Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

No, in this system, murder would be immoral if God exists *and* decides that murder is illegal. That isn't objectivity. That is using the subjectivity (or nature, if you will) of God to decide the matter.
If God had decided to make murder mandatory, then murder would be moral, even required.

So 4 times wasn't enough, let me try a fifth.

God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature, so His standard is absolute.
God is just and does judge sin. We all deserve to die for sin, including the Canaanites wiped out by Israel, who, according to Genesis 15:13–16, were given roughly 400 years to repent of their wickedness but did not (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:27). God has always perfectly balanced His justice and mercy—reserving His wrath for unrepentant, unbelieving sinners, and showing mercy to sinners who turn to Him in faith (Romans 4).

God Himself testified, “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). He didn’t ever think up a moral standard to decide right from wrong. Rather, His moral standard flows from His perfectly pure and holy nature. Since His nature is unchanging, His standard is absolute.

God cannot sin, so His standard is objective.
Remember that God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature. Because God’s nature is perfect and holy, He cannot sin, so His standard is objective. It is impossible for God to contradict Himself or act inconsistently with His own nature (2 Timothy 2:13).
The Source of Moral Absolutes

Christians, on the other hand, believe that moral norms come from God’s nature or essence. Rather than believing in some passing fancy bound to society’s ever-changing whims, as Christians we are committed to a specific moral order revealed to us through both general and special revelation.

We know that God’s ethical order is the only true source of morality, and, in fact, the only possible morality; there can be no other. “The human mind,” says C.S. Lewis, “has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”2 For the Christian, the moral order is as real as the physical order—some would say even more real. The Apostle Paul says the physical order is temporary, but the order “not seen” is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). This eternal moral order is a reflection of the character and nature of God Himself.
Christian Ethics

And *that* is the system I reject. The opinions of a deity, even one that created the universe and is all knowing, is irrelevant to humans and what is good for *us*. If God had decided that murder was moral, it would *still* be humanly immoral. If God decided that it was moral for you to kill your then in your system it would be moral. In mine, it would still be horribly immoral.

That is the ultimate difference between our systems.

Well, you kind of adopted a whole new concept but you at least got it right.

To start off with though; Without God there is no objective moral law giver, without a moral law giver there is no objective moral law, without an objective moral law there is no objective good or evil, if there is no objective good or evil then our actions are amoral. Without God there is no objective duty to be good nor objective duty to avoid evil, there is only amoral utilitilitarianism which we are failing at just as bad as every other political ideal.

However what you mentioned that was right, is that the nature of God determines what objective moral values and duties exist. Moral values and duties would depend on the nature of God. So we are right where all these discussions start and end. What kind of God (if any) is there the most evidence for? I believe the answer is Yahweh and his nature is well established. So your prohibition against murder can be grounded upon the eternal nature of God instead of the ever shifting sands of the latest social fashion. That is why the label for the west's moral foundations are referred to as Judeo-Christian more than any other. The west is built upon the morality of Jerusalem, the government of Athens, and the militarism and administration of Rome. Unfortunately in the last decade has been added the secular financial foundation of modern Greece or atheistic utopias.

 

[Polymath257]

So 4 times wasn't enough, let me try a fifth.

God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature, so His standard is absolute.

And how does that follow? First of all, how do moral standard 'follow from a nature'? Second, how does *that* make the standards objective? Why not look to a different nature for moral standard to flow from, like say, human nature? The advantage of that is that we know humans exist.

God is just and does judge sin. We all deserve to die for sin, including the Canaanites wiped out by Israel, who, according to Genesis 15:13–16, were given roughly 400 years to repent of their wickedness but did not (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:27). God has always perfectly balanced His justice and mercy—reserving His wrath for unrepentant, unbelieving sinners, and showing mercy to sinners who turn to Him in faith (Romans 4).

The problem is that being 'just' is simply to abide by God's nature. It has no relevance to whether humans are harmed or not.

God Himself testified, “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). He didn’t ever think up a moral standard to decide right from wrong. Rather, His moral standard flows from His perfectly pure and holy nature. Since His nature is unchanging, His standard is absolute.

The problem is that 'purity and holiness' does not imply a moral standard, *unless* we simply redefine morality to be abiding by God's nature. But that means that it could easily be the case that murder is moral. Or rape, or slavery. it all depends on the unknowable nature of God.

God cannot sin, so His standard is objective.

Again, a non sequitur. God cannot sin because he cannot go against his nature. And sinning is *defined* as going against God's nature, whether it is good for humans or not.

Remember that God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature. Because God’s nature is perfect and holy, He cannot sin, so His standard is objective. It is impossible for God to contradict Himself or act inconsistently with His own nature (2 Timothy 2:13).
The Source of Moral Absolutes

https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

OK, so what is the relevance of that to humans? It seems that learning human nature and finding out what is in the best long-term interests of humans is just as 'objective' and is a much batter basis of morality.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that moral norms come from God’s nature or essence.

Sorry, but how do rules of conduct follow from a 'nature'? That makes no sense.

Rather than believing in some passing fancy bound to society’s ever-changing whims, as Christians we are committed to a specific moral order revealed to us through both general and special revelation.

In other words, as interpreted by other fallible humans to promote their own power. Sorry, that doesn't hold water. Isn't it a better way to figure out what promotes human health and well-being? At least that is something we can potentially know and verify without special revelation.

We know that God’s ethical order is the only true source of morality, and, in fact, the only possible morality; there can be no other.

Again, a non seqitur. How is God's 'nature' and 'ethical order'? It isn't even a rule of conduct! So how can it be an ethical system?

“The human mind,” says C.S. Lewis, “has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”2 For the Christian, the moral order is as real as the physical order—some would say even more real. The Apostle Paul says the physical order is temporary, but the order “not seen” is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). This eternal moral order is a reflection of the character and nature of God Himself.
Christian Ethics

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-ethics.htm
Sounds like a contradiction to me. We can, and do imagine new colors (infra-red, ultra-violet, possibly new visual detectors for our eyes). We can, and do, invent new values to promote human well-being and happiness.

Well, you kind of adopted a whole new concept but you at least got it right.

To start off with though; Without God there is no objective moral law giver, without a moral law giver there is no objective moral law,

And I disagree. A moral law doens't need a consciousness to decree it any more than a physical law needs one. A moral law is a rule of conduct. The rules of conduct natural for *us are those that promote human well-being. Even if there was a deity that made the universe, the 'nature' of that deity would not produce moral laws.

without an objective moral law there is no objective good or evil, if there is no objective good or evil then our actions are amoral.

I'm not completely sure I even agree with that. Again, morality is *defined* as what is good for humanity, not what some deity wants or has as its nature. I see it as quite possible that the nature of a deity would be counter to what is good for humans. And, in that case, it is the human-centered morality that is the better, not that from the nature of a deity that is counter to our well-being.

Without God there is no objective duty to be good nor objective duty to avoid evil, there is only amoral utilitilitarianism which we are failing at just as bad as every other political ideal.

You keep saying that. But even utilitarianism isn't an amoral system. In fact, if done correctly (generalized to all people) it is a perfectly good moral system.

However what you mentioned that was right, is that the nature of God determines what objective moral values and duties exist. Moral values and duties would depend on the nature of God. So we are right where all these discussions start and end. What kind of God (if any) is there the most evidence for? I believe the answer is Yahweh and his nature is well established. So your prohibition against murder can be grounded upon the eternal nature of God instead of the ever shifting sands of the latest social fashion. That is why the label for the west's moral foundations are referred to as Judeo-Christian more than any other. The west is built upon the morality of Jerusalem, the government of Athens, and the militarism and administration of Rome. Unfortunately in the last decade has been added the secular financial foundation of modern Greece or atheistic utopias.

I see no evidence for Yahweh, or Allah, or Ahura Mazda. There is wishful thinking and faulty logic, but that is all.

So, we need to stand up and decide what is good for humans. We should discard those writings (of humans) that pretend to know the thoughts and nature of a fictional deity and concentrate on human problems and human solutions to those problems. Even *if* there was a deity, we would *still* have to do that.

 

[1robin]

I have been on break since the beginning of the month. Summer school starts on the 19th.

You mean the summer semester?

No more than the fact that people not washing hands leads to the spread of colds and flu. It *does* mean that we can significantly improve human well-being by finding a cure for AIDS. But you knew that also. It *does* mean that education and prevention programs are a good idea. I would also say that it is immoral to have unprotected sex without knowing your HIV status and communicating that with your partner. But that is as true for straights as it is for gays.

I don't think anyone ever failing to wash their hands has infected anyone with aids but who knows. But your right, in your system we are going to have to legislate at the point of a gun hand washing, working while symptomatic, the sanitization of all surfaces, and maximum speed limits of 5 mph. Maybe we should also tax people and provide enough bubble wrap to cover ourselves in every day.

I notice that you seem to demand a cure instead of condemn the cause, and you simply ignored a behavior which kills millions of humans for the sake of convenience. You do not seem willing to even apply your own standards.

Heterosexuality does justify it's risks within marriage, homosexuality does not have any benefit which justifies it's much higher risks. Along with the aids issue homosexuality also accompanies far higher rates of wreck less sexual behavior, sexual assault, promiscuity, other STDs, and physical damage. Did you know the average homosexual life span is 10 years plus lower than the average heterosexual life span? Abortion is simply industrialized murder.

If you are not going to even take your own standard seriously why should I. If you can't at least start by condemning homosexuality, abortion, and promiscuity in general then you are just proving Chesterton right when he said theists and atheist usually agree about what is wrong, atheists just disagree with us on which wrongs to excuse.

OK, so you don't think that human well-being is an objective standard? Would human health be one?

Both would be included but both would be subordinate to spiritual health, and neither would be objective without God.

You are now asking how we know what is moral and what is not. As you well know, that is a different thing than what morality is. For the *vast* majority of real world problems, there is a playoff between competing interests and thereby there may well not even be an objective answer. But I can attempt to answer your specific issues:

No I specifically said I would pretend for the heck of it that human well being was an objective moral standard, then asked what next?

Hitler's strategy would NOT have created a net gain *because* it is actually far better to interbreed various strains (hybrids tend to be more healthy) rather than select and breed a single strain (which tends to make the strain liable to being wiped out by a single disease).

Hitler was not trying to create an Arian only race, and the Arian race is a hybrid to begin with anyway. How do you know his policies would not eventually have led to great human well being. He only tried them for 4 years, while fighting a world war?

Sterilization of alcoholics wouldn't be good either since it doesn't prevent the harm they do during their lives and the hereditary aspect is much less important than the social aspect of alcoholism.

Ok, but we ought to at least get rid of all drinking alcohol at least, right?

As for welfare, we should figure out how to help those in single parent homes because no matter what happens, such homes will occur in cases where a parent dies. To not help others because of the fear of incentivising something that happens at a certain rate unavoidably is cruel and, again, not conducive to overall well-being. And you clearly understand that.

It had nothing to do with parent death. It has to do with the check getting bigger with every child had, and without having to factor in the man's income.

So you do agree it satisfies your criteria?

I do not understand the question.

While there may well be situations where we need to encourage or discourage people from going into dentistry, forcing people to do so would not be conducive to overall well-being, now would it?

We "discourage" people from drinking, promiscuity, and gluttony but our societies are all plagued by them. Are you going to make laws based on your standards or not? It very well could have a positive effect to force people to be dentists, that's the point no one knows any of these things, except that your criteria seems to demand our freedom be surrendered to your preference.

If, that is, Yahweh *decides* it is morally wrong. If Yahweh decides it is morally good, then it is morally good. Or, in your system, if murder agreed with God's nature, it would be moral.

Ok, for the 6th time.

This means that the creator of the cosmos acted according to his nature in creating the cosmos, including us. The Christian revelation is that God cannot deny himself - he cannot act in a manner that is contrary to his nature, which is love. So a moral philosophy based on love, the manifested nature of the creator God, would provide a principle for living that was unconditionally accepting, forgiving, tolerant, fostering, giving, and nurturing
Morality Based On God’s Nature Of Love

For the 6th time God's nature determines moral values and duties, God's commands simply reflect his objective eternal nature.

Again, it is stupid, not immoral. The promotion of gluttony would be immoral.

Your proving my point not your own. Your the one who said the goal of morality is human well being, gluttony is not conducive to well being, so by your own criteria is immoral.

OK, so what about his 'nature' shows that murder is immoral? What about his 'nature' shows that gluttony is immoral? For that matter, what about his 'nature' shows that compassion is moral?

The guy I quoted above is an atheist neuroscientist. He said God's nature is love, that's true, but God is also just. Most murders are motivated by hatred, and all murders are unjust.

GOOD! We agree!

It is an objective thing, but that alone is so irrelevant, it took me a long time to figure out that was what you were actually saying. Human well being is a thing, Saturn is a thing, quarks are probably things, cancer is a thing, etc.......However without God objective moral values and duties can't possible be things.

Yes, it is. It is an *objective* moral standard.

No without God it is a self centered amoral preference. With God probably is an objective moral standard but it is not the primary moral standard.

Yes, human well-being is an appropriate goal for morality. Do you really disagree? Since morality consists of that which we should do, do you really disagree that we should strive for human well-being?

Not if it in anyway works against human spiritual well being, and even then I do not think it is practical to apply, nor is it possible to universally apply.

You realize I am an atheist and a humanist, right? Do you realize how disconnected you are to what I am saying?

Without God all moral world views are equally vacuous concerning objective truth.
God specifically said that our faith would lead to our own suffering and lack of temporal well being in countless cases. Christians are to subordinate the well being of our flesh to out soul. Do you see how disconnected you are with the only ultimate hope humanity has.

You claim that morality cannot exist if there is no deity. I disagree and show how to define it objectively without a deity. You admit it is an objective thing I point to. And I suspect you agree it is moral. So how is it NOT an objective moral standard to *define* morality via human well-being? Is that not what we should strive for?

Nope, I said objective moral foundations cannot exist without God. I said human well being is an objective thing in the same way a chainsaw is an objective thing. Doesn't make either an objective moral thing. All of nature consists of objective things, none of them are moral things in or of themselves. See post #682 again.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean the summer semester?

Yes.

I don't think anyone ever failing to wash their hands has infected anyone with aids but who knows. But your right, in your system we are going to have to legislate at the point of a gun hand washing, working while symptomatic, the sanitization of all surfaces, and maximum speed limits of 5 mph. Maybe we should also tax people and provide enough bubble wrap to cover ourselves in every day.

Now stop and think a bit. Would having any of those required at gun point actually increase human well-being? Doesn't the very fact that they would be at gun point detract from that well-being? Significantly?

I notice that you seem to demand a cure instead of condemn the cause, and you simply ignored a behavior which kills millions of humans for the sake of convenience. You do not seem willing to even apply your own standards.

The *cause* is a virus.

Heterosexuality does justify it's risks within marriage, homosexuality does not have any benefit which justifies it's much higher risks.

On the contrary, it has benefits as a way of bonding gays together in lasting relationships. And yes, gays can and do have long lasting relationships. And heterosexuality has benefits outside of marriage in the same ways. In fact, the risk of procreation is an issue in heterosexual relationships that is not present in homosexual ones. For those who do not wish to procreate, that is a HUGE benefit. Fortunately, there is birth control so people can have the benefits of sex (closer relationships, better mental health) without at least one of the big deterrents. Yes, sexually transmitted diseases are also a harm and we should encourage behaviors that restrict them: use of condoms, knowing a partners health status, communication, etc.

Along with the aids issue homosexuality also accompanies far higher rates of wreck less sexual behavior, sexual assault, promiscuity, other STDs, and physical damage. Did you know the average homosexual life span is 10 years plus lower than the average heterosexual life span? Abortion is simply industrialized murder.

Fortunately, your biases do not translate into what actual behavior is seen. I know that gays can have long-term devoted relationships just as straights can. In such, the risk of diseases is greatly reduced or eliminated. Sexual assault is a problem universally and is to be denounced no matter who is assaulted.

If you are not going to even take your own standard seriously why should I. If you can't at least start by condemning homosexuality, abortion, and promiscuity in general then you are just proving Chesterton right when he said theists and atheist usually agree about what is wrong, atheists just disagree with us on which wrongs to excuse.

Homosexuality on average does promote human well-being, just as sexuality in general does. While there will always be people who are irresponsible in their sexuality (and we should condemn them) and hurt others, this is far from the norm whether in gay or straight communities. Remember that abortion is a strong benefit to even married couples who find themselves pregnant and do not wish to have children.

Both would be included but both would be subordinate to spiritual health, and neither would be objective without God.

Again, I disagree. 'Spiritual health', to the extent it has meaning, is the same as psychological health. And that is an objective thing.

No I specifically said I would pretend for the heck of it that human well being was an objective moral standard, then asked what next?

Then we can use it to promote the goal of morality: human well-being.

Hitler was not trying to create an Arian only race, and the Arian race is a hybrid to begin with anyway. How do you know his policies would not eventually have led to great human well being. He only tried them for 4 years, while fighting a world war?

Would the suffering of those up to the point outweigh the benefits? Undoubtedly not. And I would challenge you to show there even could have been benefits from his intended breeding program.

Ok, but we ought to at least get rid of all drinking alcohol at least, right?

Why would we want to do that? most people who drink alcohol do so responsibly. And moderate drinking *does* improve human well-being both psychologically and physically (depending on what is imbibed).

It had nothing to do with parent death. It has to do with the check getting bigger with every child had, and without having to factor in the man's income.

First, I agree that letting men (and women) off the hook for the children they produce is immoral. But what do you do when one parent dies or abandons the family? What of situations where it is legitimately better for one parent to not be around (abuse is way, way too common)? Are we, as a society, going to not help the children at least?

I do not understand the question.

You agree that having human well-being satisfies the criteria you set up for objective morality?

We "discourage" people from drinking, promiscuity, and gluttony but our societies are all plagued by them. Are you going to make laws based on your standards or not? It very well could have a positive effect to force people to be dentists, that's the point no one knows any of these things, except that your criteria seems to demand our freedom be surrendered to your preference.

Laws are often more harmful than the issues they are attempting to confront. I would say that Prohibition was far more damaging than alcohol ever was. The current drug war, by funneling money into organized crime, is far more harmful than most of the drugs.

Ok, for the 6th time.

This means that the creator of the cosmos acted according to his nature in creating the cosmos, including us. The Christian revelation is that God cannot deny himself - he cannot act in a manner that is contrary to his nature, which is love.

Only if love is defined as God's nature. Which makes it circular.

So a moral philosophy based on love, the manifested nature of the creator God, would provide a principle for living that was unconditionally accepting, forgiving, tolerant, fostering, giving, and nurturing
Morality Based On God’s Nature Of Love

Again, I disagree. It is only objective in the sense that it relies on the nature of something other than humans. Basing morality on the nature of humans is far better, being more direct and testable.

For the 6th time God's nature determines moral values and duties, God's commands simply reflect his objective eternal nature.

Your proving my point not your own. Your the one who said the goal of morality is human well being, gluttony is not conducive to well being, so by your own criteria is immoral.

And the question becomes whether the methods to fight it are worse than the condition. Don't you find it likely that they would be?

The guy I quoted above is an atheist neuroscientist. He said God's nature is love, that's true, but God is also just. Most murders are motivated by hatred, and all murders are unjust.

Can you define 'love' and 'just' without the concept of God? If not, your claims are circular. If so, a God is irrelevant.

It is an objective thing, but that alone is so irrelevant, it took me a long time to figure out that was what you were actually saying. Human well being is a thing, Saturn is a thing, quarks are probably things, cancer is a thing, etc.......However without God objective moral values and duties can't possible be things.

So, let's base morality on the real thing rather than the not-thing.

No without God it is a self centered amoral preference. With God probably is an objective moral standard but it is not the primary moral standard.

Not if it in anyway works against human spiritual well being, and even then I do not think it is practical to apply, nor is it possible to universally apply.


Without God all moral world views are equally vacuous concerning objective truth.
God specifically said that our faith would lead to our own suffering and lack of temporal well being in countless cases. Christians are to subordinate the well being of our flesh to out soul. Do you see how disconnected you are with the only ultimate hope humanity has.

Nope, I said objective moral foundations cannot exist without God. I said human well being is an objective thing in the same way a chainsaw is an objective thing. Doesn't make either an objective moral thing. All of nature consists of objective things, none of them are moral things in or of themselves. See post #682 again.

If human well-being is an objective thing, that makes it an objective basis for morality. In fact, it is more objective than the 'nature' of an unknowable and incomprehensible deity. More useful for us humans also.

 

[1robin]

Yes.

Ok.

Now stop and think a bit. Would having any of those required at gun point actually increase human well-being? Doesn't the very fact that they would be at gun point detract from that well-being? Significantly?

1. All laws are edicts at gun point. They are all do X or suffer Y. My use of gun point just means by force or compulsion.
2. Yes, having some kind of enforcement concerning those things would increase human well being.

The *cause* is a virus.

The cause of the spreading of the virus is overwhelming male on male sexual behavior.

You quoted the remained of the post incorrectly. It was formatted incorrectly in such a specific way that it did not even allow me to quote the rest of it. You probably missed a quote or a / somewhere.

Your not going to even enforce your own standards are you? Your doing everything in your power to keep from having to admit your standards would require the outlawing of homosexual sexual behavior and abortion. You did not even respond to half the details I gave about them (plus much of my other claims), your editing as well as moralizing by preference.

I will respond to the rest soon, if you can get it untangled.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok.

1. All laws are edicts at gun point. They are all do X or suffer Y. My use of gun point just means by force or compulsion.
2. Yes, having some kind of enforcement concerning those things would increase human well being.

That depends on the amount of enforcement. Too much would significantly decrease human well-being.

The cause of the spreading of the virus is overwhelming male on male sexual behavior.

And female homosexuals are the ones least likely to get it. So you would be ok with female homosexuality? Isn't it better to acknowledge that being irresponsible by putting others at risk is bad in all cases? Since male on male homosexuality isn't the *cause* of AIDS, but merely how it is spread, isn't it better to focus on the virus itself and educate people on how to prevent the spread?

You quoted the remained of the post incorrectly. It was formatted incorrectly in such a specific way that it did not even allow me to quote the rest of it. You probably missed a quote or a / somewhere.

Sorry. Fixed.

Your not going to even enforce your own standards are you? Your doing everything in your power to keep from having to admit your standards would require the outlawing of homosexual sexual behavior and abortion. You did not even respond to half the details I gave about them (plus much of my other claims), your editing as well as moralizing by preference.

And again, I am attempting to discern actual well-being and the best way to get to it. Banning homosexuality is far from being the best way to decrease the spread of HIV. Education is far, far better.

I will respond to the rest soon, if you can get it untangled.

Again, sorry about that. I should have checked.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You really really do not understand what objective means in the context of morality. It has nothing to do with the agreement by any or all of humanity. It has to do with it being true or not regardless of human opinion.

Moral values cannot be true or false, meaning that the concept of objective moral truths is meaningless.

 

[Polymath257]

No without God it is a self centered amoral preference. With God probably is an objective moral standard but it is not the primary moral standard.

Let me put it to you this way. If we ever meet an alien race that developed on a planet orbiting another star, I fully expect that race to have the same physics: even if they are way ahead of us (or vice versa), we will be able to mutually test the physics and scientific ideas of the other to verify them. I would also expect our mathematics to be mutually understandable (although it is possible for them to have a very different set of axioms, we would still be able to use their axioms and they would be able to use ours and we could both verify proofs in the other system).

But I most certainly would NOT expect this alien race to have the same morals. I would not expect them to have the same sensibilities or concerns that we humans do. I would not expect them to consider marriage required for sexuality, nor would I expect the to be concerned about issues of sloth, gluttony, pride, etc. Our morals and their morals are things I would fully expect to be different.

In that sense, I do NOT consider morals to be objective.

I also would NOT expect them to believe in Yahweh. Or Allah. Or Ahura Mazda. Or Thor. Possibly, they would have their own deities or deity that they worship (and possibly not) and if they do I would *expect* their dogmas to be quite different than those of human religions. So in that sense, I think that religions are not objective: they are matters, at best, of opinion and at worst sheer delusions.

So, do *you* think that another species from a different star system would have the same morals? if not, then you also agree that morals are not objective.

Do you think they would have the same religious ideas?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't care what path you take or what terminology you use without God all you have left is the preferences of the strong being imposed on the weak.

That's exactly what the theist proposes, except he uses a strong god imposing its will on a much weaker humanity. You haven't circumvented that problem by inserting a god into the formula.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, on rides the mail.
That still does not make ethics objective. I don't care what path you take or what terminology you use without God all you have left is the preferences of the strong being imposed on the weak.

It is not an objective moral thing. This conversation is about objective morality, not objective weight, objective mass, nor objective power.

Nope, they were Mesopotamian Babylon (theologically centered), Persia (theologically centered), Egypt (theologically centered) they were all part of a general Semitic power base that were all (theologically centered), Greece (militaristic and pagan), Rome (militaristic, colonialist, and pagan), Judeo-Christian Europe (theological centered) X 2, Islamic Caliphate (theologically centered), British empire (theocracy), USSR (communist), USA the (the greatest though not the longest of world powers) (theological in culture somewhat secular in governance). China and Russia as well as India fit in there some where (the were different things at different times but humanist isn't among them).

And what determines whether they are good or bad is whether they promoted human well-being.

I have already explained this twice.

And I have understood your explanation. I think it is wrong.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that moral norms come from God’s nature or essence. Rather than believing in some passing fancy bound to society’s ever-changing whims, as Christians we are committed to a specific moral order revealed to us through both general and special revelation.
Christian Ethics

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-ethics.htm

Morals based on God's nature don't make the morals objective. They just make them subjective based on the nature of a single entity.

Without an absolute standard, morality would be relative and dependent on each individual. But morality is not a human invention; it flows from the nature of God, who is eternal and unchanging.
Why Is Scripture the Ultimate Standard for Morality and Ethics?

Is 4 times enough?

I have understood your explanation. I think it is wrong. It does *not* give a basis for objective morals any more than my being the determiner would. And no, the alternative is NOT simply to have individual decision. In fact, the whole point of my position is that it NOT be individual, but be based on human nature.

Most religions probably include human well being in their doctrines but that can come in many forms. In Christianity Christ subordinated human well being in this life for eternal well being in the next life. Since you mistakenly referred to at least Christianity as agreeing with you standards I am forced to do a scriptural blitzkrieg.

(deleted spam)

Christ did not send his sheep out among the wolves so that the sheep would flourish. He did so knowing they would suffer, be persecuted, be tortured, by killed of every horrific way imaginable. So no, at least Christianity does not have the same goal as you for morality.

Got to split this up - again. Continued below:

In that case, Christianity is immoral. Simple enough (and, truthfully, obvious previously).

I am perfectly willing to say that your 'God' (even though fictional) is an immoral tyrant that should be opposed at every juncture.

 

[Polymath257]

No you haven't because the experiment can't be done. First you would need to invent a God detector (whatever that is) then you would have to go to every real and abstract location that exists and use it. Happy hunting.

No you didn't, because no one ever could. What you did was posit your moral preference, and claim that the thing you prefer exists objectively. Many things objectively exist, that does not make them objective morals. As I keep saying, it is almost a universal axiom that nature can only tell us what is not what should be. You mentioned something that is, then claimed
it should be the goal of morality. Sorry but you lack the necessary ingredient to declare anything "should" be done. No atom has a moral property.

No atom has a moral property, just like no atom has consciousness. But the structured collection of atoms that is me (and a similar one that is you) does have consciousness and is a moral agency.

All human societies are founded by humans (usually in the quest for Gold), however there are societies more numerous than our own without a single human present. Christianity was not intended to run an empire, it was intended to save people from their sins, and help them live a more moral life. However Christian morals would make one heck of a good basis for legality.

Imagine a society:
1. Which forbid murder (even in the form of abortion).
2. Which forbid sex outside of marriage and discouraged promiscuity.
3. Which forbid homosexual sexual behavior.
Just those three alone would have saved tens of millions of lives, mountains of misery, and billions of dollars.

And untold horror to innocents that were merely being sexual with those they love. Sorry, that is a cruel and heartless society and the lives saved need to be weighed against the pain induced.

The best example of what you described about morality is Stalin's Russia. He certainly got the get rid of religion part right.

Stalinist Russia was hardly humanist. How about we point instead to the Nordic countries where religion is mostly a joke, but people have adopted the standards of human decency?

I keep quoting sources from you own side showing you what Godless morality actually is but it has no effect, heres another:

If god does not exist everything is permitted – Dostoevsky
If god does not exist everything is permitted – Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky was a fiction writer and hardly an unbiased witness.

 

[Polymath257]

So 4 times wasn't enough, let me try a fifth.

God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature, so His standard is absolute.

God cannot sin, so His standard is objective.

Yes, I understood you the first time. I just think you are wrong about this giving an objective moral standard. I understand your claim. I just think it is false. I have explained *why* I think it is false. Clearly we disagree.

However what you mentioned that was right, is that the nature of God determines what objective moral values and duties exist. Moral values and duties would depend on the nature of God. So we are right where all these discussions start and end.

No, that is NOT where they start and end. That is only where they start and end *if* we adopt your perverted vies on morality.

 

[1robin]

That depends on the amount of enforcement. Too much would significantly decrease human well-being.

You equated human well being with human health, and there is no objective standard for happiness anyway. So whatever increases the health of the majority of the population would require enforcement sufficient enough to mandate maximum health.

And female homosexuals are the ones least likely to get it. So you would be ok with female homosexuality? Isn't it better to acknowledge that being irresponsible by putting others at risk is bad in all cases? Since male on male homosexuality isn't the *cause* of AIDS, but merely how it is spread, isn't it better to focus on the virus itself and educate people on how to prevent the spread?

I have debated homosexuality many times, however every defender uses the same ineffective tactics to defend what can't be.

Since homosexuality does not create life, but does inhibit and many times cost life it can't be justified. I assume your going to use the same gambit I see in every homosexual debate and I will handle them as they are coughed forth.

Here you used the subdivision defense. It is true that female on female homosexuality is less costly in lives and dollars (yet it still costs plenty of both) yet this only modulates how indefensible it is. It is still not justifiable but the magnitude of how unjustifiable is lower than male on male. However homosexuals don't seem to ever be happy in their choices. Many (probably most) have more partners, are more reckless, and experiment with both sexes at a far higher rate than heterosexuals.

And no it isn't better to forget about what's spreading a disease to only focus on eradicating it.
1. Stopping or virtually stopping it's spread is a simplistic concept, the biological eradication of the virus it's self is extremely complex. At best I would do both, but we should start with the simplistic problem first.
2. Even if you eradicated the aids virus you would not have made much of a dent in the higher rates of promiscuity, sexual violence, adultery, accompanying drug abuse, physical damage etc...

You cannot save the sinking ship of Homosexuality. You must either follow your standards consistently or abandon them all together. Why defend some of the worst offenders concerning human well being, yet maintain that as the standard? Is it because what you actually think is morality should actually be whatever you prefer. I also notice that despite my pointing the habit out you completely ignored the other offending behavior I mentioned. You seem to be defending it by ignoring it.

Sorry. Fixed.

No problem.

And again, I am attempting to discern actual well-being and the best way to get to it. Banning homosexuality is far from being the best way to decrease the spread of HIV. Education is far, far better.

If this were the 70s or 80s ignorance would be a significant factor. However homosexuals practice unsafe sex at a far higher rate even in modern times when everyone knows what the risks are and how to mitigate them. Education worked far batter before the secular revolution when the immorality of homosexuality was rooted in objective foundations and the practice met with shame. Now things are exactly reversed and we are paying a steep price for that reversal.

Again, sorry about that. I should have checked.

No problem, sometimes I get too busy to review my posts. However the bulk of what you posted incorrectly seems to have disappeared all together.

 

[Polymath257]

Since homosexuality does not create life, but does inhibit and many times cost life it can't be justified. I assume your going to use the same gambit I see in every homosexual debate and I will handle them as they are coughed forth.

So the only, or even the primary legitimate role of sex is to procreate? I reject that completely.

Homosexuality itself doesn't threaten life. It does run the risk of spreading diseases that do, but the problem isn't the activity (if responsibly done), but with the virus.

Here you used the subdivision defense. It is true that female on female homosexuality is less costly in lives and dollars (yet it still costs plenty of both) yet this only modulates how indefensible it is.

How, precisely, does lesbianism cost money or lives?

The problem is that sex is a positive thing. Yes, even outside of marriage. In fact, it is an *essential* prior to marriage to guaranteed compatibility inside the marriage. If you want to allow gay marriage (which reduces the promiscuity you seem to be concerned about), I can support that.

It is still not justifiable but the magnitude of how unjustifiable is lower than male on male. However homosexuals don't seem to ever be happy in their choices. Many (probably most) have more partners, are more reckless, and experiment with both sexes at a far higher rate than heterosexuals.

You are running on stereotypes and not on reality. Yes, gays can be less happy simply because this society rejects them (as you do). But I know gays who are in happy, healthy, long term relationships. And they seem to be so at about the same rate as straights. Except for a tiny minority.

And no it isn't better to forget about what's spreading a disease to only focus on eradicating it.
1. Stopping or virtually stopping it's spread is a simplistic concept, the biological eradication of the virus it's self is extremely complex. At best I would do both, but we should start with the simplistic problem first.

Yes, education, promotion of avoidance techniques, etc. Sex isn't the central issue here.

2. Even if you eradicated the aids virus you would not have made much of a dent in the higher rates of promiscuity, sexual violence, adultery, accompanying drug abuse, physical damage etc...

I don't see promiscuity in itself to be a moral issue. A psychological one, perhaps, but not a moral one. Sexual violence isn't the result of gay sex. it may be the result of too much testosterone, but not of gay sex. Adultery is mainly immoral when it goes against the promises made to be monogamous (if such are made). Physical damage from gay sex is usually minimal.

You cannot save the sinking ship of Homosexuality. You must either follow your standards consistently or abandon them all together. Why defend some of the worst offenders concerning human well being, yet maintain that as the standard? Is it because what you actually think is morality should actually be whatever you prefer. I also notice that despite my pointing the habit out you completely ignored the other offending behavior I mentioned. You seem to be defending it by ignoring it.

I am pro-choice, yes.

If this were the 70s or 80s ignorance would be a significant factor. However homosexuals practice unsafe sex at a far higher rate even in modern times when everyone knows what the risks are and how to mitigate them. Education worked far batter before the secular revolution when the immorality of homosexuality was rooted in objective foundations and the practice met with shame. Now things are exactly reversed and we are paying a steep price for that reversal.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, is just as moral as heterosexuality.

No problem, sometimes I get to busy to review my posts. However the bulk of what you posted incorrectly seems to have disappeared all together.

Yes, usually when I forget a darn /.

 

[Polymath257]

Imagine a society:
1. Which forbid murder (even in the form of abortion).
2. Which forbid sex outside of marriage and discouraged promiscuity.
3. Which forbid homosexual sexual behavior.
Just those three alone would have saved tens of millions of lives, mountains of misery, and billions of dollars.

OK, let's go with this.

First, since murder is unjustified killing (we don't consider killing in self-defense or in war as murder), I am in support of #1 (although ti is somewhat tautological), except that I don't consider abortion to be murder.

Second, how are you going to enforce #2? What happens to the teenagers that have sex? What happens to those who are planning to get married, but have not, and yet have sex? What punishment do you use against someone who has sex outside of marriage? Social ostracism? A Scarlet A? Jail time? Sterilization? Death? How tyrannical are you going to be in the enforcement of this? How, exactly, do you discourage promiscuity? What happens to the children of those who have sex outside of marriage?

What do you say to a couple who wants to have sex but doesn't want to have children? Do you see this as an immoral stance? What is they already have multiple children?

Is divorce going to be allowed? How about multiple divorces? Under what circumstances? If both partners agree to separate, are you going to force them back together? What if one is abusive?

For #3, since promiscuity is one of your major concerns, as well as spreading disease, shouldn't we allow gay marriage to discourage both? Or is it only good in a heterosexual marriage?

And, again, what punishment will you propose for those who have gay sex? Ostracism? Jail time? Death? What is the gay couple has been in a monogamous relationship for years and is disease free? Does that negate your concerns?

 

[Polymath257]

You equated human well being with human health, and there is no objective standard for happiness anyway. So whatever increases the health of the majority of the population would require enforcement sufficient enough to mandate maximum health.

But higher levels of enforcement diminishes psychological human health because of the lack of freedom and self-determination.An oppressive government is NOT conducive to well-being! Or do you disagree?

 

[1robin]

Let me put it to you this way. If we ever meet an alien race that developed on a planet orbiting another star, I fully expect that race to have the same physics: even if they are way ahead of us (or vice versa), we will be able to mutually test the physics and scientific ideas of the other to verify them. I would also expect our mathematics to be mutually understandable (although it is possible for them to have a very different set of axioms, we would still be able to use their axioms and they would be able to use ours and we could both verify proofs in the other system).

There was nothing about aliens in what you responded to. I would agree that we and the aliens would share some objective science, I have no idea why that is relevant.

But I most certainly would NOT expect this alien race to have the same morals. I would not expect them to have the same sensibilities or concerns that we humans do. I would not expect them to consider marriage required for sexuality, nor would I expect the to be concerned about issues of sloth, gluttony, pride, etc. Our morals and their morals are things I would fully expect to be different.

Speculating what ethics an alien race would have is not relevant to my analogy.

My analogy concerned your own standard which made the well being of the most intelligent race on this planet the objective moral standard. If you actually believed your own criteria then the morality (whatever it is) of any newly arrived more advanced race would be the standard for objective morality. And if an even more advanced alien race showed up their morality would supplant the earlier alien race.

By that analogy it is easy to see that your moral standards are:
1. Arbitrary.
2. Merely the social fashion of whatever the most advanced race preferred.
3. Not actually related to any ultimate objective moral standard.
4. And is instead self serving preference, applied by might makes right.

In that sense, I do NOT consider morals to be objective.

We could dispense with 80% of the size of these posts if you would really own this and stick to it. Without God moral values and duties are merely based in subjective preference. We could save even more time if you labeled your Godless moral preferences as ethics, and leave the label morality to only apply to God based objective moral facts. This is where we started and where all moral conversations will end.

In the bolded section above you have everything needed to conclude this debate right where it began.

1. If God exists objective moral values and duties can exist.........for convenience labeled morality.
2. Without God only subjective moral preferences are possible.......for convenience labeled ethics.

That is it, the jury may be excused.

I also would NOT expect them to believe in Yahweh. Or Allah. Or Ahura Mazda. Or Thor. Possibly, they would have their own deities or deity that they worship (and possibly not) and if they do I would *expect* their dogmas to be quite different than those of human religions. So in that sense, I think that religions are not objective: they are matters, at best, of opinion and at worst sheer delusions.

The objectiveness of a thing has nothing what so ever to do with belief in it. Pluto objectively existed long before the first eye evolved to consider it. You really are mesmerized by the most speculative aspect in any concept aren't you? I do not think any aliens will ever be encountered by humanity, but I have no opinion concerning what their theological beliefs might be. There is no evidence at all to draw any conclusions from.

So, do *you* think that another species from a different star system would have the same morals? if not, then you also agree that morals are not objective.

You have applied that alien analogy in every context imaginable except the one it was given in. Despite my slight hope that things had been concluded in the bolded section above did not really expect it to survive. I see we didn't get out of the post before you went of the objective rails again. I am tired of posting definitions (see post #682) so now I am just going to make blunt responses. An alien, in this context is no different that we are. Objective morality is composed of values and duties that are real and binding whether anyone, anything, or any alien in the entire universe believes in them or not. You still really do not get objectivity in a moral context. I can't even think of anything else to supply you with.

Do you think they would have the same religious ideas?

I don't think they exist, so I do not speculate about their theology.

 

[Polymath257]

There was nothing about aliens in what you responded to. I would agree that we and the aliens would share some objective science, I have no idea why that is relevant.

I am pointing out the objectivity of science: both aliens and humans would ultiamtely find the same science to be true.

Speculating what ethics an alien race would have is not relevant to my analogy.

My analogy concerned your own standard which made the well being of the most intelligent race on this planet the objective moral standard.

OK, you misunderstood my point. Humans don't decide morality because we are the most intelligent species. We decide human morality because we are humans. If another intelligent species existed, they could easily have their own morality.

If you actually believed your own criteria then the morality (whatever it is) of any newly arrived more advanced race would be the standard for objective morality. And if an even more advanced alien race showed up their morality would supplant the earlier alien race.

No, I did NOT say that. I said that humans are relevant to *humans* morality. And, for humans, that is an objective standard for morality.

By that analogy it is easy to see that your moral standards are:
1. Arbitrary.
2. Merely the social fashion of whatever the most advanced race preferred.
3. Not actually related to any ultimate objective moral standard.
4. And is instead self serving preference, applied by might makes right.

And since that is NOT what I said, this is beside the point.

We could dispense with 80% of the size of these posts if you would really own this and stick to it. Without God moral values and duties are merely based in subjective preference. We could save even more time if you labeled your Godless moral preferences as ethics, and leave the label morality to only apply to God based objective moral facts. This is where we started and where all moral conversations will end.

Morals are the principles on which we judge right and wrong. Ethics are the principles of right conduct. Humans well-being is the objective moral standard for humans. The ethics derived from that can be determined later.

God is irrelevant: we can still have principles on which to decide what is right and what is wrong.

In the bolded section above you have everything needed to conclude this debate right where it began.

And *my* point is that if the morality of an alien race *could* be different than ours, then your whole system is shown to be wrong. If you think that morality is based on 'God's nature', then that nature doesn't depend on the species.

But *for my system*, the morality can and is expected to be different. So, unlike physics, I do NOT expect the morality of another species to be the same as ours. That doesn't mean that all morality is determined at the level of the individual. I am more inclined to say that it happens at the level of the species.

1. If God exists objective moral values and duties can exist.........for convenience labeled morality.
2. Without God only subjective moral preferences are possible.......for convenience labeled ethics.

That is it, the jury may be excused.

You have proved neither of these. You have *claimed* both, but not shown why either is true. If you think of species-level morality as 'subjective', I might allow the second. But I still deny the first.

The objectiveness of a thing has nothing what so ever to do with belief in it. Pluto objectively existed long before the first eye evolved to consider it. You really are mesmerized by the most speculative aspect in any concept aren't you? I do not think any aliens will ever be encountered by humanity, but I have no opinion concerning what their theological beliefs might be. There is no evidence at all to draw any conclusions from.

I didn't say the belief is relevant. But I *am* claiming that an alien species could well have a different ethics and a different theology. And both would be just as valid as ours is. Which means, in the case of theology, not at all.

Objective morality is composed of values and duties that are real and binding whether anyone, anything, or any alien in the entire universe believes in them or not. You still really do not get objectivity in a moral context. I can't even think of anything else to supply you with.

I do not believe in objective morality in that sense. Nor, do I think most people do, if they think in those terms. Most people, when they talk about objective morality, simply mean that *for humans* there are some things that are clearly right and wrong. So, for example, genocide is generally agreed to be objectively wrong. Being kind is generally agreed to be objectively right. But those are *human* values and I think most people would agree that a different species may not have these same moral values.

I don't think they exist, so I do not speculate about their theology.

I don't know if they do or not. Either way, it clarifies the issues to think about the possibility: it shows that morals are NOT objective in the same way that physics or math are. It shows that morals are a matter of what species we are and how inclusive we want to be.

 

[new]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Those who say that they do not believe in god have their own story behind. Everyone has a story. we do not know anyone else completely. Even we do not remember ourself completely. It is really difficult to understand that why bad things are happening if god exists then why not god stopping those bad things. why god let anyone do bad things and if god has power to stop then why not doing it. so either god is not good enough so who is not good enough can not be termed as god so god does not exist they feel that way. and moreover if god exists then they demand evidence. if we understand that they might have seen many problems in lives as i have read somewhere that " you have seen just your problems ... how much less you have seen"
But in my opinion god exists. god is goodness and we all have seen acts of goodness around. and which creates a possibility that there might be the one who is always good all the time , he / she or that energy itself is goodness or I can term that as god because if someone is not good enough then that is not god and the one who is just goodness is god.
now why not its possible that goodness is just goodness and not god and nothing like god exists and how goodness is related to power as god is most powerful so how goodness is power ?
answers i feel are that more good we are then more we have power and less fear for example when a child steals a chocolate from refrigerator then he has fear that his mother might catch him. similarly only when we do a not good thing more we do that more is our fear and less power and more we are good i mean for more time then it makes us more powerful fearless calm and even blissful.
and the first question was why not goodness is just goodness and why goodness is god.what if no one exists who is always good all the time who we can name as god. then alright do not consider a face or creature as god or identity let god be just energy, let goodness be just goodness what is goodness a good thought a good act a good behavior then after all it is energy in us so let god be just good energy in us. does anyone need to have evidence that do we have energy in our body ? and if we use that energy for good like for caring others then it is i feel it is the grace of god or goodness in us
And if we use energy to make fun of someone lets say which is not good we know or anything bad we do then its a choice we make to use our power for bad. and god does not wish us to be robots or god's puppets who will do whatever god permits but god guides us all within us and through various other ways to choose goodness and i feel goodness is not just a choice but a need. and to understand god completely and all god's acts and decisions and justice or to understand goodness completely we have to be good in all moments tiny moments current moments and to remember to be good always and more we are good more we will understand goodness and god i feel ....

 

[1robin]

And what determines whether they are good or bad is whether they promoted human well-being.

Which is your preference, which is your opinion, which has no more value that the preferences of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Gandhi, Muhammad, or Billy Graham. It is just as amoral as what you prefer on your pizza.

And I have understood your explanation. I think it is wrong.

So you believe that your a better judge of a book you deny and have no training in interpreting compared to 2000 years of scholarly theological exegesis. It would be as bad as my telling the Academy of science the universe is actually shrinking or my telling the PGA they should all play in sandals.

Morals based on God's nature don't make the morals objective. They just make them subjective based on the nature of a single entity.

Yes they do, they make them independent of anyone's opinion (even God's). Even if they were God's opinions they would still by objective but it turns out we don't even have to deal with that slight complication.

God's nature is independent of anyone's opinion, has always existed, and holds sovereignty over everything else, real, abstract, or otherwise. His nature is high the highest objectivity possible. If you could take a picture of it, that's what should be in the encyclopedia describing it. The morality of God's nature is more objective that the nature of an object at rest to remain at rest unless acted upon.

I have understood your explanation. I think it is wrong. It does *not* give a basis for objective morals any more than my being the determiner would. And no, the alternative is NOT simply to have individual decision. In fact, the whole point of my position is that it NOT be individual, but be based on human nature.

If you were to base morality on human nature then tribal warfare would be it's highest virtue.

(deleted spam)

So quoting the book in question on the subject in question is to be dismissed?

In that case, Christianity is immoral. Simple enough (and, truthfully, obvious previously).

No, it shows that the only single human to ever be perfectly moral (and who is connected with actual morality more than anyone or anything else) and your preferences contradict. I am going with the guy who defeated death, not the person who is not consistent with their own stated ethical preference.

I am perfectly willing to say that your 'God' (even though fictional) is an immoral tyrant that should be opposed at every juncture.

I know which party I am placing my money on winning this pathetic rebellion. This has become silly and futile. I am going to start responding in other ways.


"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart