Is the Christian God Moral?

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
21

(Continued…)

What caricature? Your book says so. But that’s unimportant, relatively speaking. The fact is that we have such an independent moral sense, yet your god put his/her code in a book, supposedly via a bearded patriarch, when s/he could so easily have indelibly imbued each individual with the code from birth (which need not, please note, be had at the expense of free will, assuming the latter to exist at all).

No, she didn’t.

No, I’m afraid you haven’t. If the Decalogue is your god’s only proper moral code, why bother putting all those other ones in the book? If these latter were later additions, how do you know that only the Decalogue deserves our full and unequivocal attention? Why convey them in so cumbersome a manner?

Perhaps we could restrict this discussion to manageable proportions, i.e. single messages, by refraining from attempting to prove that quantity equals quality. That’s just a thought, however.

'Luthon64

22

I am responding to all of your comments on morality here, everything to do with Nietzsche has been moved here.

I find it odd that the actual date when these “laws of the time” were repealed is a mystery. Surely the day that god found these laws to be unnecessary there would be an amendment to the bible in order to clear-up any confusion? The laws still stand in the books (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera) and no “official” word on when they are amended, it is left up to the followers to decide which laws to adhere to.

And I put it to you that there is no other kind of law (other than man-made). God wrote the bible, but through the hands of people. So we get into the thorny issue of proving that god actually did the writing, because to the rest of us it just looks like another set of man-made laws.

Of course only to the honest examiner ::slight_smile: That’s fair, any criticism whatsoever comes from a dishonest person, but only those who swallows “the word” unquestioningly are being honest. Your statement is unfounded, I could easily say the same thing back to you, that were one to scrutinise any theistic philosophy, no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining atheistic ideas. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.

It’s just baseless rhetoric unless you can define the “peeling” of “layers”, profoundness and perfection in this context.

That is what has happend so far, not what postmodern philosophy says must happen.

No, that would be law enforcement and international law is not based on any theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals.

So when the ten commandments say that those laws are also to be imposed on “the alien within your gates”, we shouldn’t actually impose it upon them.

23

I am responding to ArgumentumA first, because his reply to my previous post was the shortest and requires less time to reply to.

You say: “I find it odd that the actual date when these “laws of the time” were repealed is a mystery. Surely the day that god found these laws to be unnecessary there would be an amendment to the bible in order to clear-up any confusion? The laws still stand in the books (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera) and no “official” word on when they are amended, it is left up to the followers to decide which laws to adhere to.”

Yes, indeed, there was an amendment that is known as the New Testament (or New Covenant). As to an actual date, probably around 34 A.D.

At the advent and subsequent death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, the juridical power of the Decalogue was neutralised and the additional laws aimed specifically at Jewish society were annulled and supervened by Christ.

The writer to the Hebrews says: “By calling this Covenant ‘new’, He (Christ) has made the first one obsolete.” (Hebrews 8:13). Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4), which is now Christ’s law (1Corinthians 9:21). The laws that “still stand in the books Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etcetera” are a historical narrative of how God dealt with His people at that time of human history and how they reacted. Just because things ancient things are still present in the Bible, it does not follow that they have paradigmatic demands on all who want to follow the Bible’s teachings. Christ even summarises the Decalogue into two overarching laws: “Love the Lord your God, and; love your neighbour.” (Matthew 22: 37-40), and: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). The problem is that we need the detail of the Decalogue to know exactly how we can love God and our neighbour. The Decalogue was always meant to be an indicator of sin and righteousness, not a draconian oppressive instrument grind people into the ground.

You say: “And I put it to you that there is no other kind of law (other than man-made). God wrote the bible, but through the hands of people. So we get into the thorny issue of proving that god actually did the writing, because to the rest of us it just looks like another set of man-made laws.”

God did not write the Bible. He inspired people to write and those who wrote had all sorts of personalities, backgrounds, education and lack thereof. They often expressed and revealed their own personal biases and presuppositions and they made many mistakes in observation and judgement from time to time, but He breathed on what they wrote and sanctified it. (“All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”) 2 Timothy 3:16. (I know you and your colleagues like crying out “tautology”, so be it, it’s nevertheless true. If you applied the same constraint on the philosophers you follow, you would not be able to legitimise what most of them proffer. So we have warts and all accounts of goings on under God, but everything we need to know about God and about humankind, past present and future, is contained within its pages. By the way, there are no man-made laws, for instance, that say “love the lord your God with all your mind, body and soul.”

You say: “Of course only to the honest examiner. That’s fair, any criticism whatsoever comes from a dishonest person, but only those who swallows “the word” unquestioningly are being honest.”

That is not what I meant. What I meant was that if one were to examine God’s pronouncements with an honest desire to see if there was truth in it, notwithstanding the subjective presuppositions that one may approach it with, one would see the truth in it. God is not a dumb fundamentalist whom you guys like to play Frisbee with. He has nothing against reason. He even makes the invitation “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1: 18.) If your questions are honest, you will get honest answers. You are not expected to swallow the word unquestioningly.

You say: “Your statement is unfounded, I could easily say the same thing back to you, that were one to scrutinise any theistic philosophy, no matter how seemingly brilliant, one will always find flaws and errors. The deeper the scrutiny, the more apparent the anomalies. The converse is true when examining atheistic ideas. Many of them, with a superficial examination, may appear to be simplistic or even foolish, but the deeper one peels away layers, the more profound and perfect it becomes, to the honest examiner.”

Any and every atheistic philosophy that I have examined has shown, without exception, exactly the contention that I make. Some are extremely provocative and seemingly rational on the surface and after a superficial perusal, but as I have probed deeper, whether by means of peeling away layers of contentions and constructs or examining it with a magnifying glass, or microscope (metaphorically speaking of course). The Da Vinci code is a reasonably contemporary example; not of atheism in this case, but of a man-made construct that seems extremely plausible and academically respectable, but which is built on factual error, lies and a manipulation of smoke and mirrors. (I’m not going there so please don’t refer to specifics. We’re side-tracked enough).
More Following

24

You say: “It’s just baseless rhetoric unless you can define the “peeling” of “layers”, profoundness and perfection in this context.”

In the context that we’re talking about, the profundity of the concept, for instance, of “love your neighbour” is not immediately apparent. How do I love my neighbour? Does it mean I must have a gooey feeling for him or her? Do I go pat them on the head and say “I love you”? If I read the Bible with respect to my neighbour, I’m told not to covet anything my neighbour owns; not his house, not his servants, his Ferrari (ox), not even his wife. It also tells me not to give false testimony against him. That is also extrapolated to mean, not to falsely, or speculatively skinner about him to anyone else. Luke 10:29-37 also tells me that my neighbour can be a stranger who is in dire need. The story there is of the Samaritan man who was badly mugged, stripped and bleeding. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews at the time, yet Jesus named him as one’s neighbour. The homosexual is my neighbour, the AIDS sufferer is my neighbour, The A.P.L.A. terrorists who shot up my church are my neighbours.
That is a small example of what I’m talking about.

You say: “That is what has happend so far, not what postmodern philosophy says must happen.”

Correction, that is what Postmodern philosophy says must happen. It states that there is no Universal truth. No truth that is universally applicable to all people everywhere. It also says that there is no Abiding truth. No truth that lasts through all periods of human history. It also believes in relativism and pluralism and states that any moral code or world-view is legitimized by the majority of an autonomous group. It believes in little planets of like-minded communities floating around all aspiring to their heterotopias (there is no single Utopia). Instead of design, it believes in chance, Instead of purpose, it believes in play, Instead of creation, it believes in deconstruction, Instead of a signifier, it believes in the signified, Instead of a master code, it believes in idiolect etc. etc. etc. It is an extremely complex and intellectually challenging philosophy, which after peeling away all the layers and peering deep into its abyss turns out to be more hopeless and confused even than Nietzsche.

You say: “No, that would be law enforcement and international law is not based on any theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals.”
You miss the point. The self-stated goal and aim of Islam, for instance, is to take over the world. Within the rules (or non rules) of Postmodernism, Islam has the legitimate right to live under its world-view and moral code. Not unlike their conquest of Northern Africa Syria, parts of Palestine, Persia, Iraq, Turkey and the Southern part of Spain in the 7th century, they are trying to get other Northern African countries by force and have a strategic plan to overcome Western countries (not conspiracy theories). There are already no-go areas in England, where non-Muslims cannot go. Then, as I mention elsewhere, we have the Archbishop of Canterbury who is reputedly the most intellectual archbishop the Church of England has ever had, making a dumb-ass recommendation to the English judiciary that they should assimilate Shar’ia law into the British legal system.

By the way, it is under Islamic Shar’ia law that female rape victims must be stoned to death. The point I was making was that if a group like Islamists were to gain control of any country in the world, it would be Shar’ia law that would be enforced, which they believe emanated from Allah. Christian Reconstructionists are no different. If they got control of any country (they’ve almost got the United States) they will kill people according to the Mosaic/Levitical laws found in the Bible. Lyotard, the granddaddy of Postmodernism, speaking about the Cashinahua Indian tribe, but meaning any self attesting group, says: “They are legitimated by the simple fact that they do what they do.” (1991:23).
I beg to differ with you that international law is not based on Theocratic morals but rather on humanistic morals. Almost all of the law systems in the Western world have their genesis in biblical moral precepts. The East has some as well, but where it does not, the moral codes are based on the ethos of Eastern belief-systems. The majority of law systems around the world are based on religious belief, not on humanism.

You say: “So when the ten commandments say that those laws are also to be imposed on “the alien within your gates”, we shouldn’t actually impose it upon them.”
I said in my previous post: “The case laws of Judaism are anachronistic today and never had power outside of Jewish society.” The “alien within your gates” was just that: “In your gates”. It only applied to foreigners who came into Jewish civil society and who wanted to be assimilated into it. It did not and does not, apply to people outside of Jewish civil society.

25

Before we wander even further off topic let me state that the following is the moral code that God has proffered to all humankind, everywhere in the world, for as long as the world lasts.
Commandments regarding our relationship to God
I. "You shall have no other gods before me.
II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
III. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
IV. "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Commandments regarding our relationship to our fellow humans
"Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
VI. "You shall not murder.
VII. "You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. "You shall not steal.
IX. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
X. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”
This is the moral code for all humankind. This, I say, demonstrates God to be a moral God.

26

This is for Anacoluthon64
You ended your reply to my post with:
“Perhaps we could restrict this discussion to manageable proportions, i.e. single messages, by refraining from attempting to prove that quantity equals quality. That’s just a thought, however.”

Now that is pretty rich coming from you, especially with your previous post. You see I was under the apparent misapprension that if I gave a short, succinct answer to your theses, you would think that I was either trying to dodge difficult issues, or unable to answer you due to a number of shortcomings viz. the inability to comprehend, debate, argue logically,know various philosophies that are out there etc. etc.

So, here’s my reply then: YES I KNOW THAT GOD IS A MORAL GOD

27

If, as seems reasonable to assume, you’re referring to my reply that stretches over two-and-a-bit messages, then you may have noticed that much of said reply constitutes references to your own prior messages, which together are of exceptional length. These could easily have been shorter because much of what you wrote was extraneous, irrelevant and/or obfuscatory. I chose, perhaps wrongly, to meet your replies comprehensively. Besides, you have 6,500 characters, or around 1,200 words, per message. That is, I think, more than ample to accommodate a fairly detailed argument.

Actually, I’m under pretty much the opposite impression, namely that your volubility is a rather obvious ruse by which you seek to drown any dissent, rather than meet it squarely. But I’m open to the possibility that I could be wrong, pending apposite evidence.

Yes, and therein can be found the gist of the problem: you blandly, baldly assert your position without giving any convincing reasons why one should (a) take these assertions of yours seriously, and (b) accord your unsupported views any more credence than one should an endless host of other, possibly competing fairytales.

But, just to be fair, let’s summarise the currently prevailing picture. You claim “I KNOW.” A workable definition of “knowledge” frequently used by philosophers is “a justified true belief” to which some would add “that remains true even if some small changes occur in the circumstances in which it is held,” a conditional that seems superfluous because you’re attempting to assert a universal, eternal truth. Considering that you have not actually addressed six crucial objections, namely
[ol]- proving your god’s existence;

  • that s/he authored morality and a code specifically for humans;
  • that the Decalogue is his/her only set of biblical admonitions that we must heed unfailingly;
  • the circularity of your argument (“I know god is good because s/he told me so”);
  • empirical observations of the world that militate against your view, and
  • the logical dilemma that ensues from an analysis of your god as author of our morality and the code, as described twice before,[/ol]

you cannot then rightfully claim either that your belief is true or that it is justified. Consequently, claims on your part to “knowledge” are, to put it mildly, premature.

Oh, and you will also perhaps see how it is possible to frame a reply that meets the preferred one-message length criterion without resorting to either of the extremes of garrulous verbal diarrhoea or huffy knee-jerk peevishness.

ETA: I have gone to the trouble of collating the salient statistics of my prior replies: 1,149 words and 5,687 characters.

'Luthon64

28

For Anacoluthon64
If you believe that much of what I wrote was “extraneous, irrelevant and/or obfuscatory.” just ask me to go and I’ll go. I certainly won’t be your whipping boy. Let’s see if we can engage with less ad hominem attacks and utilise more skill and nuance than a shotgun, or mallet approach. Please don’t try the “mine is bigger than yours” (viz. language and epistemology) approach either. I’ll take you on any which way and beat your ass every time and you’ll lose the balls you think you have as well. I’m not impressed by your knowledge, erudition or argumentation and your school maam (Does that get a sic?)(Should it be ma’arm) approach. It is irritating and childish. It displays an innate insecurity, as well as an air of arrogance. If you want to continue engaging with me on the topic; that would be great, but then lose the vituperative, venom-spitting attitude and we can get on with the business. I don’t see you an enemy and I don’t think that I can win you over to my way of thinking, even if my argumentation was brilliant. Believing (in)God, and getting to a point where one puts one’s faith in Him is a spiritual event, not one primarily of cerebral assent; that is why the Christians you regularly mock on the various forums as being cerebrally challenged and as being ones who reason circularly (a favourite chestnut), can still love and live for God. They have a dynamic, personal relationship with Him that does not require them to be paid up members of Mensa. So it’s up to you.
I’ll stay or go. Its your call.

29

Rather than answer your litany of charges – a silly game you yourself started, by the way – I’ll just point out that whether you stay or go is not my decision. It is entirely yours, so do not, please, try to make me your scapegoat, okay?

But if you decide to stay, don’t expect to receive any special favours or considerations for your contentions because religious believers have demanded and received such for so long now they think it’s an entitlement. If you do decide to stay then please answer the objections I have raised.

'Luthon64

30

And this, I say, demonstrates the christian god, if s/he exists, to be a spineless miscreant sporting a degenerate morality, not so much for failing opportunely to intervene on behalf of the innocent as for facilitating such depravity in the first place.

Oh, but I suppose those girls and their babies brought it all on themselves, no doubt by being sinful.

'Luthon64

31

Ok, I don’t want to sidetrack this discussion, and not really looking for answers, but here goes…

Johno777, a couple of my thoughts on god’s morality.

  1. Adam and Eve are punished for acquiring knowledge/the ability to decide between right wrong. Hence, the human race is damned to live in sin forever, and go to hell. They made this one mistake before they acquired said ability.
  2. God is omniscient, so he should have known that Adam and Eve and fall for the trap he set by putting the tree in the garden of eden.
  3. Why did god create humans only to send them to hell for not worshiping him?
  4. If god is omniscient he should have known that stoning people to death for working on sundays will be done in his name. Why did he allow his authors to write this into the bible? Why is the church not deleting these bits now?
  5. If the bible is open to interpretation or some sections do not apply to us today, how do I decide what is right or wrong if this is the perfect moral code?
  6. If You were an omnipotent god, would you write Commandments 1 - 5 and send people to hell if they did not follow it?
  7. If god forbids murder why did he: Murder his own son/himself, his own people, other tribes. Why did we have the Spanish inquisition, etc in his name?
  8. Commandment 10 condones slavery and at a push can be interpreted to mean a man owns his wife. Is this moral? Why is this open to interpretation?
  9. Rape is not forbidden in the 10 commandments. And many other crimes if you think about it carefully.

I can continue and list a hundred things here that bother me regarding god’s morality.

As final thought, the bible is an illogical fairy tale. Please go and read the bible again and judge what is in there to your own moral code(what you think god meant) and decide if what is written there is acceptable to you.

32

Johanz, Yahweh was so pathological. The writers who just made Him up were mere savages.
The whole gambit of Adam’s sin on through the Atonement is absurd. No rational being wants such. No rational being deserves eternal praise!
That is the divine protection racket. John 3:16-18 glorifies hatred of mankind!
And @ the definitive refutation thread, I show how theists rationalize evil , which compounds Yahweh’s evil!

33

Johanvz said: “Ok, I don’t want to sidetrack this discussion, and not really looking for answers, but here goes…”

Johan, I’m afraid that it will take too much space and time to attempt to answer, in one go, all the questions you listed in your post. I’m willing to try and answer one at a time though, but, if you’re not really looking for answers, I don’t want to waste either my time or yours.I f, however, you want me to answer any of them, start with what you deem to be the most important and restate it as a single question.Thanks

34

It seems then, johnno777, that you have decided to stay. Have you any intention of addressing the six objections I raised towards the end of this post?

'Luthon64

35

To Anacoluthon64,

I’ve decided to stay for the time being to debate and answer things from a Christian perspective, with those who have a modicum of civility and respect for their fellow human beings (I thought that that is a trait that humanists are supposed to have), but I won’t be engaging with you. You have confirmed, with your last post, my previous assertion, that you are juvenile. Maybe all the vitriol you keep spitting out, comes from you being bitter and hacked off that God decided to characterise Himself as a male in the Bible (must be tedious for you to have to do the “him/her” thing everytime you refer to Him) and that He regularly refers and defers to His Son Jesus, and that He instituted patriarchalism, and that he continously seems to give women a bum rap.God is not P.C., but if you knew Him, and you knew what He really thinks of women, you would calm down and probably even like Him.

Don’t flatter yourself by thinking that I don’t want to deal with you because I cannot answer your questions. If you really wanted to know answers you could easily just post under a different name and try your darnedest(sic?) to disguise your polemical, ad hominum style.Who knows, you might even get mugged by some common sense and humility,(Oh dear, shouldn’t strictly speaking be putting a comma before an and), and mend your ways under your own name, then we can practice the art of the epeeist instead of having a slugfest.

36

It seems to me, johnno777, that you have convinced yourself of something that exists mostly in your own imagination. You accuse me of several things, not least of which is that I am uncivil, disrespectful, vitriolic, jealous, overbearing, childish and venomous. All I can say to you is that your view is simply wrong on all counts, an unwarranted and wholly mistaken inference, but I’m under no illusion that anything I say to you will change your mind about your perceptions concerning my modus operandi.

Sure, I’m confrontational when that is necessitated by some unsupported, unfounded and/or unsustainable claim or other. And that is as it should be because if not I, who then? This is, after all, a sceptical forum you have decided to come and proselytise on, and one of the primary requirements is that the claimant supplies evidence, reason and/or logic in support of his or her claims – so much so that it appears in the forum’s rules. Instead, and as near as I can tell, you automatically demand that you be allowed freely to pontificate on the realities of the world, and then cry, “Foul!” before going into a sulk when challenged to substantiate or defend your declarations.

You will perhaps also note that all of your accusations are severely cheapened by the way you have chosen to phrase them: ill-disguised misogyny, an undercurrent of ready violence, churlish airs of superiority, and more. A reflection, perhaps, of your god-ordained morality? On the strength of these, I would be similarly entitled to level several countercharges.

If all of the above offends your apparently overdelicate sensibilities, then that is your problem. Don’t attempt to lay your discomfiture at my doorstep.

Because I think we can all see quite clearly what’s really happening here.

bluegray V, perhaps (some parts of) this thread should be migrated to the “Flame Wars” sub-forum, considering the turn it seems to have taken.

'Luthon64

37

A year-and-a-half ago, Oxford University philosopher AC Grayling had this to say on the matter.

'Luthon64

38

Thanks to everyone for not moaning about where I disappeared to (work unfortunately). But I think before I go on I must tell you my personal reason why I continue to discuss this topic. To me it has been an interesting game. The topic is very limiting by asking “Is the Christian God Moral?” but I have entered into the spirit of it. In order to post anything in this topic requires that you either wholeheartedly accept that god exists or it requires that you go along with god existing “for the sake of argument”. The latter is, quite obviously, the spirit in which I have entered into this. In this spirit I feel it is unfair to ask for proof of god’s existence (as, strictly speaking, it is off topic for the title of this thread and should be in another thread) and it really does mean that the non-believers have the metaphorical hand tied behind their backs. The way I see it is that the discussion is really akin to asking “Should Santa Claus write his own name on the naughty list or the nice list” and to this the only answer that has come back so far is “on the nice list of course, because he is writing the list”.

The questions which have been asked repeatedly about how god’s decrees and actions must be used in judging his morality have not been addressed. So, continuing in the spirit …

What I am trying to point-out is that the old laws are still there in the bible, they were not removed or later listed again (as the ten commandments were) but this time with clarification about which ones stand and which ones do not. Case in point would be how Leviticus 18:22 has thrown tens of millions of Christians into confusion and contradiction about the morality or immorality of gay people.

You really need to educate all Christians about this, because there are so many who are actually reading the old testament for guidance. They are not reading it in the spirit of an “historical narrative”.

But the important point here is that it is a description of how god treated humankind, and we can see that those decrees and actions were immoral. If you want to persist by saying “that was moral for the time” then you are really espousing a relativistic philosophy that morals must be judged by the times and nature of the world at those times.

Okay, god did not write the bible. So the god-given morality is man-made, you are saying that men wrote the bible. Even if god was the muse and god sealed it with a kiss it still is man-made. And here you admit that the brutal, unfair and immoral (by today’s standards) laws were approved by god.

You didn’t address my point that the wide-reaching, scathing criticism that you leveled can be applied by both sides. You are just reasserting it in hopes of a stalemate?

Mmmkay, this is the way we debate then; say something off-topic, say that it is off-topic (so as not to attract further discussion) and ultimately achieve an unchallenged statement on the record.

Not that it matters, nobody here thinks the Da Vinci code is anything but a steaming stream of hot, runny, “Brown” literature. And badly written too. It does not seem plausible to me so we really don’t need to go there. And I don’t see the connection to morality? It is man-made, nobody doubts that, but it is not a moral code.

continued …

39

… continuation

This whole section doesn’t add any weight to your argument because you give an example of profundity which appears to be “interpret it until it applies to more than the words literally say”. In that case there is profundity (interpretation which can be applied to more than the original field) in meme theory, psychology and so on which are antithetical to a god theory.

I think that my original statement was an over-use of shorthand. I really need to flesh this out so that you can understand what philosophy is for. You are saying that postmodern philosophy requires that there is no universal truth, that it decrees that there should be pluralism. No, philosophy is descriptive not prescriptive. Postmodern philosophers are observing the behaviour of human beings and determining that this is the way that it has happened. They are not a group of people who sit around deciding laws and morals which will be prescribed to the various peoples of the world. Where is this list of morals that these philosophers have written? There is no place where it says that “people born in China will adhere to the following laws (in order to be judged as moral) and people born in Africa will adhere to this other list of moral laws”.

1 Thessalonians 1:8

What does this have to do with the morality of the Christian god? You did say this before and I don’t think that you will find any defenders of Islam here. Perhaps you could start a topic under the conspiracy theories section to prove to us that the world domination by Islam isn’t a conspiracy theory instead of just putting the words “not a conspiracy theory” in parenthesis?

And also god’s “approved with my breath” old testament law in Deuteronomy 22:23,24 where a rape victim who is scared into silence should be put to death.

And finally, just a small correction …

As Kenneth Copeland wrote:

This indicates that 'Luthon’s use of “s/he” and “him/her” is actually more correct than using “he” and “him” exclusively.

40

Quite so. After some deliberation, I decided to introduce the point following this inopportune post in order to draw attention to the fact that this entire discussion in any case rests on just such an hypothetical. The reader will note that the call for such evidence doesn’t appear before this post.

However, in the abovementioned spirit, consider the request for such proof withdrawn from this thread.

'Luthon64