I have to admit that I don't really see anything morally wrong with incest, as long as it's between consenting adults. If you want to sleep with your brother or sister, I personally find that really really icky, but whatever. Just as long as everyone is of legal age and agrees to it willingly, why not?
Just don't ask me to join you.
The Bible, by the way, appears to tacitly condone incest. If everyone on earth is descended from the same two people (Adam and Eve) or the same family (Noah's), then incest had to have happened in the first few generations. Right?
DVD Bach,
ReplyDeleteWell, I will admit that your morality is (mostly) consistent. And I appreciate that you would grant others the freedom to do something even though you are not interested in doing it yourself. However, I believe you are wrong.
You are correct that in the Biblical view close relatives did engage in sexual relations and produce offspring in the early history of the world. There was nothing inherently wrong with those relations. However, because of sin, our DNA degrades, both as individuals (from birth to death) and as a group (due to harmful mutations). We know that there are problems with interbreeding, and so God established laws regarding incest in the time of Moses.
So you believe that incest is wrong, but that it's only been wrong since the time of Moses, and only then since God said so.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would say that is a fairly accurate summary of my position, although I would add that we understand why God instituted those laws as I explained above.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead with your next question, I'm ready for ya!
You're description of God's law as fixed is the basis for your claim that it's objective. You're now stating that it changes over time.
ReplyDeleteYou're very good at this DVD Bach. I appreciate the challenge, although I have to admit, I saw that one coming. When I was mulling these issues over last night, I figured out the endgame of this line of debate. This is much more exciting than chess, since the opposing responses are not limited in the same way that chess moves are. Okay, now for my response.
ReplyDeleteGod's law is fixed, but it was revealed progressively. Consider the case of animal sacrifices. They were instituted by God, and were "right" for the time they were in effect. However, they were never intended to be permanent. They foreshadowed the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the penalty for sin. After that occurred, the animal sacrifices were phased out, as various parts of the New Testament explain (the book of Hebrews is the longest exposition of this idea).
I could go on, but I'll stop there for now. I'm already anticipating your response.
Okay, now let me ask you a question. Based on your view of morality, why did you have to add the qualification, "as long as it's between consenting adults"? Aren't children allowed to make their own choices about what makes them happy?
Is it possible, in your view, that current Christian morality could be phased out in the future by further revelations that cannot presently be foreseen? If so, and such revelations were to come about, how would know to accept the changes? Wouldn't viewing biblical morality as fixed and objective prevent you from doing so?
ReplyDeleteNo, children are not allowed to make their own choices. Their lives are tightly regulated by their parents, and rightly so, since children are not as intellectually developed as adults.
DVD Bach, you are really on top of this one. Those are excellent questions you're asking.
ReplyDeleteNo, "it is not possible, in [my] view, that current Christian morality could be phased out in the future by further revelations that cannot presently be foreseen."
I'll go ahead an answer your next question to speed up the discussion.
As I said before, "God's law is fixed, but it was revealed progressively." However, that revelation has come to an end. The Bible clearly states that no further revelation is forthcoming. Therefore, any claim regarding further revelation is false.
I could go on, but I'll stop here for the time being and let you ask the next question.
I agree regarding your position on children not making their own choices, but not for the reason you state. I believe that position is inconsistent with your view of morality. Why is it right for children to be restricted? Are you saying that they cannot make good choices on their own? How would we (objectively) know that someone is capable of making decisions on their own? If someone does not progress intellectually, does that mean they should not be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they are of adult age? What is the standard?
Thanks for the compliment; it's interesting to explore where it leads.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that God couldn't change his mind and decide to come up with a whole new revelation? If he's omnipotent, then he's capable of it. Your remarks about his sovereignty and our inability to fully comprehend his reasons suggests that one has to accept that possibility that he might choose to.
It's right for children to be restricted because they have to learn things like consequences of their actions. We could easily design as experiment to test that idea using real-world observation; I'm sure research has been done on the subject.
There are developmentally-disabled adults who do not progress intellectually. We have means of assessing those people to see if they can make their own decisions and live on their own. The standards for doing so are set by professional education and psychology organizations.
Yes, "God couldn't change his mind and decide to come up with a whole new revelation." He tells us in the Bible that He is unchanging. That is part of His character. It has nothing to do with a lack of power. There are many things that God cannot do, because if He did them, He would not be God.
ReplyDeleteFor example, God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. To do so would go against His justice. He cannot allow sinners into heaven. To do so would go against His holiness and righteousness. The Bible explains all of this. The book of Romans is an extended treatise discussing those issues, and how it is yet possible for sinners to be right with God. People who think the Bible is just a bunch of simplistic stories made up by unscientific religious freaks are ignorant.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Those are the people you want to be making these kind of determinations? This kind of goes back to the relative morality issue.
Your comment about children is really getting somewhere. I've been waiting for this to come up. Would it be correct to say that an individual's current perception of their happiness and suffering is insufficient to make a valid determination of whether something is right or wrong? As you say, children have to learn the consequences of their actions. A correct decision can only be made by seeing the long term results, right?
Have to go, but will answer this one soon...
ReplyDelete" It has nothing to do with a lack of power. There are many things that God cannot do, because if He did them, He would not be God."
ReplyDeleteIf he is incapable of doing them, then that is a lack of power, by definition.
"Those are the people you want to be making these kind of determinations?"
Sure. Who would be better? The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. We know more about homosexuality now than we did then.
"A correct decision can only be made by seeing the long term results, right?"
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that children are not intellectually-developed enough to make their own decisions. Any adult can judge any action right or wrong. As long-term consequences become known, he or she may revise that opinion, but it's required to form the judgment.
"lack of power, by definition."
ReplyDeleteWhose definition? Yours? The dictionary?
I'll go with God's definition.
Saying God is omnipotent does not mean that there is nothing he cannot do. The Bible says, "God cannot lie." I already pointed out a few other examples.
Hey, guess what? I decided to check out Wiktionary. Here is the primary definition for "omnipotent":
Having unlimited power, force or authority.
I checked out Webster.com as well. It refers the primary meaning of "omnipotent" to "almighty", which is:
often capitalized : having absolute power over all
Not that those sources are authoritative in this case anyway, but it's nice to know that even the dictionaries agree with me.
How do you know science is self-correcting? How do you know our understanding is getter better and not worse? What standard are you comparing it to? This is going the same as our morality discussion, although this time you can't get out of it with your subjective conclusion.
Also, just an FYI, psychology is *not* a scientific field. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are *no* scientific tests for *any* mental disorders. There are diagnostic criteria for classifying mental disorders, but they are based on a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives, *not* scientific criteria.
About long-term consequences, have you heard of hell? That's a significant factor that many people have not taken into consideration in their happiness/suffering assessment. You should think about it.
"but it's nice to know that even the dictionaries agree with me."
ReplyDeleteThose sources don't agree with you; they directly contradict you. A being with unlimited power could certainly lie.
"How do you know science is self-correcting?"
Because that has been demonstrated many times.
"Also, just an FYI, psychology is *not* a scientific field. If you don't believe me, look it up."
I'm assuming you've looked it up, and that you know you're lying about that.
"About long-term consequences, have you heard of hell? "
Yep. It's an assumed conclusion, just like all of your religious beliefs.
Here's a Biblical definition:
ReplyDelete"God has unlimited power" = He can do whatever He wants
Your response about science being self-correcting has the same problem as your view of knowledge.
Yes, I did look it up. Maybe I should clarify that I was talking specifically about mental disorders. Perhaps there are other things that psychologists do that are scientific. The diagnosis of mental disorders is *not* scientific. it is not observable and replicable, since it is based on a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks, or perceives. There are no scientific tests (eg. blood test, urinalysis, MRI, etc.) that diagnose mental disorders.
I have not assumed the existence of hell, but it is a logical conclusion based on my assumption of God's existence. That gets back to what I have written regarding "Why is the Bible not Evidence?".
You're lying about the science of mental disorders, since those things can be observed and measured.
ReplyDeleteThere are no new points for me to respond to; everything else you're saying here has been refuted or is unsupported.
I suspect I'll be doing nothing more from here on out other than pointing out your lies.