I don't think that is even the right thing to say, to suggest most righteous means a life based on good works but not necessarily perfect. Innocent implies not guilty. I know what you mean but we must be very clear and precise what we say so that we don't confuse anyone to think that the standard of righteousness is relative.

Okay, if you wish to change the analogy so that Kim Jong-il's patron dies in Kim Jong-il's place, do so (I'm not sure where resurrection plays a role--is it like instead of dying he is just tortured for three days and then let go). It still seems unjust. Why is he dying for Kim Jong-il, but not for Bill Gates?

I'll also note that this revision to me only makes it more horrific. How can an innocent person dying in place of a guilty person be more just?

It is horrific, its brutal, its also a blessing that Christ would die for the crimes I have committed and I may be pardoned and given life. How much love is that, to take the place of one that is doomed to die?

I agree that in such a system, it is generous for Jesus to die for a crime he didn't commit. However, this doesn't address my concern. My point is that such a system shouldn't exist, that it is immoral. More specifically, I am pointing out that such a system seems immoral in that it doesn't end up letting people go due to to any internal merit, but rather to whether they have the right friends. That seems unjust to me. A system that punishes people on the basis of whether they have nice friends (or as in my story, a generous patron) is an unjust and corrupt system.

Youre right to point out the exclusivity of salvation through Christ. It is exclusive. Only those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can be saved by his sacrifice. However it is also important to point out that it is also radically inclusive. Jesus died for anyone who believes.

This doesn't really address my concerns.

You pointed out that a 'who is your friend' system was inferior. I was merely pointing out that the invitation was an open one and not exclusive as it seemed you were suggesting(maybe i misunderstood).

No, my concern is that a system that lets people go free on the basis of powerful friends seems unjust. My concern here is with the system that underlies the salvation story in Christianity, not in trying to claim that Jesus was a bad guy.

OrP, would you say that it is really consistent to say that God is even forgiving us if he required the sacrifice of Jesus? In other words, it seems that to forgive is to release from debt without payment, but it seems that God is still requiring payment in the form of Jesus's sacrifice.

Have you seen anyone successfully make the argument that even though God requires payment he is still forgiving us of our sins?

Basically what you are asking is if you live a moral life but hate God, will you still go to hell? What is moral? What is immoral? According to your hypothetical, morality is summed up in giving money to help make people's lives better and avoiding bloodshed by war. This is obviously a very subjective morality.

But let's expand it. Let us suppose that besides being good to people, it also includes not stealing from people, not murdering people or not sleeping with people that you are not married to. The problem is that this is still a subjective morality. Subjective morality is useless in this hypothetical. Objective moral values can only be set by a transcendent being.

So let us say that the God of the Bible is the transcendent being that sets the moral code. In your hypothetical, you live your life according to the requirements of his moral code as it related to treating other people. You now love the moral code and consider it good, but you hate the one who set the good moral code. This is a strange contradiction. The moral code would reflect the god that established it. If the moral code is good, then the god that set it is also good and should be loved.

Furthermore, God's moral code does not only address how you treat people, but how you treat God. His code says you are to love God with all your heart. So if you hate God, you are then breaking the moral code. Therefore you are immoral. So if you, an immoral person, live your life adhering to part of God's moral code, but violating the rest of it, will you go the hell?

The problem with your argument is that there appears to be a universal moral code (murder, stealing, etc), then particular cultural codes based mainly upon geography and/or religion. The universal code requires no God...only basic empathy.

To paraphrase Hitchens, it's not like the Israelites thought it was ok to rape/steal/murder before Moses came off the mountain.

But the empathy is not universal. Therefore neither is the code.

I don't agree with this, but I'm open to arguments. We don't have identical empathy, but there is a common trait in that we all disallow common behaviors within any given culture.

+1

+1

The most serious moral violations are usually legislated across various cultures. (The Bible says that this is an effect of an ingrained understanding that morality exists.) But if they are all based on individual empathy, there is no consistency. It may be accepted that murder is wrong. But some cultures (Nazi Germany/Islam) may allow the murder of certain people groups. Less serious violations (ie. hitting your wife) may be legislated in some countries but not in others. Some violations (ie. a lie or a broken promise) are understood as wrong but not legislated anywhere. Where do you draw the line to what is contained in the Universal Moral Code? By the opinion of the majority? By the trends you see across cultures? What makes these opinions or trends superior to any single person's opinions on morality?

The inconsistencies show that the Universal Moral Code is not actually universal. The problem is in the fact that the empathy of two people are not identical.

And so we finally reach a place where we can look closely at this...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=8088

All good points, but I think you're taking it farther than I intended. We see near universal rejection of murder within common cultures/societies. In other words, we don't permit killing our own, or at least don't allow for it to go unpunished. 'Thou shalt not murder' doesn't come into place. Empathy does, even if it is not identical.

WLC is essentially saying that because we all agree the Holocaust is objectively wrong, that God exists. This is not necessary, and also a bit immature. I don't view the holocaust as wrong because it goes against God. I view the holocaust as wrong because of my empathy. I would not want to be subject to that terror, and therefore I want no man to suffer that fate.

Hitler was able to carry out the Holocaust because he lacked objective morality. If we believe Nazi propaganda (Gott mit uns), apparently you can fully lack objective morality while fully believing in God. So does a lack of objective morality disprove God any more than objective morality proves him? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I believe premise 1 is unsound.

If you consider the holocaust wrong, is that objective or subjective? If you determine it from your empathy, it is subjective. If Hitler lacked objective morality, who actually has objective morality? How does one determine what objective morality is?

BTW I believe that premise 1 is sound, but premise 2 is unproven from an agnostic framework. However it is widely accepted as reasonable within that framework.

Also one's belief in God does not give them objective morality. The idea is that objective morality is determined by God. Not that those who claim a belief in God have objective morality.

+1

No, you dont have empathy when it comes to people who do murder, the gov issue the death penalty (in some places) for people who murder. Which I find ironic and two-faced. Cant beat'em, join'em heh?

If someone considers the Holocaust was not wrong, is that subjective or objective? Saying it's objective because God says so is not compelling, especially given that the God of the OT repeatedly ordered the genocide of Israel's rival nations.

The Holocaust is subjectively wrong.

It can't be objective unless a transcendent being say's its wrong. Saying it's objective because God says so it the only compelling argument for absolute objectivity, (assuming he actually said so) otherwise it is subjective.

Ok. Then it's this:

As is everything.