Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

[hells_unicorn]

1. Christianity is a relativist morality. Without God, there is no objective morality, according to the Bible.

2. Good is defined as that which a single entity does. Whatever God does is good. That is the definition. It is never defined as God does what is good because "good is these things:"

3. Otherwise God could be judged on his actions. Christianity clearly refutes any ability to judge God on his actions.

4. These are all basic elements of relativist moralities.

5. People tie themselves into huge theological knots pretending things are otherwise.

1. Nope, because God is not capricious. You are confuting the Bible with the Qur'an, which is a common mistake made by people who get their information from dullards like Hitchens and Dawkins. If something is not subject to a higher authority, it is by nature, objective. Stating that morality is subjective or relative because it comes from God is like saying "Morality is subjective and relative because it comes from morality."

2. Wrong again. God's actions are specifically qualified and hashed out against examples of evil throughout the whole Old and New Testament, hence the frequent contrasts between God's purposes and those of fallen man. Whenever God makes a new covenant with an OT figure, he doesn't just say "do this or else", he makes agreements and delivers on them, and also qualifies who he is and why he is to be obeyed. The only place where God's goodness is taken as a given is Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and if you wish to argue that creating the world, every living thing in it, and creating man as a moral and rational creature were all acts of evil, you are welcome to explain exactly how you've come to that conclusion.

3. An infallible being does not need to be judged, so demanding that such a thing happen is illogical.

4. Nope.

5. Any knots that a novice trying to play missionary/witness may tie himself into does not reflect upon God's nature as the source of morality or a moral agent. You might want to diversify your reading repertoire a little bit, all the New Atheist drivel you've been aping will rot your brain clean out of your skull.

God does what is good, because good is defined as what God pleases. It isn't circular unless you impose that language.

However, from a human's perspective, it can seem very relative. That is why the Bible constantly emphasizes wisdom and judgement.

The earlier discussion about Christian Reconstruction is actually bringing me back to one of the points that Rushdoony made which separated him from Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment thought, namely that man's reasoning apart from God is a mishmash of nonsense and concepts stolen from the natural order and the true religion. Idiom's words are yet another reminder of how true that sentiment was and how sorely it is needed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Christianity is a relativist morality.

Without God, there is no objective morality, according to the Bible.

Good is defined as that which a single entity does. Whatever God does is good. That is the definition. It is never defined as God does what is good because "good is these things:"

Otherwise God could be judged on his actions. Christianity clearly refutes any ability to judge God on his actions.

These are all basic elements of relativist moralities.

People tie themselves into huge theological knots pretending things are otherwise.

Christianity is not relativistic because God, who is the standard of goodness, is the Judge above all who judges all men.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. I'm well aware that you don't care about how the "Church Fathers" have corrupted Jesus' words. You support their efforts and brag about what "school of thought" you hail from.

2. My post was for people who are confused by Jesus seeming to contradict himself. I don't think he did. I think it is just as Tolstoy said in my post above.

3. I'm in the middle of a divorce. I think the marriage was dead. I think the circumstances would allow me to divorce based on your teachings and the teachings of the "blessed church fathers".

4. But unlike some people I don't try to mangle Christ's teachings to justify my own way of life. You know like how you said in the other thread that Jesus would be OK with political lying to win elections.

1. Here is that fanaticism again that I keep going through with you over and over. Quoting one questionable modern source (Tolstoy) as authoritative (even in a subordinate sense) and then throwing a fit about me relying up on the collective wisdom of scores of Orthodox Eastern and Western figures, many of them direct converts of the apostles themselves or only a few degrees further out, is not a good position to take. Furthermore, my anchor has always been scripture in determining whether the fathers spoke truthfully, or were in error. I don't consider the early Fathers infallible, but I most certainly trust them more than I would a 19th century independent mystic with questionable views.

2. Jesus did not contradict himself, he was perfectly clear that his attacks on Pharisee and Sadducee corruptions of the OT Law were in keeping with his function of fulfilling the purpose of the law, which was to point to the fulfillment of OT prophecy. My response to you was in regard to you making an attack on true doctrine derived from scripture. Remember, I'm not the one suggesting that a significant chunk of the NT canon is in doubt.

3. My condolences. If you are the offended party, I understand your decision. However, the fact that you are a sinner does not mean that you are equally as guilty as the offending party. If the OT law that is under discussion in this thread has taught me anything, it is that God's sense of justice is always proportional, both in earth and in heaven.

4. I have not been "justifying" anything on either subject, I have been explaining why a course of action is both necessary and lawful. The Law does not justify, it either defines or condemns. God justifies and adopts, all else is done with the presence of sin being a given. I'm not sure which part of this is too complicated for you to figure out.

 

[cajuncocoa]

How did this thread turn into another Biblical debate? Don't we have a religion sub forum (which I have on ignore) for that?

 

[wizardwatson]

2. Jesus did not contradict himself, he was perfectly clear that his attacks on Pharisee and Sadducee corruptions of the OT Law were in keeping with his function of fulfilling the purpose of the law, which was to point to the fulfillment of OT prophecy. My response to you was in regard to you making an attack on true doctrine derived from scripture. Remember, I'm not the one suggesting that a significant chunk of the NT canon is in doubt.

Pay attention. I didn't say Jesus contradicted himself. I'm saying you and the "church fathers" are contradicting him.

Here Jesus teaches about divorce. The Pharisees talk about Moses allowing a writ of divorce. Where here is Jesus permitting divorce? Show me, church father.

Mark 10:1-12 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

 

[wizardwatson]

How did this thread turn into another Biblical debate? Don't we have a religion sub forum (which I have on ignore) for that?

Apologies, cajun. I started a rant opposing Hells_Unicorn's claim that Christian law allows for divorce starting in post #69. I will refrain from further discussion of it on this thread.