Divine Decree or the Opinion of Man

[Charlie24]

During WW!! the Nazi's were held responsible for the cold blooded murder of 6 million Jews. The soldiers that carried out this act in one form or another, claimed they could not be held responsible for this act because they they were carrying out orders from their superiors.

If there is no God and no Divine Decree from God, then these soldiers are correct. There would be no Divine Decree from a higher power that sets aside the opinions of man. Their charges of murder are based on opinion, one opinion vs another opinion. 

They were found guilty not based on opinion by man, but by the Divine Degree of God found in the 5th commandment of the Ten Commandments, "thou shall not kill/murder." The opinion of man was set aside with the Divine Decree of a higher power recognized.

If there is no God, then these murderers and all murderers cannot be brought to justice based on man's opinion vs mans' opinion. Basically, with no Divine Decree, what makes your opinion superior to my opinion? This would mean that the Law of the land would be based on the personal opinion of each person. And what would that world look like? I wouldn't want to be a part of it!

The same holds true in the abortion argument. If there is no God and no Divine Decree, then the woman who says she has the right to control her body and terminate her pregnancy if she so desires, she is correct. Who can argue that their opinion is superior to hers?

If there is no God and no Divine Decree, then the person who says, no, you don't have the right to terminate your pregnancy, is also correct. Who can argue that their opinion is superior to theirs.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then both of these opinions are set aside and the higher power takes authority on the matter.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then this higher power has spoken on the matter in Exodus 21:22-25. This higher power has said that if a woman's pregnancy is terminated by someone and it's an accident, the person responsible will pay restitution to that woman and here family. If a person intentionally causes the death in her womb, then that person is to be put to death.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then this higher power has placed cold blooded murder and the willful act of the destroying of a pregnancy in the same category. Both can be punished by death as capitol crimes.

So what do you think? Are we living in a world of law based on the opinion of man, or a world with Divine Decree from a higher power? My answer is both, as some can clearly see the Divine Decree and see it in operation, others will deny the Divine Decree and live their lives based on the Law of their own opinion's which can also be clearly seen.

[Dānu]

What the fuck are you babbling about?


The one has nothing to do with the other. Are you going to shitpost and then turn tail and run again?

[Charlie24]

What the fuck are you babbling about?


The one has nothing to do with the other.  Are you going to shitpost and then turn tail and run again?

When I'm not here, I'm not far away.

I will run from nothing, give it your best shot, Danu.

[Dānu]

Give what my best shot?

[Charlie24]

Give what my best shot?

The OP, I'm sure you have a rebuttal.

[Dānu]

Give what my best shot?

The OP, I'm sure you have a rebuttal.

GIGO.

[Charlie24]

The OP, I'm sure you have a rebuttal.

GIGO.

I know, it's tough. But I'm sure someone will come up with an Atheist viewpoint.

I'm prepared to meet that viewpoint head-on, I will not run from it!

[mordant]

Laws are based on harms or benefits to the sort of civil society desired by most people. The unprovable claim that there is a divine Command behind some law or other adds nothing at all to legitimize or support the law.

Soldiers and similar should IMO have some degree of protection from acts committed under orders, but it can only go so far. If I am a policeman and the policy says it's ever okay to shoot someone in the back who is unarmed and running away from me, I should not do that and I should accept the consequences if it's contrary to policy. Because it's wrong to be judge, jury and executioner for the terrible crime of panicking and running away from an officer. I saw this done in one particular instance where the person was running from a car they had abandoned. They had his license plate and registration (and the car) and could pick him up at leisure anytime, probably when the person had calmed down. He shouldn't have been shot dead on the spot.

Yes one could say this is my opinion and the policeman's or his department's opinion simply differs, but that's why we have courts of law, to sort out such different interpretations. It's also why some countries don't even routinely arm their officers of the peace, choosing to train them in de-escalation techniques and community policing instead. People can look at outcomes in those countries vs the US, for instance, and see what might work better, and work for systemic changes. If they choose to.

But arguing that god commands this or that is just asserting something that cannot be substantiated because it is literally unsubstantiatABLE. So it doesn't justify or prohibit anything except in between people's ears. Someone could say in my example, "be subject to authorities that god puts over you" but then the question is what "be subject" exactly means, whether an authority committing immoral acts is legitimately over anyone or within the will of some benevolent deity, or appointed contrary to that god's will. So again ... it clarifies exactly nothing.

You decry dueling opinions, and yet cannot recognize that you also hold an opinion. You can claim that opinion to be god's, and even some Christians will disagree with you, so it's dueling opinions all the way down.

Moral and ethical decisions require judgment and opinions and epistemological frameworks, inherently. Inserting some claim that god has an opinion (which happens to agree with you, lol) is not actually an attempt to avoid subjective opinions, it is an attempt to avoid difficult moral determinations that one must make for oneself.

[Charlie24]

Laws are based on harms or benefits to the sort of civil society desired by most people. The unprovable claim that there is a divine Command behind some law or other adds nothing at all to legitimize or support the law.

Soldiers and similar should IMO have some degree of protection from acts committed under orders, but it can only go so far. If I am a policeman and the policy says it's ever okay to shoot someone in the back who is unarmed and running away from me, I should not do that and I should accept the consequences if it's contrary to policy. Because it's wrong to be judge, jury and executioner for the terrible crime of panicking and running away from an officer. I saw this done in one particular instance where the person was running from a car they had abandoned. They had his license plate and registration (and the car) and could pick him up at leisure anytime, probably when the person had calmed down. He shouldn't have been shot dead on the spot.

Yes one could say this is my opinion and the policeman's or his department's opinion simply differs, but that's why we have courts of law, to sort out such different interpretations. It's also why some countries don't even routinely arm their officers of the peace, choosing to train them in de-escalation techniques and community policing instead. People can look at outcomes in those countries vs the US, for instance, and see what might work better, and work for systemic changes. If they choose to.

But arguing that god commands this or that is just asserting something that cannot be substantiated because it is literally unsubstantiatABLE. So it doesn't justify or prohibit anything except in between people's ears. Someone could say in my example, "be subject to authorities that god puts over you" but then the question is what "be subject" exactly means, whether an authority committing immoral acts is legitimately over anyone or within the will of some benevolent deity, or appointed contrary to that god's will. So again ... it clarifies exactly nothing.

You decry dueling opinions, and yet cannot recognize that you also hold an opinion. You can claim that opinion to be god's, and even some Christians will disagree with you, so it's dueling opinions all the way down.

Moral and ethical decisions require judgment and opinions and epistemological frameworks, inherently. Inserting some claim that god has an opinion (which happens to agree with you, lol) is not actually an attempt to avoid subjective opinions, it is an attempt to avoid difficult moral determinations that one must make for oneself.

What I have stated in the OP is not an opinion. There is a God or there is not a God, that is a fact!

This world has a Divine Decree from God, or it does not have it, that is a fact!

If there is a God, then He has given a Divine Decree found in His Word, that is a fact!

If there is not a God, then man is left without a Higher Power and makes his laws based on his opinion, that is a fact!

[Minimalist]

If there's a god he is as big an asshole as you, Charlie.


I prefer to give him credit and say simply that there is no god.  That puts you out there on your own!

[Charlie24]

If there's a god he is as big an asshole as you, Charlie.


I prefer to give him credit and say simply that there is no god.  That puts you out there on your own!

That is your opinion not based on a fact!

[Alan V]

Deleted. I forgot Charlie was an idiot.

[brewerb]

During WW!! the Nazi's were held responsible for the cold blooded murder of 6 million Jews. The soldiers that carried out this act in one form or another, claimed they could not be held responsible for this act because they they were carrying out orders from their superiors.

If there is no God and no Divine Decree from God, then these soldiers are correct. There would be no Divine Decree from a higher power that sets aside the opinions of man. Their charges of murder are based on opinion, one opinion vs another opinion. 

They were found guilty not based on opinion by man, but by the Divine Degree of God found in the 5th commandment of the Ten Commandments, "thou shall not kill/murder." The opinion of man was set aside with the Divine Decree of a higher power recognized.

If there is no God, then these murderers and all murderers cannot be brought to justice based on man's opinion vs mans' opinion. Basically, with no Divine Decree, what makes your opinion superior to my opinion? This would mean that the Law of the land would be based on the personal opinion of each person. And what would that world look like? I wouldn't want to be a part of it!

The same holds true in the abortion argument. If there is no God and no Divine Decree, then the woman who says she has the right to control her body and terminate her pregnancy if she so desires, she is correct. Who can argue that their opinion is superior to hers?

If there is no God and no Divine Decree, then the person who says, no, you don't have the right to terminate your pregnancy, is also correct. Who can argue that their opinion is superior to theirs.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then both of these opinions are set aside and the higher power takes authority on the matter.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then this higher power has spoken on the matter in Exodus 21:22-25. This higher power has said that if a woman's pregnancy is terminated by someone and it's an accident, the person responsible will pay restitution to that woman and here family. If a person intentionally causes the death in her womb, then that person is to be put to death.

If there is a God and a Divine Decree, then this higher power has placed cold blooded murder and the willful act of the destroying of a pregnancy in the same category. Both can be punished by death as capitol crimes.

So what do you think? Are we living in a world of law based on the opinion of man, or a world with Divine Decree from a higher power? My answer is both, as some can clearly see the Divine Decree and see it in operation, others will deny the Divine Decree and live their lives based on the Law of their own opinion's which can also be clearly seen.

When you provide concrete evidence for the existence of a god then, and only then, I'll give your query all the consideration that it's due.

[Charlie24]

If there's a god he is as big an asshole as you, Charlie.


I prefer to give him credit and say simply that there is no god.  That puts you out there on your own!

That is your opinion not based on a fact!

Just for the sake of saying.

The problem with the Atheists is that they choose to believe only half of the equation, that being the physical aspect.

Everything that God says and does as we read from the Scripture, has a two-fold meaning. There is the physical aspect and the spiritual aspect.

For example, lets look at the original creation of the first man (Adam). Notice the two-fold meaning of who the original man is when God is finished with him.

The Scripture states that God created the first man out of the dust of the earth. This is the physical aspect of man's original creation.

Then the Scripture says that God breathed into this man the Spirit of Life, and man became a living soul. This is the spiritual aspect of man's original creation.

The spiritual aspect of man is how God relates to man, not by the physical aspect.

So when I say there is a God in heaven, that is my personal opinion, I cannot show you a physical God. He does not reveal Himself or relate to man in the physical. He has chosen to have a spiritual relationship with man, from the spiritual aspect.

[Dānu]

If there is not a God, then man is left without a Higher Power and makes his laws based on his opinion, that is a fact!

False. Your understanding of ethics is that of a child. Go find a child to debate.

[Charlie24]

If there is not a God, then man is left without a Higher Power and makes his laws based on his opinion, that is a fact!

False.  Your understanding of ethics is that of a child.  Go find a child to debate.

You know the OP is reality. And yes, there are children who can understand this.

[Charlie24]

So what do you think? Are we living in a world of law based on the opinion of man, or a world with Divine Decree from a higher power?

First, I have seen no evidence that convinces me that any Divine power exists.  So that isn't even a real option.

Second, people who think they can speak for God are therefore incorrect.  They are among the most opinionated in a negative sense of the word.

Third, laws are therefore obviously based on men's opinions.  That, however, is the very foundation of democracies all over the world.  Since we recognize that all men are fallible, we opt for a system to minimize extremists of various sorts, including religious extremists, and to reach consensus.  Laws are therefore based on human interests, to maximize human flourishing while preserving individual rights.

Fourth, the laws we have constructed by democratic methods are constantly improving over time, along with new information and evidence.  Not all opinions deserve equal consideration.  Some opinions are well-informed, based on evidence and expertise.  We all must learn to recognize persuasive arguments based on such evidence or expertise to be useful citizens who contribute to our legal processes and who support our governments.

Fifth and finally, because opinions can be based on facts rather than, say, conspiracy theories or dogmas, the facts themselves are what determine whether our systems of laws work well or poorly.  When the laws don't work well, we can change them to work better.  That is pragmatism, and it has worked quite well over time.

Yes, the majority of Laws that work for man are ones based on the Divine Decree of God. The ones that don't work, search the Scriptures and you will find there is no Divine Decree by God for those man-made laws to work, being they are the opinions of man

You have no evidence of a physical God because you have chosen not to believe the spiritual aspect of God.

Read Post #14 for a better understanding.

[Charlie24]

Sorry guys but It's 2pm here and I have a doctors appointment in 45 minutes.

I will be back to address your posts when I get back.

Thanks for your participation in this thread.

[Alan V]

Deleted.

[Dānu]

False.  Your understanding of ethics is that of a child.  Go find a child to debate.

You know the OP is reality. And yes, there are children who can understand this.

Are you a mind reader? You don't even know as much as I know about ethics so you neither know nor understand what I think.

But by all means, continue the absurd and rude practice of Christians telling others what they believe. It just pegs you as a douche bag.

[Deesse23]

If there is a God, then He has given a Divine Decree found in His Word, that is a fact!

Nop

If there is not a God, then man is left without a Higher Power and makes his laws based on his opinion, that is a fact!

So what?

[Deesse23]

The problem with the Atheists is that they choose to believe only half of the equation, that being the physical aspect.

Unlike you, i dont choose my beliefs. Thats the problem with you.

[Deesse23]

You have no evidence of a physical God because you have chosen not to believe the spiritual aspect of God.

...and you have, right?
Like i said: Thats the problem with you.

[Rhythmcs]

Other posters might have already brought this up, and I just missed it, but when we set up some "divine decree vs opinions of man" dichotomy we might have already screwed the pooch. What is supposed to be the difference between the two, such that there's anything like a "vs" that could be credibly applied?

If we say that we could not reasonably side with one opinion or another, why would or should it matter if that opinion comes from a god or a man? To wit - let's posit that there is a god, just one god, your god - it has an opinion.... and you've correctly relayed it's opinion on x. That way we can dispense with any arguments or demands for evidence or anything not at all relevant to the central contention.

So what? Is the right-making property of an opinion who or what holds it, rather than any detail of the opinion?

[no one]

What OUTSIDE of your stupid book points to jebus dying for my sins? You know, like I can demonstrate the Doppler effect without using a science book.