POI wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:39 pm
(U) I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition.
POI Being all powerful, who cannot be overturned, and also creates, are all attributes of your God, right?
God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc. Just because God has an attribute doesn't mean all the attributes mean the same. With your argument, then mercy makes right, love makes right, just makes right, etc.
(U) Ultimately, because I created this forum and I set the original rules.
POI Then as Frank Turek has pointed out, in video 1, your given response indicates that your reasoning is arbitrary.
Don't follow your logic. What exactly did Turek state that makes me creating the forum to set what is right arbitrary?
(U) Note that I could have set the rules and not have any form of enforcement. It would still be what is right, even though there is no "might" behind it.
POI But WHY is your given rules for this arena actually right? Is it merely because you say so, or are there reasons outside your mere say-so? In other words, what reason(s) propelled you to elect such given rules?
The why doesn't matter. Did I the provide the justification for the rules on the rules page? No. Do they still define what is the right behavior that is expected on the forum? Yes. Are they actually right for this forum? Yes. Has anybody asked for the why for the rules before? No.
God is 'right' because he assigns what is right/wrong, based upon his own nature. And since he possesses the "might", as I have defined, is why he is "right". Therefore, "might makes right", which as Frank T. points out, is arbitrary.
And as I've pointed out, you have a circular definition of right:
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:37 am
"Right" - Whatever God says is considered 'right', because he possesses the 'might'.
This is a circular definition.
And you also have a definition of might contrary to dictionary definitions:
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:58 pm
POI wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 12:01 pm
POI My given definition of 'might' encompasses your given definitions of authority. (i.e.)
All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates.
I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition.
So your entire argument of "might makes right" is entirely based on faulty definitions.
(U) The buck stops with any highest form of authority. There is no more appeal after the Supreme Court. There is no more appeal after a king. There is no more appeal to anyone after I make a decision on this forum.
POI I agree. But is this WHAT makes the ruling actually right?
At a minimum, it is subjectively right for that particular area of domain (US, a kingdom, this forum). What would make something objectively right? The only basis would be if it could be traced back to God.
POI Do your rules need to be followed merely because you say so, or are your reasons justified outside your say-so?
Everyone needs to follow the rules because they are part of the forum. Though I do have reasons for the rules, it is not necessary for the rules to be explained in order for them to be the standard of right behavior on the forum.
Ultimately though, I base the principles of the forum on my sense of moral values and the principles of the Bible. I believe everyone should be respected because everyone is created in the image of God. I believe everyone should be treated fairly and there should not be preferential treatment for those "on my side".
So far, in regard to the topic of 'anal sex', it is bad because God says so, which is arbitrary, as explained in video 1.
And as I've repeatedly asked, what has been shown in the video that I have not addressed?
POI Maybe you now realize the conflict. It is either because God says so, which is arbitrary, (or), reasons outside God's say-so, which then means we no longer need God.
God's nature is not arbitrary, so there is no conflict.
You have debated with others, of the reason(s) as to why 'anal sex' is 'bad'. Hence, you have demonstrated that you no longer need God to justify your morals.
Yes, I've given both religious and secular reasons why anal sex is bad. Providing both does not mean the other is nullified, but rather provides additional support to each.
This is exactly why Frank tries to argue for a third circular option. The latter part of video 2 explains why.
And I have to ask again, what is exactly stated that I have not addressed?
(U) We're talking about morality, not about if terms are objective or not.
POI So am I. Jesus Judges the 'rich'. He is assigning a judgement value upon an objective finding. So-and-so has X amount of money, which is X. Is 'rich' an objectively moral term, or is it always subjective? I am not offering a red herring. My point being, is that once God/Jesus weighs in on a topic, theists no longer deem that topic subjectively moral or immoral, it is now objectively moral. (i.e.)
Jesus says anal sex is bad - objective!
Jesus says Bob is rich - objective!
No, your analogy is not relevant as I've been pointing out.
"Rich" is not a moral term. Where does the Bible say it is wrong to be rich? There is no normative claim about being rich in the Bible (or in any human laws), so being rich is not even relevant to morality.
If I say either of the two, and do not conjure up some invisible God-like-force to substantiate it, then theists state I cannot justify "objective morality."
You're not even talking about morality when discussing being rich.
POI More rubberstamping. So, you believe male-on-male hand jobs, male-on-male French kissing, and male-on-male oral, is all okay with the God of the Bible? Seriously?
Yes, I'm providing more rubberstamping of corrections of your false attributions. Here's what I stated: "I'm not saying anything not explicitly prohibited in the Bible is okay. Nothing is mentioned about many things, but that doesn't mean they are okay. But, if one wants to interpret the Leviticus passages as encompassing all sexual activity, they are free to do so. But, I believe it's specifically referring to anal sex."
POI My prior explanation explains the relevancy. Many humans think gay sex is an 'abomination' because God gives us our morals to think this.
Do you, or do you not think God gives humans their moral compass?
God gives people their moral intuition, but that doesn't mean we all have perfect or identical moral judgments and behavior. We are still fallen and prone to sin and have skewed moral judgments. So just because some people have a certain stance on morality doesn't mean that is how God views it.