What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

That God (Jesus Christ) died and rose from the dead at one point of space and time

No. He died at one point in space-time and He rose at a different point in space-time. Different actions at different points in space-time. Points that were three days apart in the time dimension. That is change by any rational definition. Anything else is Humpty Dumpty argumentation.

That we see them sequentially does not prove that God does not see them eternally.

God is seeing them from outside time, in faarn. We have agreed that God is faarnstatic. Within time there is change. Outside time both ‘changing’ and ‘unchanging’ have no meaning.

It would help me understand what you are saying if you coulduse as much ofmy question as possiblein your answer.

Look near the top of my posts, in the first quote, where it says “Originally Posted by Douglas Kraeger http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif”. That http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif is a link. Click on it and you will be taken to the post I am quoting from. In this case I am answering your question as quoted in my post:My question was: Are you saying that it is impossible for God to be outside of time and space, doing all He does in the present tense, all at ‘once’ always? Not possible?

please try to provide areason why it is impossible rather than get sidelined with problems of the english language when dealing with God?

The problem is not with the English language. The problem is that you are trying to put God outside time and then describe Him in terms of time. You cannot do both, once you are outside time a whole range of time based concepts like change, causation, growth, development, resurrection etc. become useless because they have no meaning. You are trying to have your cake and eat it; operating outside time while using time based concepts. One or the other, not both.

I HAVE BEEN LISTENING. I keep asking (I think 4 times so far) how you start with a number of subjective opinions and comeup with a truly objective morallity.

If you ask the same question then you will get the same answer. Let us instead try a different question, how do you derive an objective morality without resorting to any subjective opinions? Perhaps if we worked from your side we might make more progress.

This not a proof.

I did not say it was a proof. It is a description of the method you can use to obtain a proof for yourself. Actually obtaining the proof is up to you. You now know where to find it.

I know there are objective moral should’s and should not’s.

I agree, there are objective morals.

And I know that there can be no truly objective moral order without something bigger than men and women to so ordain that order. What is the originator of your objective moral order?

The universe. The moral order is built into the universe. Go back again to my analogy of karma with gravity. Both are built into the universe.

how do you start with subjective opinions and get to a truly objective morallity?

I do not start with just subjective opinions. Now you need to answer the question, “how do you arrive at an objective morality?”

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Let us instead try a different question, how do you derive an objective morality without resorting to any subjective opinions? Perhaps if we worked from your side we might make more progress.

To Rossum and Douglas Kraeger:

It is not my intention to get into your conversation. It is far beyond me. However, to a simple granny, the answer to the above question would be based on the fact that the mentioned objective morality concerns only true human beings. Thus, if one wants to derive an objective morality without resorting to any subjective opinions, then one bases morality on an universal truth about the existent human person. A universal truth is also seen as an objective truth because it exists independently. In other words, it existed before I was born and will exist after I die or cease being recognizable as a human person.

As an universal (objective) truth, the following can serve as the foundation for objective morality: The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

No. He …That is change by any rational definition. Anything else is Humpty Dumpty argumentation.
The above is a conclusion that I do not see any evidence to “prove” it. I do not see where God being outside of time, seeing all time and space as one event, all His actions as one action, I do not see where that is “Humpty Dumpty argumentation”. and your statement that it is “Humpty Dumpty argumentation” is (of coarse) not anythiing more than an unsuported opinion.

God is seeing them from outside time, in faarn. We have agreed that God is faarnstatic. Within time there is change. Outside time both ‘changing’ and ‘unchanging’ have no meaning.

Within time, we see change. But that does not disprove the quote from St. Augustine I mentioned earlier, " to God, time is the revealing of Truth that always was." and always is could be added. To Godthere is no change, thereforethere is no change because God sees what is Truth.
:My question was: Are you saying that it is impossible for God to be outside of time and space, doing all He does in the present tense, all at ‘once’ always? Not possible?

The problem is not with the English language. The problem is that you are trying to put God outside time and then describe Him in terms of time. You cannot do both, once you are outside time a whole range of time based concepts like change, causation, growth, development, resurrection etc. become useless because they have no meaning. You are trying to have your cake and eat it; operating outside time while using time based concepts. One or the other, not both.

I think Perhaps, you are the one who is implicitly trying to place time limited thinking restrictions on the actions of God, outside of time? By your concluding that it is “Humpty Dumpty argumentation” without any reasoning, you do not make a very stong case.
If you ask the same question then you will get the same answer. Let us instead try a different question, how do you derive an objective morality without resorting to any subjective opinions? Perhaps if we worked from your side we might make more progress.

I have asked the same question, but I do not see any answer. that is not the same thing as the same answer unless it is the same evasive non-answer. Where have you tried to explain your starting with subjective moral opinions and somehow becoming a truly objctive moral"law" that is valid and binding on allpeople and is independent of the opinions of individuals?  You state that

The universe. The moral order is built into the universe. Go back again to my analogy of karma with gravity. Both are built into the universe.

I do not start with just subjective opinions. Now you need to answer the question, “how do you arrive at an objective morality?”

 This moral order is built into the universe. I agree with that. But I say that in order for it to be built into the universe, there must be a builder with an intelligence.  If the moral order that is built into the universe has no builder, then there is no one to enforce the moral order when we disobey it. If there is nothing that can truly know our intentions, not just see what we do, then how could it make infallible decisions asto our next lives? Your claim that karma "just does it" does not address the inherent problem of trying to explain how something that has no inteligence can understand intentions which are a function of our intelligences.

    I think you know how we arrive at our objective morallity. God ordained it, reveals it and we accept it, sometimes imperfectly. But as long as our hearts truly want to do what is right, God is pleased. As long as we sincerely search for His truth and His understanding of the Truth, He is pleased.

Now will you try to show how you start with subjective opinions and the universe, and arrive at a truly objectivemoral orsder? Please consider that when you claim the moral order is built into the universe, unless you have someone revealing it with absolute authority, all you will have is the subjective opinions of many different people as to what the moral order really is.
lso willyou try to make a reasonable effort toexplain HOW something with no intelligence can truly KNOW AND UNDERSTAND our intentions?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I do not see where that is “Humpty Dumpty argumentation”. and your statement that it is “Humpty Dumpty argumentation” is (of coarse) not anythiing more than an unsuported opinion.

Change is defined as difference in time. If object X at time T1 is different from object X at time T2, where T1 is different from T2 then object X has changed. You are saying that God at time T1 is making Dodos while God at time T2 is not making Dodos and you are denying that God has changed. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, you are making the word “change” mean what you want it to mean and not what its accepted meaning is.

God 500 years ago was making Dodos. God now is not making Dodos. Therefore God has changed.

This moral order is built into the universe. I agree with that. But I say that in order for it to be built into the universe, there must be a builder with an intelligence.

I have added some emphasis to your words. You are merely stating a subjective opinion. I asked you for an objective basis for your morality and you are giving me a subjective basis.

What is the objective basis of your morality?

I think you know how we arrive at our objective morallity. God ordained it, reveals it and we accept it,

Where did God revel it? The Tanakh? The Bible? The Qur’an? The Bhagavad Gita? The Tripitaka? Guru Granth Sahib? What is your objective reason for selecting one among the many versions of what God said?

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Change is defined as difference in time. … you are making the word “change” mean what you want it to mean and not what its accepted meaning is.

  As you said in another post, " If one question does not work, try another". So, You do not see God creating dodos today.  Correct? Therefore you see God changing what He is doing. Correct?
  Do you see all that God is doing now?   No. 
  Does that prove that God is not doing something now, simply because you do not see Him doing it?  No.
   That you see time as change, is fine. Does that prove that God must see time as change, that God can not see all time, all at once, and every action He is always doing, as one single action? 
   If God sees all time, all "at once", or as one sight, or view, is it possible that there is no change seen by  God?

I have added some emphasis to your words. You are merely stating a subjective opinion. I asked you for an objective basis for your morality and you are giving me a subjective basis.
Your question was, “how do you derive an objective morality without resorting to any subjective opinions?”.
Two parts: How do I arrive at an objective morallity?
I think I answered that.
I think you know how we arrive at our objective morallity. God ordained it, reveals it and we accept it, sometimes imperfectly. But as long as our hearts truly want to do what is right, God is pleased. As long as we sincerely search for His truth and His understanding of the Truth, He is pleased.
I would amend that to read we arrive at what we believe is God’s objective morallity by seeking the truth spoken in our hearts and by honestly and perseveringly seeking to eliminate all inconsistancies in that which we see as the Truth.
Is there a subjective part to this equation? Of coarse. Does our having a subjective opinion change God’s objective Law? No.
As I stated some time ago, God requires us to continually seek to know more and more of His Law. That is why before Jesus’s time, God’s revelation was of His hatred of sin…stoning. With Jesus, God reveals His mercy…“go and sin no more”.
We acknowledge our imperfect application ofGod’s perfect objective moral order. You did not address any ofmy questions:

This moral order is built into the universe. I agree with that. But I say that in order for it to be built into the universe, there must be a builder with an intelligence. If the moral order that is built into the universe has no builder, then there is no one to enforce the moral order when we disobey it. If there is nothing that can truly know our intentions, not just see what we do, then how could it make infallible decisions asto our next lives? Your claim that karma “just does it” does not address the inherent problem of trying to explain how something that has no inteligence can understand intentions which are a function of our intelligences.

Now will you try to show how you start with subjective opinions and the universe, and arrive at a truly objective moral order? Please consider that when you claim the moral order is built into the universe, unless you have someone revealing it with absolute authority, all you will have is the subjective opinions of many different people as to what the moral order really is.
lf so will you try to make a reasonable effort to explain HOW something with no intelligence can truly KNOW AND UNDERSTAND our intentions?

What is the objective basis of your morality?

To careabout myself and others is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore I believe there must be an All-Powerful…
What is your objective reason for selecting one among the many versions of what God said?
No one has evershown a more perfect example of sacrificial love than Jesus Christ who had the power to get down off the cross and did not so that He could show by His example how far our love should go for everyone.
rossum

 

[rossum]

That you see time as change, is fine.

Time is not change. Difference over time is change. What God does is different over time therefore what God does changes. God’s actions one year are different from God’s actions in the next year. I was born in one year, I was not born in other years. If God is involved in my birth, for example by making my soul, then God’s actions have changed. If God’s actions change then God is also changing.

Is there a subjective part to this equation? Of coarse.

Then why are you criticising me for having a subjective element in my derivation of an objective morality? In the end we have to have some element of subjectivity, purely because there are many competing objective moralities out there and we cannot select between them without some element of subjectivity. We are both in the same position.

lf so will you try to make a reasonable effort to explain HOW something with no intelligence can truly KNOW AND UNDERSTAND our intentions?

We have intelligence and we know and understand our intentions. Our own understanding is recorded, as with the bar chit I gave as an example. Karma merely reads our bar chit (samskāra) and adds up the total.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Time is not change. Difference over time is change. What God does is different over time therefore what God does changes. God’s actions one year are different from God’s actions in the next year. I was born in one year, I was not born in other years. If God is involved in my birth, for example by making my soul, then God’s actions have changed. If God’s actions change then God is also changing.

From my point of view, the action is the “creation of an individual spiritual soul”. God’s action of creating an individual spiritual soul as essential in the human nature of Adam is the same as God’s action of creating an individual spiritual soul as essential in the human nature of King John is the same as God’s action of creating an individual spiritual soul as essential in the human nature of all CAF posters. Action is the operative word.

God is consistent. Since the action does not change, the result is the same which is why all human persons are worthy of profound respect. Since the action and result are independent of human endeavors, “the human person is worthy of profound respect” becomes an universal or objective truth and thus the foundation for morality.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Time is not change. Difference over time is change. What God does is different over time therefore what God does changes. God’s actions one year are different from God’s actions in the next year. I was born in one year, I was not born in other years. If God is involved in my birth, for example by making my soul, then God’s actions have changed. If God’s actions change then God is also changing.

Your statement is correct if God is not doing everything , all at once, eternally, outside of time , in His essence. But, if he is doing all the above,and we just do not see it all now, then He is only doing one thing, always, eternally and there is no change of action or change in God. Correct? I know that is a big IF, that can not be proven or disproven, I believe in an absolute, OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER WITH OBJECTIVE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES, andI do not see how anyone can justify an objective moral order without an infinitely powerful creator. You have said "that the universe has this moral order as part of it’s essence and combined with the sum total of many subjective opinions, you believe it is an objective moral order. My objection is that there is no absolute authority that is infallible in revealing the moral order in your universe, (under your explanation of it anyways) and therefore all you seem to have is the sum total of many subjerctive opinions. Correct? That you have come to the same conclusion in many areas is not the problem. That you effectively claim that the “mere” sum total of many subjective opinions makes it objective is the foundation of your belief system, and this does not seem supportable, (as you evidense by your repeated failure to try and answer directly my efforts for you to explain how you can justify believing the “mere” sum of many subjective opinions is something more, something truly
objective) and if it is not truly supportable, then (if I am correct that the only true source of an objective moral order is an infinitely powerful Creator) then I believe you should admit this or be honest and state your belief is that there is no truly objective moral order under your faith, all you have is subective opinions of many people.

Then why are you criticising me for having a subjective element in my derivation of an objective morality? In the end we have to have some element of subjectivity, purely because there are many competing objective moralities out there and we cannot select between them without some element of subjectivity. We are both in the same position.

Are you using the word “objective” in “many competing objective” moralities as meaning " opinons of others, therefore not my subjective opinion but coming from outside of me and therefore objective in one sense of the word but not truly objective in the true sense that most people take it"? We are not in the same position. I admit my part in subjectively viewing the world. I admit that I am not the final judge as to what is objectively right or wrong. I give credit to the ONE who ordains and reveals HIS Law. You seem to believe that there is an objective moral order without a Lawgiver, thereby denying Him His JUst due, even though you seem unwilling to try and justifyyour position by trying to explain who put the objective moral order in the universe.

We have intelligence and we know and understand our intentions. Our own understanding is recorded, as with the bar chit I gave as an example. Karma merely reads our bar chit (samskāra) and adds up the total.
Theabove is your faith, somewould call it “blind faith” because theysee no way to show consistancy. it is just what you believe, even though there are holes in the logic. Do you claim that your explanation of how karma works is something more than “it is magic”? Karma reads, a recording that you claim is there, but there is no evidenceof the “bar chit”. correct?
rossum

 

[rossum]

Your statement is correct if God is not doing everything , all at once, eternally, outside of time , in His essence.

You think that the sky is blue. Your statement is correct if God is not making the sky pink , all at once, eternally, outside of colour , in His essence.

Neither you not I have any knowledge of what it is like “outside time”. Neither you nor I can tell the difference between change and non-change “outside time”. Inside time, which is all we can know and all the I am interested in, God changes.

If God were only outside time then He would not be able to act inside time. Since you maintain that He does act inside time then He must change. He cannot be both, or do you think that the sky is ‘really’ pink instead of blue?

But, if he is doing all the above,

But if He is outside colour then the sky really is pink.

I know that is a big IF, that can not be proven or disproven

We can agree on that.

"that the universe has this moral order as part of it’s essence and combined with the sum total of many subjective opinions, you believe it is an objective moral order. My objection is that there is no absolute authority that is infallible in revealing the moral order in your universe

I believe that the Buddha cannot make errors, just as you believe that God cannot make errors. Both of our beliefs are fundamentally subjective – we have both chosen not to believe that Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is incapable of errors.

Are you using the word “objective” in “many competing objective” moralities as meaning " opinons of others, therefore not my subjective opinion but coming from outside of me and therefore objective in one sense of the word but not truly objective in the true sense that most people take it"?

I use “objective” to mean “external to myself”. I cannot just change my morality to suit my needs of the moment, it has an independent existence. What definition do you use? You mention “truly objective” without defining it.

Karma reads, a recording that you claim is there, but there is no evidenceof the “bar chit”. correct?

You have asked for evidence before. I pointed you to the instructions for finding the evidence and you did not follow them. In this case I will also say that the evidence for the existence of the five skandhas, and in particular the samskāra skandha can be found through meditation. If you do not want to do the meditation then do not ask for evidence. It is there if you want to go to look for it.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

You think that the sky is blue. Your statement is correct if God is not making the sky pink , all at once, eternally, outside of colour , in His essence.
In my understanding of God’s doing everything at once eternally,(even though we see it sequenchially); whatever God does at one time (lightening stikes a particular tree) Hei s always stiking that tree, at that point of space and time, eternallyat another point of space and time He is always “watching” the farmer giving thanks that his cows were not under that tree when the lightening struck, at another point of space and time God is eternally seeing the farmer’s son (30 years latter) cut down the tree and accidentily drop a branch on his father and bruise him a little. God also sees eternally in the present tense the wheat, oats, corn, hay… that grows each year on the spot that used to hold the tree. To God, each point of space and time is seen perfectly and eternally.
The statement “the sky is pink” will be true to us at times, othertime the sky isblue will be correct, but God sees it all, eternally, all at once. So you might ask “does God see a pink sky when I see a blue sky?” The anwer would be yes ad no, depending on whether or not you are willing to look at the answer from God’s point of view, eternally seeing everytthing at once,or whether you try to force God into a man sized intellect and limit Him to man sized (sequential time) thinking.
If you do not want to know (do not care how He sees things), perhaps that is not as it should be.
You have said that you believe there is a moral law written, or within the universe. Under that moral law, is it proper to honor those who do a great deal to help someone who needshelp, or those who give someone something they really need and can not provide it for themselves? If it is proper and correct to honor such people, is it proper and correct to investigate a claim that someone has done something for you or given you something of great value to you , investigate the evidence so that you can do the right , honorable, correct thing and thank them for what they did for you or gave you?
Do you agree that if God has given us a chance to share in His infinite goodness, then we should honor Him and give thanks to Him?

Neither you not I have any knowledge of what it is like “outside time”. Neither you nor I can tell the difference between change and non-change “outside time”. Outside of time there is no change.
Inside time, which is all we can know and all the I am interested in, God changes. Are you saying that my understanding can not be accurate? If so, what evidence d you cite? If my understanding could be correct, then, does God change?

I believe that the Buddha cannot make errors, just as you believe that God cannot make errors. Both of our beliefs are fundamentally subjective – we have both chosen not to believe that Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is incapable of errors.
You believe that buddha, a man, can (could not when he was alive at the end of his life) not make errors. what about when he was a young man, say 18, could he have been in error then? When He was 18,being human he could have been mistaken. You believe somehow he became infalible. Budha believed there was no Creator God and therefore he saw nothing all-powerful to ordain the moral law as absolute and truly objective. You believe in him, a man. Why do you believe it reasonable to believe infalible a man who in his early life made mistakes?

I use “objective” to mean “external to myself”. I cannot just change my morality to suit my needs of the moment, it has an independent existence. What definition do you use? You mention “truly objective” without defining it.
You said in another post that "the universe has a moral law written " in it. You accept that there is a moral law, without a lawgiver. You have an effect, without a cause. The most important element in this universe, (whether it exists or not is most important) and you claim to accept there is no cause for it, it just is.

You say your morality has an independent existence. If there is no lawgiver, and everyone’s own personal opinions are subjective, eachone capable of error and disagreement, your morality is based then on subjective appraisals of many people with no absolute authority or absolute lawgiver. Most people would be honest and admit that such a belief make everything subjective.
What do you mean by “an independent existnce”? Does your perceptionnot change? Is there someone who says the moral law does not change?

You have asked for evidence before. I pointed you to the instructions for finding the evidence and you did not follow them. In this case I will also say that the evidence for the existence of the five skandhas, and in particular the samskāra skandha can be found through meditation. If you do not want to do the meditation then do not ask for evidence. It is there if you want to go to look for it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In my understanding of God’s doing everything at once eternally,(even though we see it sequenchially); whatever God does at one time (lightening stikes a particular tree) Hei s always stiking that tree

This is not a logical way of looking at things. If God is, as I presume you believe, sustaining a changing universe, then God – or at least the part of God that does the sustaining – must change. Whether or not God changes outside time is indeterminate. We previously used “faarnstatic” to describe the state of God outside time. Since your tree is inside time, then if God is involved with what happens to the tree then God, or at least part of God, is inside time. That part that is inside time must change because we see the tree change. If God is only outside time, then whatever is acting on the tree is not, and cannot be, God. The tree is inside time and so cannot be affected by something which is only outside time.

The statement “the sky is pink” will be true to us at times, othertime the sky isblue will be correct, but God sees it all, eternally, all at once. So you might ask “does God see a pink sky when I see a blue sky?” The anwer would be yes ad no, depending on whether or not you are willing to look at the answer from God’s point of view, eternally seeing everytthing at once,or whether you try to force God into a man sized intellect and limit Him to man sized (sequential time) thinking.

I am only a man and I have only got a man sized intellect. Anything I know must be limited to my man sized intellect. If God cannot fit there then it is pointless for me to try to understand God.

Do you agree that if God has given us a chance to share in His infinite goodness, then we should honor Him and give thanks to Him?

If that were true then yes. However what God has said He has offered us in undeliverable. God offers eternal happiness in heaven. That is not deliverable by God. The Buddhist analysis of the universe shows that there is no eternal happiness available in the Christian heaven.

Can we be happy while those we love are suffering? All good Christians are told to love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore as long as there is one person in Hell, a person whom all good Christians must love, then there can be no permanent happiness in heaven.

None of the heavens and none of the hells are permanent in Buddhism. All living beings will attain nirvana eventually.

Are you saying that my understanding can not be accurate? If so, what evidence d you cite? If my understanding could be correct, then, does God change?

My evidence for a changing God within time is that the universe changes. If, as you believe, God sustains the universe then God, or at least that part of God which is doing the sustaining, is changing.

You believe that buddha, a man, can (could not when he was alive at the end of his life) not make errors. what about when he was a young man, say 18, could he have been in error then?

When Shakya Gautama Siddhartha was born he was not a Buddha but a Bodhisattva. He was only a Buddha after he became enlightened at age 35. From that point on he did not make any errors. The story of his life records errors he made before his enlightenment; looking for an end to suffering in the wrong places. Firstly in the pleasures and luxuries of palace life and secondly in the austerities of extreme asceticism. He eventually found the “Middle Way” between these two extremes which led him to enlightenment and Buddhahood.

You say your morality has an independent existence.

It does. Karma is independent of all gods. Gods are subject to karma, just like any other living thing.

If there is no lawgiver,

There is not. I have frequently used the image of the Law of Gravity as a simile to the Law of Karma. There is no god of gravity who lays down the law of gravity and enforces it. Gravity is present in the universe and its law is discovered by scientists such as Newton and Einstein. They discovered the law, they did not ‘lay it down’. Karma is present in the universe and its laws are discovered by those who can discern them. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are such men in the Abrahamic tradition. The Hindu sages, the Mahavira, the Buddha and Guru Nanak are examples in the Indian tradition. Moral law is discovered, just like scientific laws.

What do you mean by “an independent existnce”? Does your perceptionnot change? Is there someone who says the moral law does not change?

Moral law can change, just like everything else. Jewish moral law called for the stoning of adulteresses while Christian moral law does not. That is a change in moral law in the Abrahamic tradition.

rossum

 

[jmcrae]

Moral law can change, just like everything else. Jewish moral law called for the stoning of adulteresses while Christian moral law does not. That is a change in moral law in the Abrahamic tradition.

rossum

The moral law didn’t change; just the disciplinary consequences. Today, the legal consequences for adultery are minimal, although the natural consequences are certainly still there - loss of family, loss of trust, etc. But it is still considered a sin, to commit adultery.

 

[rossum]

The moral law didn’t change; just the disciplinary consequences. Today, the legal consequences for adultery are minimal, although the natural consequences are certainly still there - loss of family, loss of trust, etc. But it is still considered a sin, to commit adultery.

Is it moral to stone an adulteress to death today? Was it moral to stone an adulteress to death in 50 BCE?

What about eating clam chowder?

rossum

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Is it moral to stone an adulteress to death today? Was it moral to stone an adulteress to death in 50 BCE?

What about eating clam chowder?

rossum

The “rules” only changed because we came to a fuller understanding of God. The fullness of understanding comes through Jesus Christ and the Church he founded, the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Is it moral to stone an adulteress to death today? Was it moral to stone an adulteress to death in 50 BCE?

It isn’t permitted today, and it was permitted back then. The death penalty can be used when society has no other way of dealing with the social disorder resulting from the crime committed.

What about eating clam chowder?

What about it? The Jewish prohibition comes from their kosher law; not their moral law.

Gentiles have been eating it ever since someone realized that if you pour scalding cream over a frying pan full of clams, it makes pretty good soup.

 

[grannymh]

I am only a man and I have only got a man sized intellect. Anything I know must be limited to my man sized intellect. If God cannot fit there then it is pointless for me to try to understand God.

rossum

Catholics believe that human nature is spirit/matter, spiritual soul and material body. Because of our soul, we are able to know and love our Creator. Of course, we cannot know or love at the level of God. That is why it is said that we have been created in the image of God meaning that we are not God but rather that we can share in His life.

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[grannymh]

Is it moral to stone an adulteress to death today? Was it moral to stone an adulteress to death in 50 BCE?

What about eating clam chowder?

rossum

The key point is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. It follows that the sexual union is also worthy of profound respect so it is reserved to two people in marriage. In both cases, morality is violated by the aduteress who abuses the purpose of the sexual union. Putting the adulteress to death can be seen in two ways. One is that it is punishment for violating the purpose of the sexual union and two that mercy should be shown to a human person. Christ chose to show mercy thus raising the bar.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.because it is created by God.

 

[rossum]

The “rules” only changed because we came to a fuller understanding of God. The fullness of understanding comes through Jesus Christ and the Church he founded, the Catholic Church.

Thank you. We are agreed that the moral rules that I am meant to follow day to day can change and have changed in the past.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

QUOTE=rossum;6711752]This is not a logical way of looking at things. If God is, as I presume you believe, sustaining a changing universe, then God – or at least the part of God that does the sustaining – must change. Whether or not God changes outside time is indeterminate. We previously used “faarnstatic” to describe the state of God outside time. Since your tree is inside time, then if God is involved with what happens to the tree then God, or at least part of God, is inside time. That part that is inside time must change because we see the tree change. If God is only outside time, then whatever is acting on the tree is not, and cannot be, God. The tree is inside time and so cannot be affected by something which is only outside time.

I was unemployed for several months, therefore I had more time to correspond with you. I now have a job 8:00 am-6 or 7 pm, six days a week,  and I have been busy. I think a key point is your statement "That part that is inside time must change because we see the tree change". Why do you claim that is an indisputable point? You have no proof. only your opinion. My opinion is different, of coarse. You do not claim to be personnally infallible. Therefre you could b wrong on that point. Correct? 
   I made the point sometime ago that I thought you were effectively imposing your time constrained thinking upon God. Do you see where the statement above, " that God must be changing , because we see the tree change", could be cited as evidence of this?  
   Yes, we see the tree change.  How does that prove that "part of " God must be changing?

I am only a man and I have only got a man sized intellect. Anything I know must be limited to my man sized intellect. If God cannot fit there then it is pointless for me to try to understand God.
That does not sound like the Rossum I have been dialoging with. It sounds, wrong. Almost like a copout. Sorry, but it does not sound like the person who has obviously studied this matter a great deal. It does not sound like someone who has alove of the truth, whatever the truth is. If the truth is there is a creator God, do you want to learn all you can about the truth?

If that were true then yes. However what God has said He has offered us in undeliverable. God offers eternal happiness in heaven. That is not deliverable by God. The Buddhist analysis of the universe shows that there is no eternal happiness available in the Christian heaven.

Can we be happy while those we love are suffering? All good Christians are told to love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore as long as there is one person in Hell, a person whom all good Christians must love, then there can be no permanent happiness in heaven.
This is a second point that seems to be made as if it were indisputable, but I dispute it, therefore it is not indisputable. What is love? God’s answer, according to my understanding of the Catholic Faith, " To love someone is to will good for them, to will them to be good, to be holy and to honestly try to do all you can to help them be good, be holy."
Now to those in hell, (if it exists according to Catholic teaching) They will suffer for ever, and ever and ever… Given. Does that prove they can not have peace of soul? Please remember that JesusChrist suffered crucifiction with perfect (infinite) peace and love and joy. Because He was true God- true man. According to the Catechism of te Catholic Church, 2814 “God, by the Holiness of His name, saves and makes Holy all of Creation.” And section at 457, “He (Jesus Christ) became man to save us by reconciling us to Himself.” And 2Cor. 5:19, " God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. " and CCC 760 “God’s will is creation, andit is called, the world.”
Putting that all together, we have God reconciling (saving) all creation to Himself, even those that go to hell forever and ever and ever… giving them the grace to have the perfect peace, love, joy and thanksgivjng of Jesus Christ on the cross. Of coarse this is not how the world thinks, but does that in itself prove the Catholic Church wrong?
If we get to heaven and know with certitude (CCC 314, “partial knowledge will cease”) that those in hell have perfect peace, love, joy and thanksgiving, evan as they suffer foreverand ever and ever. And we know this is the best possible history God could bring about, without violating someone’s free will, we will be happy. because we will know that those in hell are, in their free will, offering their suffering up as an atonement for their sins. That they are offering up the infinite loss of the beatific vision.
I am quite sure that the buddha did not have all of the above when he came to the conclusion that “God could not offer eternal happiness in heaven”. Did he? If not, perhaps you should consider that, if all the above is true, could God offer and fulfill thatoffer, of perfect happiness in heaven, even though some are in hell? And if that is possible, perhaps the buddha was in error because He did not have all the Catholic teachings as clearly as we do? Is that possible? Do you say that God can not deliver perfect happiness in heaven? why can He not do so?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Rossum, con’t
None of the heavens and none of the hells are permanent in Buddhism. All living beings will attain nirvana eventually.

My evidence for a changing God within time is that the universe changes. If, as you believe, God sustains the universe then God, or at least that part of God which is doing the sustaining, is changing. Again, that is a disputed point. How do you prove it?

It does. Karma is independent of all gods. Gods are subject to karma, just like any other living thing.What have yousaid other than, “It is magic”?

Moral law is discovered, just like scientific laws.

I agree. A two year old is not held accountable to the same standars that yiou and I are, but the law is the same. That it is discovered does not address the question of what is the source, who is the final judge? You claim it “just is” for no reason, because for no reason, existence came into existence and someday will cease to exist.
Moral law can change, just like everything else. Jewish moral law called for the stoning of adulteresses while Christian moral law does not. That is a change in moral law in the Abrahamic tradition.
We agree that this is a further revelation of what God has ordained. Just as He will not hold a two year old accountable for some actions, He will hold the Jewish people for others, and us for far more because we have been given the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ.
That you claim this is change,does not prove it is change in God’s eyes. That you do not understand how this is not change, perhaps you should simply ask, " Does my not understanding how it is not change, prove that there is change? Could it be true that there is no change, even though I do not understand it? Is it possible that there is a God who can deliver eternal happiness in heaven? If not, why not? "
rossum