept of God is thoroughly explored with even a conversation between Job and God. Interesting book.

The idea that God was all good, all powerful and all knowing is something that emerged later in Christianity, during the Middle Ages and got accepted by almost all Christian groups during the Renaissance. The little cartoon that Minimalist posted earlier in the thread, while allegorical, does shows fairly well that the vision of God, even within a single religion, has changed a lot as it adapted to the era to take on different forms.

I had to call this claim out separately. This is more utter nonsense. The OT was a wee bit earlier than the Middle Ages: God is depicted as all-knowing (Psalm 147:5), all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), and all-good (Psalm 100:5) just to show one of each. I would refer you again to the entire book of Job (thought to be the oldest book)

The NT is full of God's perfect goodness (Mark 10:18), his power (Romans 1:20) and his knowledge of even the heart of men (1 John 3:20) to list three more.

Early Christian theologians articulated these attributes. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD) and Origen (c. 184-253 AD) discussed God's attributes in their writings.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) extensively discussed God's nature and these specific attributes in his work "Confessions".

I don't see anything that Minimalist (or anyone excessively obnoxious for that matter) ever types so I don't know what the cartoon did or did not portray--but knowing the source, I highly doubt it was instructive on Christian belief.

[Bucky Ball]

I had to call this claim out separately. This is more utter nonsense. The OT was a wee bit earlier than the Middle Ages: God is depicted as all-knowing (Psalm 147:5), all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), and all-good (Psalm 100:5) just to show one of each. I would refer you again to the entire book of Job (thought to be the oldest book)

The NT is full of God's perfect goodness (Mark 10:18), his power (Romans 1:20) and his knowledge of even the heart of men (1 John 3:20) to list three more.

Early Christian theologians articulated these attributes. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD) and Origen (c. 184-253 AD) discussed God's attributes in their writings.

Irenaeus also said that the reason 4 gospels were chosen was because there are four winds and four pillars on which the Earth stands. LOLOL

The New Testament is full of Christian lies.
John 14:13-17 "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it."

LOL

[SteveII]

The Bible is a collection of 66 different books that include various literary genres and different styles of writing, such as historical narrative, mytho-history, poetry, prophecy, parables, letters, and apocalyptic literature. When the text talks about talking serpents and magical trees (as in Genesis) or "all the trees of the fields will clap there hands" (as in Psalms), or the dragon and the rider on a horse with a sword coming out of his mouth (as in Revelations), I think we can apply some common sense.

It's important to recognize that discussions of mytho-history in the Bible often depend on one's theological and scholarly perspective. Some see these narratives as conveying essential theological truths, while others may interpret them more as symbolic or mythical expressions of ancient belief systems. The approach one takes often depends on their stance within the fields of biblical studies and theology.

Wouldn't common sense dictate that the idea of Original Sin, redemption by divine blood sacrifices, Jesus' miracles and transfiguration are just as fantastic and fantasist as talking snakes and donkeys, global floods and people being turned into pillars of salts? One is not more credible than the other on the face of it. It seems to me that you are describing cherry picking more than a rational methodology like the historical method or philology for example. Under such terms, I find your conviction of the worth of biblical literature beyond its artistic and cultural value very perplexing.

There are building blocks to understanding a complicated thing like the Christian religion (maybe one of the most complicated concepts ever). You need to start with the basics. Here is a good 5 minute video on what the Bible is.

[Thethingaboutitis]

Steve. How do you feel about spending eternity with murderers rapists and paedophiles? Is god just in your opinion?
Please explain to me in simple terms why you think that god's justice system if fair and not abhorrent.

I'm interested in how you manage to square it in your mind.

[Bucky Ball]

Your internal state of love is a subjective experience. It is an opinion. That you have that internal state, when it can be tested, becomes an objective fact (or not). So, the presence of that internal state might well show up on a brain scan and thereby becomes an objective question. Your actions can  also betray the existence of that internal state and are objective facts.

Wouldn't common sense dictate that the idea of Original Sin, redemption by divine blood sacrifices, Jesus' miracles and transfiguration are just as fantastic and fantasist as talking snakes and donkeys, global floods and people being turned into pillars of salts? One is not more credible than the other on the face of it. It seems to me that you are describing cherry picking more than a rational methodology like the historical method or philology for example. Under such terms, I find your conviction of the worth of biblical literature beyond its artistic and cultural value very perplexing.

There are building blocks to understanding a complicated thing like the Christian religion (maybe one of the most complicated concepts ever). You need to start with the basics. Here is a good 5 minute video on what the Bible is.

And of course Elder Stevie completely understands this "maybe the most complicated concept ever", and is here to preach it to you and help you, and he is one of the rare few who does get this *very very* complex bullshit. In fact his entire identity is clearly wrapped up in this complicated bullshit. He's suffering from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect
as his ignorance of the OT clearly demonstrates.

[SteveII]

Steve. How do you feel about spending eternity with murderers rapists and paedophiles? Is god just in your opinion?
Please explain to me in simple terms why you think that god's justice system if fair and not abhorrent.

I'm interested in how you manage to square it in your mind.

I'm almost sure this is not an honest question. But...

First, some background.

The concept of the four chapters of human history—Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration—is a framework often used in Christian theology to understand the overarching narrative of human existence as presented in the Bible. These four chapters provide a theological perspective on the human journey from the beginning to the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan. Here's a more detailed explanation of each chapter:

1. Creation: This is the opening chapter of the biblical narrative and sets the stage for all that follows. According to the Bible, God created the world and everything in it, declaring it "good." The creation account in Genesis emphasizes the inherent goodness of God's work and the unique place of humanity within it. Humans were created in the image of God, reflecting His attributes and given the responsibility to steward and care for the earth. This chapter celebrates the harmonious relationship between God, humanity, and the created world.

2. Fall: The Fall represents the pivotal moment in human history when sin entered the world. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve, the first human beings, disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. This act of rebellion introduced sin, brokenness, and separation from God into the world. The Fall disrupted the perfect harmony of Creation, leading to consequences such as suffering, death, and moral decay. It highlights all humanity's need for redemption and reconciliation with God.

3. Redemption: This chapter centers on God's response to the Fall. God's plan for redemption involves the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, came to reconcile humanity to God by atoning for their sins. Through faith in Jesus, people can experience forgiveness, reconciliation, and new life. The redemption narrative emphasizes God's love, grace, and the hope of salvation for those who trust in Him.

4. Restoration: The final chapter envisions the ultimate restoration of all things. It looks forward to a future in which God will fully reconcile and renew the entire creation. This concept is often associated with the biblical idea of the "new heaven and new earth" described in Revelation, where God's kingdom is fully realized, and there is no more sin, suffering, or death. The Restoration narrative brings hope and a vision of a world where God's original intentions for Creation are fully realized, and humanity lives in perfect harmony with God and each other.

These four chapters provide a theological framework for understanding human history and God's plan for humanity and necessary to understand when talking about sin and redemption.

So in that context, on to your specific question: who will be in heaven? Every last one of them will be former sinners, who have had a genuine experience of God and followed through on pursuing a relationship with him. If God accepts and forgives them, what in the world would be the basis of my complaint? The context of your question implies that you think some sins are worse than others are. Sure they are in the consequences that have in the real world and some are way more consequential than others. But positionally, we are all the same to God.

True story. My dad (retired pastor) visits David Berkowitz (look him up if you don't know who that is) a few times a year in upstate NY prison for a couple of decades now (they are exactly the same age). Berkowitz leads Bible studies and helps other inmates survive and find a purpose in God ever single day of his life for decades. He actually does not feel he should be paroled and tells the committee that every time his turn comes around because he believes he belongs in prison for the rest of his life. He lives with the consequences of his early life decisions and has made the best life he can doing the most good he can until he gets to heaven. Why would I complain to God about that? In the eyes of God, we are the same: repentant sinners.

Of course, your question was most likely just a form of entertainment, but...just in case, I answered.

[Bucky Ball]

There is not a shred of evidence for any "fall".
It's nothing but invented shit, they used when the end-times did not happen that Jesus and Paul predicted.
It was never a part of Jewish thought, nor Christian thought. Jesus never said a word about it, LATER additions).
It's nothing but LATER Christian BS. It's exactly what Stevie said he did not buy this AM. LATER additions.
He doesn't even know when they first stuck it in Christian thought.

[epronovost]

I have no idea how that connects to the comment above, but anyway, you are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about because you do not know very much about the contents of the Bible

The Bible isn't Christianity Steve. I am talking to you about the belief and the conception of God by Christians in centuries past. The vision of God is not based only on scriptures nor are the treaties of theologians. Religions are organic things and for the immense majority of Christian history most Christians were illiterate and educated in religion by barely literate priests in the first place. The Bible isn't the best or "truest place" where God resides and is defined.

Did you know that Job was probably the oldest book of the OT? (pre-Israelites) The concept of God is thoroughly explored with even a conversation between Job and God. Interesting book.

Indeed, it's a quite interesting book since in it, God is neither all powerful nor all knowing, definitely an active agent in people's lives and absolutely not all good either. It depicts God as a king, ready to make bets with his own servents. As is the saying in Isaiah where God is described as the creator of all evil and darkness (and of light too which is mirrored in the Alpha and Omega speach of Revelation) which indicates that God being all good is not in his nature though the later quote make claims to omnipotence that God doesn't display in Job. We could quote God calling himself vengeful and jealous; not exactly the nicest of all traits which he does in multiple occasions. Then we could quote several passages where God commands genocides to round the list of a not so benevolent divinity. Then there is the largely non-scriptural doctrine of hell which makes the entire thing even more dubious.

Then I could quote God's defeat to Hittites, the fiasco of the Garden of Eden, the fear of the tower of Babel to show his lack of omnipotence, the failed prophecy surrounding the city of Tyre as signs that God's omnipotence and omniscience are not quite perfect. We could argue about God and the strange wrestling match in Genesis, but that's an entirely other story.

A great passage that shows that God may not always be all great, all wise and all powerful nature of God can also be seen in the shifting last words of Jesus on the cross with Mark and Matthew having him cry out: "My God why have you forsaken me!". This seems to both show God as cruel and Jesus as a simple man and is often referred as such by theologians though some others have attempted some fairly original mental gymnastic about sin transference and dubious magical rules.

Clearly, you don't know much about the content of the Bible if you think that God is consistently being presented as a being of absolute power, wisdom and benevolence. It's hard to take seriously when God screams that he is jealous, wrathful and vengeful that he infinitely good and compassionate because that's what some other people in other texts have said about God. Unless of course, after excusing genocide, you will start to justify jealousy and vengeance as actually good things too.

Sure, in your conception and reading of Scripture God is all those things, but there is just one problem with it. Your conception and reading of scripture is neither the only one nor, de facto, the best one. It's just a point of view with some scriptural justification, but I to can justify the existence of a imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible.

[Bucky Ball]

Genesis 6:7. t
"The LORD said,
I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

The Bible says God is not omniscient.
He couldn't even do what he said he was going to do. Then he changed his mind again, after deciding to get rid of various animals.

[SteveII]

It is not the syllogism's fault. It is valid and clear enough if you don't read into what is not there.

No, your syllogism was complete and utter garbage. Nothing especially shameful, even philosopher with far more experience than you and I often fail at crafting good syllogism. Yes, to be valid, every step must be clearly defined. Yes, what is "not there" is of importance if what is not there leads to various interpretation. Let me show you how a little bit.

P1 is uncontroversial. This is the definition of objective morality. It is any moral principle that is NOT dependent on personal opinion or preference. The premise does not seek to establish how one is to do this--only the definition of objective.

If P1 is simply a definition of objective morality; then write P1 as followed:

P1: Morality is objective.

But then you have the problem that morality being objective is a macro-category which is itself seperated in at least two sub-category: Moral objectivism and moral universalism hence my questions. Which of those types of objective morality are we talking about? That might be very pertinent to thus make another proposition explaining which of the two we are specifically focusing on at that point.

For your syllogism to be valid we would have to hold it true, but the veracity of a position is not important for it's validity.

P2, again, you misunderstand what work the premise is doing in the syllogism. The premise is not intended to show that God is good. It is intended to simply state the normal, traditional conception of God and that it his nature that is good.

If you want to say god is good then just say that. But, I will be generous and say that you would probably want to define your god not just as good since even good people do bad things once in a while, you want god to be good all the time. So, let's go for:

P2: God is omnibenevolent.

But then you have to explain how is god omnibenevolent. Is he omnibenevolent because he always do what is right and best at all time or whatever he is or do is right and best. In the first version, good is a moral fact that exists independantly of God and upon which God has been judged and found to match all the time always thanks to his perfect nature and in the second, whatever God is is considered good. God doesn't match a standard, he is the standard. In both cases, God would be omnibenevolent. I suppose you prefer the second version as the first would make God more "reduntant" you wouldn't need God to have moral objectivity if you had a platonic ideal of good divorced from an actual being. 

C1 follow from the definition of objective (P1). As to your comments about P1 and what might be a method at arriving at objective morality, I would say that this syllogism shows the ONLY method to get to objective morality. There is no other methods because of the nature of morality, the conception of what is 'good' requires moral reasoning (definitionally subjective) unless some standard can exist outside of moral reasoning.

Then we get to C1:  Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences. This is terrible because it doesn't follow directly from the first two directly. There are missing propositions. To get there.

For example, your C1 mentions that morality is grounded in God's nature and not in his personal opinions or preferences, but opinions and preferences are commonly understood part of someone's nature. My opinions and preferences are, after all, part of who I am. They are part of my identity both as a human in general and as specific human being. This is problematic since it makes God's nature undefined and you would need a proposition that establish clearly what is God's nature. The other problem is similar is that your C1 mentions again objective morality is too poorly and broadly defined by P1. So P2 should probably be about God's nature.

Then there is the problem of mechanism by which objective morality, the idea that good and evil are facts, are attached to God's nature (and supposedly not to his opinon or preferences which, unlike for us, are not part of his nature). If God's nature is to be understood as some sort of platonic ideal of good, then what does good mean in that context? Good and evil is generally attributed to actions, thoughts or events; the problem is that your restricted definition of "God's nature" seem to appeal to some sort of platonic essence and not the result of an active agent, yet action of agents are what we commonly qualify good and evil. There should thus be a P3 and perhapse a P4 (or even P5) to define the mechanism that relates to God being omnibenevolent and good being objective. There are several valid pathways there as mentionned before so you can establish your C1. 

PS: moral reasoning is not definitionally subjective (since reasoning are based on prior facts and logic) and to arrive at your definition of objective morality, god and other things, you used moral reasoning which means that your definition of God, being created and understood through moral reasoning, would be subjective. That's the problem of sawing the branch on which you stand. Now your entire syllogism devolves into non-sense. It also leads you to a fallacy of motivated thinking. If the nature of morality, the conception of what is good requires moral reasoning (which you consider subjective) and the only thing allowing moral objectivity is to reason into existence a platonic standard of good upon which all will be judged, then it seems to me you are denying a reality right in front of your nose and grasping at straws, using further, weaker reasoning to try and get out of that self-made logical trap. You seem to be starting from a set belief that morality is based on God's nature and work your way down to, morality thus being objective thanks to your definition of God and finally to an ethics of Divine Command based on God's revelations and commands. Or even more accurately, starting from a bunch of divine commands, revelations and an ethics of Divine Command to the beleif that morality is based on God's nature and finally to morality being objective.

Wow. I have been doing this for year and years. It might not be perfect, but it certainly is adequate to explain the Christian view. You need to study somehow on what a syllogism is an is not.

For reference, here is the original.

    The Christian Belief:
    P1: Objective morality is based on unchanging, inherent principles that are not dependent on personal opinions or preferences.
    P2: God possesses an unchanging, inherent moral nature that is inherently good.
    C1: Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences.

No, P1 cannot be "Morality is objective". Because morality is not objective. That is a bold assertion and would be question begging in this context. The syllogism is exploring whether there is a basis for objective morality. There are often premises in a syllogism that just define things so everyone is on the same page. My P1 is just a definition. It makes no claims.

Your modified P2 is not true. God is not simply omnibenevolent. It is why he is omnibenevolent that is important. It is his inherent nature that he is so. There are no choices involved. I understand you want to say that opinions can describe something that cannot change or be different, but that's just you wanting to salvage your argument and not really the definition. This is what you are not getting: God's goodness is like his omnipotence. That is not something you choose or is an opinion. It is something you are. I have exhausted my ability to re-explain this at least 8 times. I am not making this up. Go research. Ask ChatGPT to "explain how God's goodness is conceived to be part of his nature and not his opinions." --type that exact thing in. Ask it any followup questions you have.

My C1 follows from my premises. If you change them, of course they don't follow--you destroyed the syllogism.

Moral reasoning will always be subjective without God because I can ask you why something is wrong. Then you will answer and I ask why that answer is true, and you answer again, and I ask why that third answer is the case. I can do that again and again until you will eventually get to "because" and have no satisfactory stopping place. Go ahead, try it.

[Bucky Ball]

No, your syllogism was complete and utter garbage. Nothing especially shameful, even philosopher with far more experience than you and I often fail at crafting good syllogism. Yes, to be valid, every step must be clearly defined. Yes, what is "not there" is of importance if what is not there leads to various interpretation. Let me show you how a little bit.


If P1 is simply a definition of objective morality; then write P1 as followed:

P1: Morality is objective.

But then you have the problem that morality being objective is a macro-category which is itself seperated in at least two sub-category: Moral objectivism and moral universalism hence my questions. Which of those types of objective morality are we talking about? That might be very pertinent to thus make another proposition explaining which of the two we are specifically focusing on at that point.

For your syllogism to be valid we would have to hold it true, but the veracity of a position is not important for it's validity.


If you want to say god is good then just say that. But, I will be generous and say that you would probably want to define your god not just as good since even good people do bad things once in a while, you want god to be good all the time. So, let's go for:

P2: God is omnibenevolent.

But then you have to explain how is god omnibenevolent. Is he omnibenevolent because he always do what is right and best at all time or whatever he is or do is right and best. In the first version, good is a moral fact that exists independantly of God and upon which God has been judged and found to match all the time always thanks to his perfect nature and in the second, whatever God is is considered good. God doesn't match a standard, he is the standard. In both cases, God would be omnibenevolent. I suppose you prefer the second version as the first would make God more "reduntant" you wouldn't need God to have moral objectivity if you had a platonic ideal of good divorced from an actual being. 


Then we get to C1:  Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences. This is terrible because it doesn't follow directly from the first two directly. There are missing propositions. To get there.

For example, your C1 mentions that morality is grounded in God's nature and not in his personal opinions or preferences, but opinions and preferences are commonly understood part of someone's nature. My opinions and preferences are, after all, part of who I am. They are part of my identity both as a human in general and as specific human being. This is problematic since it makes God's nature undefined and you would need a proposition that establish clearly what is God's nature. The other problem is similar is that your C1 mentions again objective morality is too poorly and broadly defined by P1. So P2 should probably be about God's nature.

Then there is the problem of mechanism by which objective morality, the idea that good and evil are facts, are attached to God's nature (and supposedly not to his opinon or preferences which, unlike for us, are not part of his nature). If God's nature is to be understood as some sort of platonic ideal of good, then what does good mean in that context? Good and evil is generally attributed to actions, thoughts or events; the problem is that your restricted definition of "God's nature" seem to appeal to some sort of platonic essence and not the result of an active agent, yet action of agents are what we commonly qualify good and evil. There should thus be a P3 and perhapse a P4 (or even P5) to define the mechanism that relates to God being omnibenevolent and good being objective. There are several valid pathways there as mentionned before so you can establish your C1. 

PS: moral reasoning is not definitionally subjective (since reasoning are based on prior facts and logic) and to arrive at your definition of objective morality, god and other things, you used moral reasoning which means that your definition of God, being created and understood through moral reasoning, would be subjective. That's the problem of sawing the branch on which you stand. Now your entire syllogism devolves into non-sense. It also leads you to a fallacy of motivated thinking. If the nature of morality, the conception of what is good requires moral reasoning (which you consider subjective) and the only thing allowing moral objectivity is to reason into existence a platonic standard of good upon which all will be judged, then it seems to me you are denying a reality right in front of your nose and grasping at straws, using further, weaker reasoning to try and get out of that self-made logical trap. You seem to be starting from a set belief that morality is based on God's nature and work your way down to, morality thus being objective thanks to your definition of God and finally to an ethics of Divine Command based on God's revelations and commands. Or even more accurately, starting from a bunch of divine commands, revelations and an ethics of Divine Command to the beleif that morality is based on God's nature and finally to morality being objective.

Wow. I have been doing this for year and years. It might not be perfect, but it certainly is adequate to explain the Christian view. You need to study somehow on what a syllogism is an is not.

For reference, here is the original.

    The Christian Belief:
    P1: Objective morality is based on unchanging, inherent principles that are not dependent on personal opinions or preferences.
    P2: God possesses an unchanging, inherent moral nature that is inherently good.
    C1: Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences.

No, P1 cannot be "Morality is objective". Because morality is not objective. That is a bold assertion and would be question begging in this context. The syllogism is exploring whether there is a basis for objective morality. There are often premises in a syllogism that just define things so everyone is on the same page. My P1 is just a definition. It makes no claims.

Your modified P2 is not true. God is not simply omnibenevolent. It is why he is omnibenevolent that is important. It is his inherent nature that he is so. There are no choices involved. I understand you want to say that opinions can describe something that cannot change or be different, but that's just you wanting to salvage your argument and not really the definition. This is what you are not getting: God's goodness is like his omnipotence. That is not something you choose or is an opinion. It is something you are. I have exhausted my ability to re-explain this at least 8 times. I am not making this up. Go research. Ask ChatGPT to "explain how God's goodness is conceived to be part of his nature and not his opinions." --type that exact thing in. Ask it any followup questions you have.

My C1 follows from my premises. If you change them, of course they don't follow--you destroyed the syllogism.

Moral reasoning will always be subjective without God because I can ask you why something is wrong. Then you will answer and I ask why that answer is true, and you answer again, and I ask why that third answer is the case. I can do that again and again until you will eventually get to "because" and have no satisfactory stopping place. Go ahead, try it.

P2 is false and refuted in this thread.
Repeating lies does not make them true.
You can't say how or why whatever your logic is, applies to gods, and how you know this.

We get you've been doing this for years.
What is that called ? Argumentum per old age ?
Bored .. argument per nothing better to do ?

[Thethingaboutitis]

Steve. How do you feel about spending eternity with murderers rapists and paedophiles? Is god just in your opinion?
Please explain to me in simple terms why you think that god's justice system if fair and not abhorrent.

I'm interested in how you manage to square it in your mind.

I'm almost sure this is not an honest question. But...

First, some background.

The concept of the four chapters of human history—Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration—is a framework often used in Christian theology to understand the overarching narrative of human existence as presented in the Bible. These four chapters provide a theological perspective on the human journey from the beginning to the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan. Here's a more detailed explanation of each chapter:

1. Creation: This is the opening chapter of the biblical narrative and sets the stage for all that follows. According to the Bible, God created the world and everything in it, declaring it "good." The creation account in Genesis emphasizes the inherent goodness of God's work and the unique place of humanity within it. Humans were created in the image of God, reflecting His attributes and given the responsibility to steward and care for the earth. This chapter celebrates the harmonious relationship between God, humanity, and the created world.

2. Fall: The Fall represents the pivotal moment in human history when sin entered the world. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve, the first human beings, disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. This act of rebellion introduced sin, brokenness, and separation from God into the world. The Fall disrupted the perfect harmony of Creation, leading to consequences such as suffering, death, and moral decay. It highlights all humanity's need for redemption and reconciliation with God.

3. Redemption: This chapter centers on God's response to the Fall. God's plan for redemption involves the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, came to reconcile humanity to God by atoning for their sins. Through faith in Jesus, people can experience forgiveness, reconciliation, and new life. The redemption narrative emphasizes God's love, grace, and the hope of salvation for those who trust in Him.

4. Restoration: The final chapter envisions the ultimate restoration of all things. It looks forward to a future in which God will fully reconcile and renew the entire creation. This concept is often associated with the biblical idea of the "new heaven and new earth" described in Revelation, where God's kingdom is fully realized, and there is no more sin, suffering, or death. The Restoration narrative brings hope and a vision of a world where God's original intentions for Creation are fully realized, and humanity lives in perfect harmony with God and each other.

These four chapters provide a theological framework for understanding human history and God's plan for humanity and necessary to understand when talking about sin and redemption.

So in that context, on to your specific question: who will be in heaven? Every last one of them will be former sinners, who have had a genuine experience of God and followed through on pursuing a relationship with him. If God accepts and forgives them, what in the world would be the basis of my complaint? The context of your question implies that you think some sins are worse than others are. Sure they are in the consequences that have in the real world and some are way more consequential than others. But positionally, we are all the same to God.

True story. My dad (retired pastor) visits David Berkowitz (look him up if you don't know who that is) a few times a year in upstate NY prison for a couple of decades now (they are exactly the same age). Berkowitz leads Bible studies and helps other inmates survive and find a purpose in God ever single day of his life for decades. He actually does not feel he should be paroled and tells the committee that every time his turn comes around because he believes he belongs in prison for the rest of his life. He lives with the consequences of his early life decisions and has made the best life he can doing the most good he can until he gets to heaven. Why would I complain to God about that? In the eyes of God, we are the same: repentant sinners.

Of course, your question was most likely just a form of entertainment, but...just in case, I answered.

So from your response I can be assured that you as a human being would be completely comfortable spending eternity with some of the sickest individuals to ever walk the earth.
I suppose you'd be equally comfortable knowing that good honest people would be suffering at the same time.

 Steve this isn't good news by any stretch of the imagination in fact it's horrible and twisted however you try to justify it.

[epronovost]

Wow. I have been doing this for year and years. It might not be perfect, but it certainly is adequate to explain the Christian view. You need to study somehow on what a syllogism is an is not.

Then I am afraid you have been very bad at explaining "the Christian view". 

For reference, here is the original.

    The Christian Belief:
    P1: Objective morality is based on unchanging, inherent principles that are not dependent on personal opinions or preferences.
    P2: God possesses an unchanging, inherent moral nature that is inherently good.
    C1: Therefore, objective morality is grounded in God's nature and not in His personal opinions or preferences.

No, P1 cannot be "Morality is objective". Because morality is not objective. That is a bold assertion and would be question begging in this context. The syllogism is exploring whether there is a basis for objective morality. There are often premises in a syllogism that just define things so everyone is on the same page. My P1 is just a definition. It makes no claims.

So now, you are flip flopping again and are asserting that morality is not objective? Well, it's not the first of your contradiction so far, but I'll assume you "misspoke". 

Your P1 makes a claim since a definition can be claim too. These are not exclusive concept. In this definition you claim that objective morality is based on unchanging principles that are not dependent on personal opinions or preferences which is not the usually employed definition of objective morality. It's actually closer to the definition of moral universalism.

Your modified P2 is not true. God is not simply omnibenevolent. It is why he is omnibenevolent that is important. It is his inherent nature that he is so. There are no choices involved. I understand you want to say that opinions can describe something that cannot change or be different, but that's just you wanting to salvage your argument and not really the definition.  This is what you are not getting: God's goodness is like his omnipotence. That is not something you choose or is an opinion. It is something you are. I have exhausted my ability to re-explain this at least 8 times. I am not making this up. Go research.

The thing you keep failing to understand is that if God is not a moral agent, as in cannot be conscious and make moral choices, it can't be good as we commonly understand it. In such circumstances, you are turning God into a platonic construct and not a thinking, acting being. Is God a platonic construct? If yes, then you have a further problem because if you stated multiple times that you disliked or disbelieved transcendental religions/philosophy and Platonism is a transcendental conception of the world. Basically, God becomes good because he is good itself and all this good emanate from him. That's the very definition of platonic goodness. It also makes all forms of command from God impossible since you can't both be commanding actions and being an idealistic construct at the same time. If so, it would make the distinction between God's nature vs God's desires/preferences a distinction without a difference.

BTW: divine command theory is a form of ethical subjectivism that is opposed to the concept of moral realism (AKA objective morality).  

Ask ChatGPT to "explain how God's goodness is conceived to be part of his nature and not his opinions." --type that exact thing in. Ask it any followup questions you have.

Why the fuck would I ask questions of philosophy to a chatbot. You are aware that Chatgpt is not design to provide accurate information on any subject do you? It doesn't fact check itself nor does it have a database of facts let alone anything close to even the fairly basic Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia database. It's made to make conversations. If you ask it historical questions for example, it frequently makes mistake and you have to "educate it" and by that correct it with whatever you want and it won't be skeptical of you either so if you tell it lies or make mistakes it will repeat it to others or yourself. That's why you can't use ChatGPT for fact checking or research purpose. At best you can give it a bunch of research and make it hatch a resumé.

Moral reasoning will always be subjective without God because I can ask you why something is wrong. Then you will answer and I ask why that answer is true, and you answer again, and I ask why that third answer is the case. I can do that again and again until you will eventually get to "because" and have no satisfactory stopping place. Go ahead, try it.

How about non-cognitivism? How do you deal with those people who think moral axioms have no truth value thus are neither right nor wrong? What about moral nihilist who think that right and wrong are downright unknowable. You seem to think that morality is either objective or subjective, but that's overly simplistic and fails to grasp several whole branches of philosophical school on morality like centralism or non-cognitivism.

Plus, you yourself are falling into "because". You simply think your "because" is better than others because it's "because god says so". As if relying on a deity's authority makes it any better. You have failed to come up with anything else than "because God says so" to the question of why is homosexuality wrong (so far) for example and when asked why does God says it's wrong you find yourself at another "because says so" and when asked why you trust that "God says so" the answer was "I have faith in revelation and my particular interpretation of scriptures over all other possible interpretations".

But, just for the fun of it let's see if you are wrong.

"killing other humans is generally wrong". Why? Because such actions generally counters directly the objective of morality and the law of non-contradiction would prohibit both the killing of humans and the objective of morality to be harmonious. What is the objective of morality? For humans to flourish, prosper and generally be happy. Since cohesion, trust and cooperation are essential ingredients to human society for prosperity and a sense of love and security are essential elements for a sense of general happiness and killing other people generally harm those things it's the generally wrong to kill other humans since it goes against your own objective. Some exception may apply though hence the term generally; one such exception could be defense of self or others. Why is human flourishment, prosperity and general happiness the objective of morality? Because these are universal desires in humans and the need for moral rules, codes of ethics, etc. are required to manage interaction and conflict between humans which are inevitable since humans all have their own personal will, needs, opinions, tastes, desires and circumstances despite being gregarious. Moral and ethical codes are all trying to reach this lofty, broadly defined objective. A human mind is also complex enough to have conflicting wishes, needs and desires that need management. Why are humans like that? Because they evolved from other gregarious, emotionally complex creatures. Why do some people have different moral and ethical rules than me? Because, despite having the same broadly defined objective, they have their own circumstances, priorities and hypothesis as to how to reach a state of maximal/optimal happiness, prosperity, flourishment, etc. with the means available to them. That's why you have a multitude of different ethical and moral codes both in time and in geography; some of which were highly effective in the past are no longer as efficient since circumstances have changed, others have been abandoned as knowledge grew and provided better alternatives. "Killing other humans is generally wrong" is one of those simple moral axiom that has reached a universal status thanks to it's continued effectiveness at defending the objective of morality irrespective of circumstances. Not all moral principle have reached this universal state as humanity is still learning about itself and it's environment there are thus still many points of contentions despite massive points of agreement.

As you can see. I did not have to rely on a "because that's it and that's all" at any point. You can start poking holes in it (there are at least 2 weaknesses I would say).

Note that you are also appealing to the same objective for morality. The only difference between you and I is that you are personifying this lofty objective and subsuming it into your deity's nature, but that's basically putting lipstick on a pig. Note that even the process employed to arrive at correct moral axiom is also the same with you excusing and brushing aside the divine commands and punishment that don't jibe with your definition of god as this omnibenevolent being who it's in his nature to provide humanity with the perfect rules for happiness, prosperity, flourishment, etc. In my opinion, you are basically dressing up morality and trying to give an air of authority by appealing to that "costume" you have constructed, but you are not doing anything differently than anybody else on the planet and in the history of the humankind.

[pattylt]

Steve, I know why you think humans suffer but why do animals also? What is omnibenevolent about a god that makes animals suffer when they have no free will and cannot sin?

[Minimalist]

Anyway, your sources would be appreciated. I get to use the actual Bible:

That's your biggest problem, Stevie.  You rely on that pile of shit.

[Bucky Ball]

He claims to have come here for a discussion.
Yet, .... in spite of the fact that that his deity has been proven to be evil and NOT have "objective morality" he continues to preach it and proclaim it.
Obviously, nothing anyone here has to say is regarded as having any value.
He is not now, nor ever will be a member of this community.
He's worthwhile as a "fencing foil". That's about it.

[Dancefortwo]

He claims to have come here for a discussion.
Yet, .... in spite of the fact that that his deity has been proven to be evil and NOT have "objective morality" he continues to preach it and proclaim it.
Obviously, nothing anyone here has to say is regarded as having any value.
He is not now, nor ever will be a member of this community.
He's worthwhile as a "fencing foil". That's about it.

He's got so many people on ignore that it's not really a discussion.  I know I'm on ignore and several others are as well. You're probably one of his "ignore" people too.  The ignore button is a form of sticking his finger in his ear so he doesn't have to listen to arguments against his fairytale.

[Bucky Ball]

He claims to have come here for a discussion.
Yet, .... in spite of the fact that that his deity has been proven to be evil and NOT have "objective morality" he continues to preach it and proclaim it.
Obviously, nothing anyone here has to say is regarded as having any value.
He is not now, nor ever will be a member of this community.
He's worthwhile as a "fencing foil". That's about it.

He's got so many people on ignore that it's not really a discussion.  I know I'm on ignore and several others are as well. You're probably one of his "ignore" people too.  The ignore button is a form of sticking his finger in his ear so he doesn't have to listen to arguments against his fairytale.

I'm sure I am. It's his way of not answering the hard questions. He can't.
It's a badge of honor. It's funny, he really has next to no knowledge of the OT or wider comparative religions, and very little knowledge of the NT. All he can do is parrot his pre-packaged Christian BS. I really don't get what he thinks he's going to accomplish here. He's got nothing. It may fly where no one knows anything. It doesn't fly here. He's like 50 years behind the times.

[Minimalist]

I've been there for years.  I consider it a badge of honor to be ignored by idiots.

Meanwhile....I enjoy shitting on him and his god in absentia!