The bad thing about Christians

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said or implied a "majority vote" was sufficient to establish what the Natural Law is; you are grossly misrepresenting my position. I said that there is a Natural Law and the fact that human beings generally adhere to a certain set of similar moral principles is evidence of the existence of Natural Law. The components of the Natural Law ...[text shortened]... cision maker. Please re-read my posts as you seem to be making this mistake over and over again.

If it does not depend on human majority, doesn't that mean that all
are bound to it no matter what their views of right and wrong are? So
people can be Natural law breakers even if they disagree with it? So
if there were some Natural law court, they could find themselves;
what is the word I'm looking for, guilty?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think that if God is real, and that God set up the universe
to act the way it does, that God would have a clue about logic and
what should be right or wrong?
Kelly

This question is irrelevant to the point I was making. If God exists, then maybe He "has a clue" or mayber he doesn't. What doesn't follow from His existence OR His having created the universe is that He can by mere fiat make genocide morally permissible.

Originally posted by bbarr
This question is irrelevant to the point I was making. If God exists, then maybe He "has a clue" or mayber he doesn't. What doesn't follow from His existence OR His having created the universe is that He can by mere fiat make genocide morally permissible.

I fail to see how He couldn't or shouldn't do it because He deems it
the right thing to do. It is all His after all.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I fail to see how He couldn't or shouldn't do it because He deems it
the right thing to do. It is all His after all.
Kelly

Your failure to see is not my problem. If God exists, of course He can do whatever He wants (He's omnipotent, afterall). He shouldn't do whatever He wants, if what He wants is morally wrong. So, if God wants to slaughter innocent women and children, then although He can do it, he shouldn't. It certainly is not the case that everything in the world is God's. I am not God's, for instance. I do not belong to Him. Further, even if everything did belong to God, it wouldn't follow that there are no constraints on how He should act. My cat belongs to me, but it would be morally wrong for me to drown my cat because he displeased me. In short, your post is only half confused; the other half is pure bullshit.

Originally posted by bbarr
Your failure to see is not my problem. If God exists, of course He can do whatever He wants (He's omnipotent, afterall). He shouldn't do whatever He wants, if what He wants is morally wrong. So, if God wants to slaughter innocent women and children, then although He can do it, he shouldn't. It certainly is not the case that everything in the world is Go ...[text shortened]... e he displeased me. In short, your post is only half confused; the other half is pure bullshit.

What is morally wrong, by whose standard, yours or His? As far as
lives being innocent that too is by whose standard, yours or His? If
both are decided by His standards, if life itself is decided by His
standards God and only God could make such judgments for both
nations and a single person. As far as your cat is concern, some
people eat their animals, is that morally wrong?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If it does not depend on human majority, doesn't that mean that all
are bound to it no matter what their views of right and wrong are? So
people can be Natural law breakers even if they disagree with it? So
if there were some Natural law court, they could find themselves;
what is the word I'm looking for, guilty?
Kelly

Yes, people can do things that are morally wrong even if they themselves do not believe it to be morally wrong. The question whether they should be punished for violating the Natural Law is seperate and distinct from whether they have committed an immoral act.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we are all sinners, you do not, fine. You may believe that we
are treating each other better and better every day. You may believe
that some good deads clear us of bad ones too? You may say that by
your standards everyone is great and God should not hold us
accountable for our bad acts, or that there are no bad acts, how ever
you want to word ...[text shortened]... with me isn't a big deal, I'm no different
than anyone else, just a guy with opinions.
Kelly

I find the existence of your God highly improbable, so I'm not terribly worried about how the monster God who said it was all right to stick spears in babies might judge me. I don't worry about how Zeus of Baal might judge me, either. If you believe in the OT God and you intend to live your life based on what such a deity "wants", you and everyone who deals with you, has my sympathy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, people can do things that are morally wrong even if they themselves do not believe it to be morally wrong. The question whether they should be punished for violating the Natural Law is seperate and distinct from whether they have committed an immoral act.

By what right do any of us have for punishing another for breaking
Natural laws, did we write them?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
By what right do any of us have for punishing another for breaking
Natural laws, did we write them?
Kelly

Maybe that's why it's a seperate question? I was, of course, assuming that Man-made law must comply with the Natural Law to be enforceable at all. If persons have Fundamental Rights under the Natural Law and those rights are violated by Man-made law, those laws are invalid and need not be obeyed. In the US, it is the duty of the courts to strike down such laws, but the courts' record on such matters is spotty indeed. Your original question posited the existence of a "Natural Law court" and I was responding to that, as well as your question as to whether someone could commit an immoral act in violation of the Natural Law without knowing it. I answered theose questions, but you seem to be headed off onto a tangent; if you're interested in what I regard as an enforceable law against human beings, I think I just answered that as well.