If you wouldn't follow Hitler, why follow God?

[John Fisher]

Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I refuse to worship such a god. Why? You obviously believe that loving your family and children is a good thing. Why not love the God who created you, gives you life, and offers to forgive you of your sin, then make eternity even better than anything you can imagine on earth? Other portions of the Bible even make it clear that loving God properly increases your ability to love and love for your family. Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[srt7]

Hitler:doh:....oh!!..right...that lousy (COWARD)BASTARD....from Germany Regards, SRT

[Stan Shannon]

Well damn. So I guess I'm going to burn in hell. I knew I should have read the bible... :~ John Carson wrote: I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the US is constantly attempting to use the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality. You apparently don't read statutes either since many existing laws already do that. No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. The only way that makes sense is if you are overtly trying to destroy religion - beginning with Christianity. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."

[Terry ONolley]

John Fisher wrote: What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? All I am saying is that I know I could never love a god that tortures people forever - even if he has all the power and makes all the rules. To do so would be to turn my back on all of my own morals and become a hypocrite.

---

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Luke 12:5 In other words - If you don't love god more than your own family you will be tortured forever!

[John Carson]

Stan Shannon wrote: No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible. Then a shaft of light gets through and I think I understand. You are obsessed about the influence of judicial law making and, rather than state that clearly, you make nonsensical arguments that black is white. "Using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country" is for the very purpose of using "the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality". This is so obvious that it exasperates me to have to point it out. The religious right wants to influence political processes so that laws and funding priorities restrict access to abortion, discourage homosexuality, stop stem cell research etc. etc. The left also seeks to influence political processes. One difference is that the left more often wants to repeal laws covering moral issues. It wants to withdraw the authority of the state from the area. The left and the right also launch court cases in support of their position. The left has recently had some wins that you don't think are supported by a proper reading of the Constitution (once again, some of those wins have the effect of withdrawing state authority from an area). Even if you are right in your Constitutional interpretation, it doesn't support your wild generalisations, as discussed above. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell

[John Carson]

John Fisher wrote: Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. And when you see people doing such things, you realize that they have problems. I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Fisher]

Terry O`Nolley wrote: All I am saying is that I know I could never love a god that tortures people forever - even if he has all the power and makes all the rules. To do so would be to turn my back on all of my own morals and become a hypocrite. I understand your position and certainly can't (and won't) force you to change your mind. However -- you already know I think this -- it would only be to your advantage to rethink the reason you take that position. It smells of circular reasoning from the statements and assumptions that I've seen in your posts, which appear to be something like: 1) God is cruel to torture people forever. 2) Cruelty is what I define it to be. Until you realize that you don't have the authority to define cruelty, it isn't of much value for us to continue the discussion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Carson]

John Fisher wrote: Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. Morality as conventionally understood is a code describing desirable behaviour. As such it expresses a preference on the part of the adherent or advocate of the moral code. It is not a fact or a truth like gravity. If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. In the same way, if you accepted that Hitler defined morality or love, then you could say that "Hitler is good" or "Hitler is love". As on so many issues, Christians wish to have it both ways. On the one hand, they appeal to our conventional understandings of goodness and love (promoting happiness, not being cruel, etc.) in order to praise God. On the other hand, they are willing to strip those words of their conventional meaning in defending presumed behaviour on the part of God that is inconsistent with those conventional understandings. An honest approach would say "God is love, but don't imagine that by 'love' we mean something inconsistent with gratuitous cruelty etc. --- love is whatever God says it is." But Christians refuse to be that honest. John Fisher wrote: I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. In other words, if held hostage by a terrorist, then you may pay a price for a lack of cooperation. True enough. Equally, you may be made to suffer even if you do cooperate. Terrorists are like that. It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell

[Stan Shannon]

John Carson wrote: Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible And that is really the problem, isn't it? Like all True Believers, you are pyschologically incapable of perceiving the irrationality of your own point of view. You are part of a global movement which has taken upon itself the task of overturning the established orthodoxy and instituting one predicated upon a new, secular, moral agenda. You see your way as the only way, and everyone else is a threat which must be eliminated - all the time huming your phony little tune of "multi-culturalism" and inclusion. Any one who disagrees with you suffers from a lack of intelligence, or has been duped somehow by propaganda or threatened by fear mongering. Human Beings are instinctively attracted to powerful institutions, especially those which are capable of effectively projecting a set of moral principles upon others (and even more so when they live in weak, marginal, little countries). We want to join and be a part of such movements. To be considered members of a new, vibrant orthodoxy. That is what the current secularist movement is all about. It is a movement which will not take no for an answer and which has targeted the last remaining major strong hold of Chrisitanity, the U.S. heartland as its next, and most important, victim. That conquest will leave the Secularists in full control of Western civilzation - philosophically unopposed. The Ultra-Right-Wing extremists, or whatever term you wish to use to demonize them, are simply fighting back. Get used to it, they are the enemy you created out of whole cloth. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."

[John Carson]

You seem to have decided to just repeat yourself (with some added abuse) rather than attempt to explain the parts of your claims that seem to me to be indefensible --- in particular your denial that religious groups are trying to use the authority of the state to promote their religiously based morality. Stan Shannon wrote: You are part of a global movement which has taken upon itself the task of overturning the established orthodoxy and instituting one predicated upon a new, secular, moral agenda. You see your way as the only way, and everyone else is a threat which must be eliminated - all the time huming your phony little tune of "multi-culturalism" and inclusion. Gratuitous nonsense. Stan Shannon wrote: Human Beings are instinctively attracted to powerful institutions, especially those which are capable of effectively projecting a set of moral principles upon others (and even more so when they live in weak, marginal, little countries). We want to join and be a part of such movements. To be considered members of a new, vibrant orthodoxy. Sounds like the war on terrorism. Speaking for myself, I am a congenital individualist. I have never felt really comfortable in any group in my entire life. The mob (and especially mob thinking) repels me. Stan Shannon wrote: The Ultra-Right-Wing extremists, or whatever term you wish to use to demonize them, are simply fighting back. Get used to it, they are the enemy you created out of whole cloth. Religious groups have had a large influence on government throughout history. They are currently seeking to defend their influence and extend it --- pretty much what they have always done. I am very used to it. Their behaviour is not my creation or my generation's creation. <Edit> At the time of my birth (in the 50s), abortion and homosexuality were illegal throughout Australia. More seriously, it was illegal for most shops to open on a Sunday and Sunday was likewise off-limits for major sporting events. The rationale in both cases was that the misnamed "Sabbath" was a day of Christian worship and not one for secular pursuits. If memory serves, Sunday trading did not become legal until the 70s. Divorce was difficult to obtain and it was a long drawn out process where it was granted. Blasphemy was a criminal offence. As a practical matter, there was almost no chance of being jailed for blasphemy, but blasphemers could certainly not keep their jobs on radio or tel

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. John Carson wrote: It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Carson]

John Fisher wrote: Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. I have no idea what you are talking about and suspect that you don't either. Gravity is not defined or described in terms of gravity. As originally stated by Newton, the law of gravity says that the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their mass divided by the square of the distance between them. I don't see how this is describing gravity in terms of gravity. John Fisher wrote: Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous here but you appear to be saying that whatever God does supplies the definition of love. This presumably extends to the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered either at God's command or directly by him in the Old Testament (including women and children). This is pure tautology. I could equally say that Hitler defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the history of the Third Reich. The essential point is this. If I say that Fred Blogs is a loving guy, then you have a fair idea what I mean without knowing anything else about Fred Blogs. And if I told you that Fred Blogs was an alias for Saddam Hussein, then you would conclude that my description of him as a loving guy was false. With any human being, being "loving" or "just" or "good" means meeting some external standard. With God, by contrast, you don't take that approach. What God does is good by definition, which makes the description empty. John Fisher wrote: You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) One possible definition of cruelty: Behaviour that leads to unnecessary (i.e., redundant) suffering. Talking in earthly terms, we can say that in the absence of some system of justice there would be enormous suffering (due to the high incidence of violence etc.). Accordingly, the fact that the crimin

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: If, however, we don't accept that divine whim defines necessity Realistically speaking, the only other choice is your whim or mine, or the collective human opinion. Once again, it is the one who can enforce the standard that makes the standard which matters. What you wish isn't necessarily true, just like wishing gravity didn't apply to you. John Carson wrote: You probably want to argue that God must act according to his nature and that his nature includes justice. But since you will define anything that God does as just, we are back with tautology. Wrong. If that statement is correct, you are equally stuck in a tautological mindset. Your alternative definition of cruelty or goodness or love is based on something equally arbitrary (according to your standard), and in fact is less valid since it changes with the collective opinion of people. John Carson wrote: Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous here but you appear to be saying that whatever God does supplies the definition of love. This presumably extends to the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered either at God's command or directly by him in the Old Testament (including women and children). This is pure tautology. You're trying so hard to prove your point, but you are missing the real question. God has more than one attribute. He doesn't do everything from an obvious attitude of love. That's the whole point of me telling you that He is also just and holy. Just like humans who punish criminals aren't necessarily doing it because the love the criminal, God punishes sin because it requires punishment. BTW, you have used "tautology" many times. If that is your only real argument, you're on very shaky ground. Definitions require descriptions of the thing being defined. If I say that God is love, then show you the actions He says were loving actions, I have told you what love is. This is not a tautology, it is a definition. If you want to believe that love is something else, that's fine, but you haven't changed God's definition into a tautology by preferring another definition. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Carson]

John Fisher wrote: Realistically speaking, the only other choice is your whim or mine, or the collective human opinion. Once again, it is the one who can enforce the standard that makes the standard which matters. The point is that if human suffering is much higher than it needs to be just because God so determines it, then God is cruel on any normal understanding of those words. John Fisher wrote: Wrong. If that statement is correct, you are equally stuck in a tautological mindset. Your alternative definition of cruelty or goodness or love is based on something equally arbitrary (according to your standard), and in fact is less valid since it changes with the collective opinion of people. Wrong. The issue is whether moral criteria are specified independently of the actions being evaluated. For example, if you write down a definition of cruelty and then evaluate actions according to that definition, then your evaluation will depend on what the actions are. By contrast, if you make a particular being's actions good by definition, then your evaluation is independent of that being's actions and your apparent evaluation of those actions is a charade. Who lays down the criteria is irrelevant for present purposes. If God laid down a set of criteria and invited evaluation of his actions in terms of that criteria, then the evaluation process would be of some interest, even if rather rigged. We could see if God was behaving consistently with his declared criteria or not. This is quite different from saying that whatever God does is right by definition. John Fisher wrote: God has more than one attribute. He doesn't do everything from an obvious attitude of love. That's the whole point of me telling you that He is also just and holy. Just like humans who punish criminals aren't necessarily doing it because the love the criminal, God punishes sin because it requires punishment. Requires it why? And why does the punishment have to be so severe? You have no answer because you just accept whatever God does without any independent criteria of judgement. Grant the same acceptance to any other being and that being will be just, holy, loving etc. etc. John Fisher wrote: If I say that God is love, then show you the actions He says were loving actions, I have told you what love is. This is not a tautology, it is a definition. It is both. Ask yourself the following: In your scheme of things, is

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: The point is that if human suffering is much higher than it needs to be just because God so determines it, then God is cruel on any normal understanding of those words. No, the point is that you have no basis for deciding what "it needs to be". You have opinions and feelings, but no foundation for your choice. (Even if you decide to use cultural or popular belief, it's still just a bunch of opinions and feelings.) Please quit labelling my statements as tautological when 1) I have given reasons that they are not, and 2) your own basis is plainly tuatological. John Carson wrote: The issue is whether moral criteria are specified independently of the actions being evaluated. Amazingly, you are right. However, your application is way off base. With the above statement, you must next decide WHO is doing the evaluating. God is the only one in the position to properly enforce any moral standard. He gives us a standard to live by, which is modelled after His own character. John Carson wrote: Who lays down the criteria is irrelevant for present purposes. If God laid down a set of criteria and invited evaluation of his actions in terms of that criteria, then the evaluation process would be of some interest, even if rather rigged. We could see if God was behaving consistently with his declared criteria or not. Who lays down the criteria is critical to this discussion. God has the power to back up His standard, you don't. You are pitting your criteria against God's, then stating that yours is better than His for some unknown reason. Having not come up with a non-tautological reason for your own criteria, you cannot logically expect it from anyone else (even though it is available). John Carson wrote: This is quite different from saying that whatever God does is right by definition. Not when God's character is the reason for the standard. John Carson wrote: Requires it why? And why does the punishment have to be so severe? I have given parts of the answer already. If you really want to know, you can ask again. John Carson wrote: You have no answer because you just accept whatever God does without any independent criteria of judgement. False. God clearly defines certain behaviors as consistent with Himself. This standard has been and still is able to determine whether something

[John Carson]

I regard my arguments on tautology as conclusive. You plainly don't have eyes to see, so I won't labour the point. You say that God gives us a standard to live by. You miss the point that my concerns are about the absence of a standard for God to live by. The God-driven attrocities reported in the Old Testament certainly don't meet the standard laid down in 1 Corinthians 13, from which God is apparently exempt. Let me address the issue you keep raising about my standards vs God's standards. In political science arguments over democracy vs autocracy, the question arises as to why the opinions of the unintelligent, uneducated, selfish etc. should count for the same as those with more admirable attributes. The answer I always give is that decision making has two elements 1. technical expertise, 2. the interests or objectives of the decision makers. The great virtue of democracy is that if the unintelligent etc. get a say, then the government has an incentive (albeit an imperfect one) to look after their interests. Under democracy, the interests of "ordinary" people get a consideration that they do not consistently get under any other system. When it comes to God's morals vs the morals of human beings, the great virtue of the morals of human beings is that they have regard to the interests of human beings (whether this is the self interest of an individual or the interest of others is plainly a big issue, but the human centred morality is a virtue nonetheless). There is no a priori reason to believe that the morals of God are consistent with the interests of human beings. We may just be his playthings in a sick game. Accordingly, it is essential for moral, intellectual and theological clarity that we make a clear distinction between God's morals and our own morals and recognise that God's morals reflect God's interests and our moral's reflect ours. When you make statements like "God is just" and define justice by God's actions, you are obliterating human identity, making God's interests the only ones that exist. What one does with this distinction will depend on one's other beliefs. If you believe that God does indeed exist, then it is important to know if God's nature makes human welfare a top priority. If it does, then happy days. If it does not, then you are in a nightmare: an omnipotent being with a lack of regard for human interests. Now an argument could be made that, in such a scenario, it is best not to know. But an argument could equally be made that if dealing with a terrorist, it is good to k

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: I regard my arguments on tautology as conclusive. You plainly don't have eyes to see, so I won't labour the point. I'm sorry you can't comprehend my argument, then. Hanging on to a false claim of "tautology" in the face of my attempts to show you otherwise is saddening. But, I'll try to make it clearer in this post. John Carson wrote: When it comes to God's morals vs the morals of human beings, the great virtue of the morals of human beings is that they have regard to the interests of human beings Circular reasoning. You label human morals as virtuous by stating that they have the interests of themselves at heart. You like thinking of "interests of human beings" as a good thing, so you say that the interests of humans is a virtue, thus making God's morals supposedly less virtuous. Your wishes are at the root of your argument, without logical support for the choice. If this isn't a tautology, but my statements are, then I'd kindly request that you provide a definition of tautology as you use it! People want to live the way they want, without regard to a higher authority, so they provide a definition of morality that lets them reason their way out of believing in absolute morals. There is no basis to that argument other than the opinion that letting people do what they want is what is best for them. How do you know that? As a parent teaches a child, because they don't know enough yet, God is in the position of teaching us what is best for us. If you read even a few books of the Bible, you could clearly see that God has a desire to bless, provide, protect, and care for people. He also has the sole position of being omnipotent, making Him the only one who can accurately define what is in the best interest of human beings. It is also plain from the gospels that God did much more than expected or imagined in order to provide an escape from the penalty of sin. That is clear evidence that God is loving and that He cares about humans enough for us to safely believe in Him. Another thing that you have clearly confused is the issue of God's love. Apparently you think that in order to be loving, every single action must be a direct result of overt love. Justice is a critical part of practical love. You may have even heard humans referring to it as "tough love". Also, don't forget my plain statements that love is one of God's attributes, and that holiness is the primary attribute, not love. So, where God appears t

[John Carson]

John Fisher wrote: Circular reasoning. You label human morals as virtuous by stating that they have the interests of themselves at heart. You like thinking of "interests of human beings" as a good thing, so you say that the interests of humans is a virtue, thus making God's morals supposedly less virtuous. Your wishes are at the root of your argument, without logical support for the choice. Let me make my position clearer. I reject the notion that there is some meta-morality that applies to all beings. What is in the interest of humans is not necessarily what is in the interests of dogs or cats. When humans push dogs or cats around, it is not justified by some species-independent morality. It is just a matter of humans exercising their superior power. Each class of beings has its own interests and which class prevails is determined by their relative power. One might hope for some empathy between different classes of beings, but I reject the notion that there is some objective system of morality that encompasses all of them. If God exists, then the relationship between God and human beings is analogous to the relationship between, say, human beings and farm animals. If I was a farm animal, I would not embrace human morality simply because it was articulated by a superior being. If I am a cow, why should I embrace the desire of human beings to eat me? Likewise, as a human being I see no reason to embrace the self-interested morality of a God who is more powerful than me. (I might go along with God's commands with a view to reducing the risk of punishment, but that is not the same as embracing God's morality.) John Fisher wrote: As a parent teaches a child, because they don't know enough yet, God is in the position of teaching us what is best for us. Which assumes that God has our best interests at heart, contrary to the evidence. John Fisher wrote: If you read even a few books of the Bible, you could clearly see that God has a desire to bless, provide, protect, and care for people. He also has the sole position of being omnipotent, making Him the only one who can accurately define what is in the best interest of human beings. I have read more than a few books of the Bible and I did not draw the same conclusion. Protestations of good intentions in the Bible must be subject to a credibility test. Further, omnipotence does not make God "the only one who can accurately define what is in the best interest of human bein

[John Fisher]

John Carson wrote: Let me make my position clearer. I reject the notion that there is some meta-morality that applies to all beings. What is in the interest of humans is not necessarily what is in the interests of dogs or cats. If you think I had stated such a thing, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I only intended to indicate that God, through the Bible, has specified morals for humans. These morals were not meant to be applied to animals, etc. John Carson wrote: If God exists, then the relationship between God and human beings is analogous to the relationship between, say, human beings and farm animals. I might accept that analogy with several constraints, but not just as you stated it. God is certainly higher and different than humans, but the Bible teaches that we were created "in the image" of God and that God became a man in order to free us from sin and it's penalties. Animals were not created in the image of humans, nor has a human ever become a cow out of love for cows in order to save them from some horrible plight. John Carson wrote: Which assumes that God has our best interests at heart, contrary to the evidence. Since you provide none of this "evidence", the statement isn't work much. (I would have assumed that you believed God didn't exist. If that were the case, how could you even have any evidence for what God is like?) Your last 2 paragraphs again make it plain that you are ignoring the circular logic of your own ideas (as presented), and refusing to see the non-circular reasoning of my own statements. So, here they are in short, simple statements. Your position, based on my understanding of your posts: - Assumption: Being interested in human beings welfare is a virtue. - Assumption: Only humans are capable of accurately knowing what is in their best interest. - Conclusion: Human beings are best at defining their own morality. Unless you can provide a non-circular argument for the first assumption, the entire logical structure of that argument falls apart. You are left standing in a position that is less valid than the one to follow. My position, based upon my obvious ability to know what I think. - Assumption: God is all-powerful, as taught in the Bible. - Assumption: God is all-knowing, as taught in the Bible. - Assumption: God loves humans greatly, as taught in the Bible. - Assumption: God has given humans a moral code to live by. - Conclusion: Because o