Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

It's not my job to make anybody believe...

All the more credit to you for putting so much effort into it, then.

One has to be fair, and present the information. One can even go beyond, and argue a case. But when that's done, it's done.

Maybe I'm not done with you yet.

[Gary Childress]

I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

There's no winning. I stop pressing and already he's back to condemning 'non-believers'.

If I'm not going to go to this "Heaven" of yours for freely not believing in Yahweh, can I at least go to oblivion instead of Hell? Or would that deny God a perfectly good opportunity at some good clean sadistic fun sticking it to his detractors?

[Immanuel Can]

I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

There's no winning. I stop pressing and already he's back to condemning 'non-believers'.

You'll have to show me where I even mentioned such. All I said is that people have a choice to believe or not. I condemned no one; I have neither moral nor practical ability to do so. I'm a sinner myself, and as much in need of forgiveness and salvation as anybody is. I'm not anybody's judge.

If I'm not going to go to this "Heaven" of yours for freely not believing in Yahweh, can I at least go to oblivion instead of Hell?

All I can tell you is what the Bible says about that. Whether you are happy about it or not, that's not up to me; and I can't personally arrange your outcome.

However, you can.

[bahman]

@IC, please don't forget this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm willing to tell people what I think the truth is. They get to believe me, or they get to choose not to. Whether I'm completely right in everything I say, or only partly right, those that are prepared to consider God, win. Those that are not, have been told, whether they want to consider God, or not.

As I have been untiringly telling you we no longer have at our intellectual disposal a sufficient idea of what *God* ever was and less now a sense of what God is. So, you are going to have to work on better definitions if, as I guess your object is, you want to influence people to consider a conversion.

Because you merely *think* you know what the truth is you lack *certainty*. The certainty that you do have is one not rooted in knowledge, or experience, but solely in faith. Yet because 'God' is in question so too the notion of what *faith* even means is also in question. While I do not describe myself as a person who does not have a concept of *God* I do find (I have found) that I no longer have an understanding of what faith is. If God *is* it seems absurd that my act of having *faith* means much.

For you *faith* is an act of magic. By arriving at this faith-position that position acts magically as a talisman. Really, when you examine this *faith* that you call for, it is pretty absurd. It has elements of a *Ponzi scheme of the mind*.

While I am not an opponent of religiousness I have come to perceive that the faith-positions of former times are rather absurd to the degree that we are strongly located in *reality*. And I do mean modern reality. You fail to grasp who you are speaking to when you address this forum. You play to an audience that no longer exists. No one here is capable of reversion to a *faith* position which, really, is an artifact of another time.

So it seems to me that we, in our intellectual modes, have to forge a whole other notion of what faith means.

It's not my job to make anybody believe...particularly anything they don't want to believe. But as a Christian, it's my job to be forthright in delivering the message. And there, my obligation ends.

All your preaching, and your color-coded Bible quotes, have only illustrated that you are preaching to a pre-industrial peasant-class. To those who could believe in the way that you recommend. But what I have learned is not so much that we (if I can speak for all of us and maybe I cannot) simply cannot go back to a former mode. So again the whole question of what God is and what faith is and what it mean to be godly -- these are questions that you have no means at your disposal to address. You are preaching to the wrong audience.

What interests me is less the absurdity of your sense that you have a mission and much more the antiquated psychological frame that you give evidence of having. When that frame is questioned, or undermined, you get curse-ful and nasty and trot out the Biblical curses that you imagine have any influence at all. But this is all a game in your own head.

"Boy, they are really going to see I was right when they face God and He sends them to eternal torture!" This echoes in your head certainly and the sentiment always comes through. You are as transparent as a glass of water.

The rest is up to the hearer. I have no interest in subverting his ability to choose -- and if I did, I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

Actually the issue for us -- for all of us or most of us -- likely revolves around ethical questions. What we can do and what we choose to do. Personally, I do not believe that what I think in a given moment can, or should, determine my *eternal fate*. But certainly what I have done and what I do in my life -- now that is a conversation amenable to philosophical consideration.

[bahman]

I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

There's no winning. I stop pressing and already he's back to condemning 'non-believers'.

You'll have to show me where I even mentioned such. All I said is that people have a choice to believe or not. I condemned no one; I have neither moral nor practical ability to do so. I'm a sinner myself, and as much in need of forgiveness and salvation as anybody is. I'm not anybody's judge.

If I'm not going to go to this "Heaven" of yours for freely not believing in Yahweh, can I at least go to oblivion instead of Hell?

All I can tell you is what the Bible says about that. Whether you are happy about it or not, that's not up to me; and I can't personally arrange your outcome.

However, you can.

And why people should think that you are right? All you have is faith, no experience, no evidence, no proof!

[Immanuel Can]

As I have been untiringly telling you...

I find it immensely amusing that I'm living rent-free inside your head. That keeps me entertained.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no winning. I stop pressing and already he's back to condemning 'non-believers'.

You'll have to show me where I even mentioned such. All I said is that people have a choice to believe or not. I condemned no one; I have neither moral nor practical ability to do so. I'm a sinner myself, and as much in need of forgiveness and salvation as anybody is. I'm not anybody's judge.

If I'm not going to go to this "Heaven" of yours for freely not believing in Yahweh, can I at least go to oblivion instead of Hell?

All I can tell you is what the Bible says about that. Whether you are happy about it or not, that's not up to me; and I can't personally arrange your outcome.

However, you can.

And why people should think that you are right? All you have is faith, no experience, no evidence, no proof!

People shouldn't believe me. They should believe God. But if what I say is the same, in some matter, then they should listen to both.

As for evidence, proof, experience and such, lots has been offered, and lots are available still; but some people will still insist that there can be none. And for them, they're right: nothing will ever count as proof to them.

But neither you nor I can beat the strategy of simply denying what's there.

[Gary Childress]

I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

There's no winning. I stop pressing and already he's back to condemning 'non-believers'.

You'll have to show me where I even mentioned such.

If you're promoting a book many thousands of years old that says non-believers will burn in Hell as "truth", I'd say you've "mentioned" that and more.

[bahman]

You'll have to show me where I even mentioned such. All I said is that people have a choice to believe or not. I condemned no one; I have neither moral nor practical ability to do so. I'm a sinner myself, and as much in need of forgiveness and salvation as anybody is. I'm not anybody's judge.


All I can tell you is what the Bible says about that. Whether you are happy about it or not, that's not up to me; and I can't personally arrange your outcome.

However, you can.

And why people should think that you are right? All you have is faith, no experience, no evidence, no proof!

People shouldn't believe me. They should believe God. But if what I say is the same, in some matter, then they should listen to both.

I didn't say that people should believe you.

As for evidence, proof, experience and such, lots has been offered, and lots are available still; but some people will still insist that there can be none. And for them, they're right: nothing will ever count as proof to them.

Let's talk about them. What is the evidence, proof, and experience of such a thing as your God?

But neither you nor I can beat the strategy of simply denying what's there.

I don't know what is there as I am agnostic despite extensive experiences of God, Jesus, Satan, and the like.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I find it immensely amusing that I'm living rent-free inside your head. That keeps me entertained.

We’d be more equal if I could feel amused that you never respond fully to the critiques brought out that challenge your position. And help to explain why your preaching never influences anyone.

[bahman]

I find it immensely amusing that I'm living rent-free inside your head. That keeps me entertained.

We’d be more equal if I could feel amused that you never respond fully to the critiques brought out that challenge your position. And help to explain why your preaching never influences anyone.

Very true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The kindling is nearly accumulated round the immolation pyre.

[Immanuel Can]

If you're promoting a book many thousands of years old that says non-believers will burn in Hell as "truth", I'd say you've "mentioned" that and more.

I'm not sure what age has to do with the truth or falsehood of a claim. I'm not sure what your liking of it has to do with it, either. I might be more inclined to say that claims are either true or false, and longevity and your enthusiasm have nothing to do with either.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's talk about them. What is the evidence, proof, and experience of such a thing as your God?

I've done a great deal of pointing to all that in my earlier comments on the Christianity thread. So I invite you to seek that out there, if you're interested.

But neither you nor I can beat the strategy of simply denying what's there.

I don't know what is there as I am agnostic despite extensive experiences of God, Jesus, Satan, and the like.

How could that be?

If your alleged "extensive experiences" were actually "experiences," then how could you still "not know"?