Philo,

I agree it is best to be open and honest. My comment to Aslan regarding God and absolutes in morality will likely be familiar to him, in-so-much-as Plato held absolute morality above God, as this state -according to Plato- is something towards which God must aspire.

Please excuse brevity - otherwise very occupied :-).

Oliver,
I'm not sure, but would have thought Plato saw excellent humans as gods and it is they who endeavour to aspire to divinity. ie absolute moral purity. Perhaps I should check out how Plato's viewed Divinity. Did he actually believe in an eternal moral spirit (God) behind the universe, or was man aspiring to (be god) and emulate the character of moral absolutes behind the universe? What was his view of God?

Sorry this is too rich. BTW Oliver, to Philo I come across as extreme and that I denigrate his position please feel for to take me to task on what I say.

>If we believe the character of God is pure and perfect then his moral nature is absolute. eg If we know an issue is factually true according to how we perceived the event and we deliberately intend to falsify the facts because it is to our advantage then that is a lie, no matter how trivial. The only true way is absolute moral purity and honesty. This applies in every area of human behaviour.

What about God’s behaviour?

How can you have a coherent moral system when or say you are being honest when your God can condone and practice slavery, condone and himself kill innocents, be deceitful, abuse and interfere with the mental deliberations of humans causing even further abuse and death and accept/rationalize behaviours that would get any modern human thrown in gaol? If you follow a absolute moral system and say we cannot have slaves, murder, steal brides, etc etc etc then it was wrong 2000+ years ago for the Jews and wrong for God as well.

Philo any perceived denigration is through frustration that you fail to see the consequences of accepting a absolute moral system and fail to apply what moral code you have to your own God. You and other Christians are the horn of a dilemma and don’t even know it and you have escaped up to now because of this blind spot and that even though you think Christianity cops heaps of flack compared to other religions , because of pluralism there hasn’t been a widespread critical evaluation of the truth of religion nor Christianity’s moral foundation from a non Christian viewpoint

So Oliver please don’t hold back sock it me

Philo,

I am living offshore and have a very limited library on Plato. Plato seems to have held goodness right and wrong are absolutes (Aslan’s position), maintaining objective moral principles exist independently and have standing over moral “opinion” (close to my position). Herein, I feel that both you and Aslan would say that absolute morality is an attribute of God. That is “God” creates goodness” (Popkin and Stroll). Such a position, I feel is actually out of step with Plato’s Philosophy on morality. Herein, “moral standards were superior even to God; goodness is anterior to God, and God is good only if He acts in accordance with a standard”.

Thus, when Aslan attacks me using Plato (undisclosed), he does not reveal that in Plato’s Philosophy, if God holds a standard, then God’s “opinion” must be measured against the independent absolute standard. In the world of Plato, God holds an “opinion” which may or may not be in accordance with absolute morality. In this frame, we find alleged dissonance between the characteristics attributed to God and the reports of the deeds of God, particularly as reported in the Old Testament.

Neo,

I was saying that Philo was being honest in recognising the existence of polytheism, the Gods of the Canaanite Bal and the tribalism of OT people. I doubt whether Aslan would have recognised the historical development of Christian theism to same degree, as has Philo.

My position is essentially the same as yours; there are inconsistencies throughout the Scriptures. Herein, a critical mind recognises that regardless of the existence or the non-existence of God; fallible writers and editors compiled these religious works. Relatedly, since Scripture is the Nexus between Christian humans and their God, it follows that confirmation of the Scriptures requires systems of refutation be developed to test authenticity. However, as I have suggested to Aslan, Christians tend to regard the Bible as “a special case”, wherein, World views are a priori based on Scripture. That is, the World is viewed “from” the Bible, instead of the other way around.

Aslan,

Humanity holds opinions about morality that are not absolute. Herein, societies do establish moral systems all the time according to their own standards and own definition. No claim here about absolutes, but claims can be made with respect to general ethical function. Thus, few modern societies would have much to say about “perfect” circles or” absolute” morals outside of a Philosophy class. Otherwise put, absolute morality is an abstract, a hypothetical contrivance - It does not exist.

Kohlberg’s model is a peer reviewable, refutable hierarchy, which is (a) Kohlberg’s opinion and (b) held tentatively, until something better comes along in view of society. However, should you or anyone else choose to disagree, that’s okay. Should you believe the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old, that is your opinion; wherein, many people believe the Earth is approximately spherical and billions of years old: That is their opinion.

The several reference points for judging Scripture, including OT descriptions, are modern day opinions, including “opinions” on morality.

****

Aslan, were the writers, editors and compilers of the Bible infallible

Been busy last few days...

Pericles,

You said I "deliberately selected the one that suited your particular argument on a specific topic, despite the fact that it was not the meaning ascribed to it by the original writer."

Oliver did not ascribe any explicit meaning to "belief" until much much later when you were well into critising my argument. He made no attempt to clarify earlier even thought he had plenty of opportunity, and in any case, the context of his original statement (acceptance of Marks gospel as historical and reliable) made it quite clear he was using "belief" in the sense I used it in my syllog.

Therefore, it is actually YOU who have selected the meaning that serves your purpose, rather than the kind of "belief" we were talking about!

Exactly how have I distorted history?

And where did I say that I am infallible?

Actually, I meet many people who think similar to my self - indeed, they seem to be growing in number. I also meet many who vehemently disagree. They seem to be getting fewer in number.

Ah yes, as always, it degenerates to ad hominem. Run out of criticisms to manufacture have we, Pericles?

Oliver,

A middle ground between relativism and absolutes does not exist. It is logically impossible. Relativism and absolutism are mutually exclusive philosophies.

How can we know morality of God represents "absolute" morality?
By definition. As the Creator and sustainer and ultimate law giver, whatever He says, is the absolute law.

The Bible is infallible in the original autographs.

The Christian Founding Fathers were NOT infallible.

You said: "I doubt whether Aslan would have recognised the historical development of Christian theism to same degree, as has Philo."

Don't be presumptuous, Oliver!