Well, there are a number of different ways of ending your participation in a particular debate.  There's the "Silent" method, where you just stop replying and the thread dies from lack of input.  There's the "Triumphalist" method, where you simply proclaim yourself the victor, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, until everyone else goes away.  There's the "Accusatory" method, where you castigate your opponent for his/her intransigence/stupidity/willful ignorance and depart on the grounds that they are a lost cause.  There may be a few more that i can't think of right now.

You'd be amazed at how many atheists I've talked with whose entire arguements consist of nothing but these.

Anyway, i thought i'd try this "Mutual recognition of futility" option, since it seemed appropriate, and a little more non-judgemental than the other options.  You are welcome to construe this as me "giving up" if you like.

A spade's a spade, dude. Not that the issue won't come up again, of course.

Look at all the love!     Even DB and EB are growing closer in their relationship!   

DB- see my latest exchange with Stath about morality, the atheist and the image of God.  I am not certain that you understand my position there either, but perhaps you do.

Cop crashed on a mountain top and was eaten, I think.

"For anyone confused by this, Johnny is implying that i can't manage without Copernicus here."

I wish it was as clever as that.  I wasn't implying this, I was just employing some wit for your pleasure.  :)

"i knew you were on a mission to convert me!"

It is the point of my existence.  :)  Not that I wouldn't mind conversation with different objectives, I just don't seem them occurring on morality for reasons already given.

What I mean is this:  if I were sitting down with a Muslim friend to talk about the morality of honor killings we would at least agree that there is a common basis to our morality (our created nature) and so it would be meaningful conversation.  If I could convince him that even on his experience of morality honor killings were immoral, we could change his mind and really achieve something.

But if you sat down to talk with a Muslim friend a discussion on the 'rightness' of honor killings can never be more than a means to an end.  You personally 'feel' appalled by honor killings and this abhorrence is your sole guide.  You will use 'moral' discussions to achieve your goal but if something else would work you'd use that.  The bottom line here is an attempt to persuade people to your, you Dannyboy's, feelings of things you like and things that disgust you.

As much as I like you, DB, you are just one man out of billions.  I see no reason to engage in a discussion where you attempt to persuade me to your likings and dislikings rather than another persons- unless of course you think that your experience of reality shares enough in common (read: has some objectivity) with everyone else as to warrant attention.    See what I mean?   

"This value judgement, to you, implies the acknowledgement of an absolute standard."

Right, but see important qualifications below.

"For instance, although you claim that morality is as objective as 2+2=4"

Actually, that is not my point in raising 2+2=4.  That is a booby trap I have yet to spring.  :)

"Your contention is that there is no middle ground between an absolute standard, upon which one can make value judgements, and a relative standard, upon which only non-compelling preferences can be expressed."

DB, your position is not a middle ground at all!  Yours is the latter extreme!

" i would argue that there is a non-absolute (in the philosophical sense) morality which can be derived by reason and intuition."

Derived by reason and intuition in such a way that all reasonable people would come to the same conclusion?    This sure sounds like an objective basis to me!  And from whence comes this 'reason and intuition'?  Are you not an atheist who embraces unguided evolutionary theory?  Does not mind reduce to brain on such terms?  And is not 'brain' the result of 100% evolutionary processes?  Explain to me how this doesn't boil down to an 'objective' basis?  It certainly does!  It just isn't an abstract one.

On the other hand, since we are made in the image of God, though fallen, I certainly accept that 'reason and intuition' can be useful to a point in moral calculations, but I have a much higher view of 'reason and intuition' than you do!  Rather than deriving the 'objective basis' from the mindless operations of chance and 'selection' over billions of years I believe that the better explanation is that we were created this way.  (I am here not invoking special creation.  Francis Collins, an old earth evolutionist, makes the same argument in his book)

But now for the most important qualification.  I would like to present a true middle ground position.  It happens to be mine.  :)

1.  All moral judgments are based on an objective standard.
2.  Some moral judgments reflect an objective standard and some a relative 'standard.'
3.  All moral judgments reflect a relative 'standard.'

#3 is your view.  You think #1 is mine.  That is not correct.  My position is #2 for a variety of reasons.  I acknowledge variations on moral conclusions for a variety of reasons and I am even prepared to acknowledge that two honest people with the exact same background could arrive at the opposite moral conclusion (eg, pacifism).  There are heaps of caveats I am excluding here.  For example, I am not saying that they can be both right at the same time, but I understand how each position is derived from valid moral-objectively existing- principles and situations can present that are extraordinarily complex.  For this reason, I advocate that every person should be permitted the absolute right to act true to their moral convictions.

If of course, their moral convictions involve the raping and slaughtering of individuals or a group, then of course my moral conviction calls on me to stop them.  So it isn't like you just bend over and take whatever comes your way.

The upshot of all this is that I believe in words you embrace #3 above but in actions you embrace #2 and you think I am trying to talk you into #1.  I'm not.  But see what #2 assumes:  by acknowledging that there is SOME objective standard, one is forced to come to terms with what the nature of that standard is.  One is forced to test possible 'standards' for coherency and consistency.

But you are repelled by any talk of there being a standard, even if it is an evolutionary one, because you know such an admission puts you on perilous ground.  And it is precisely on that kind of ground that I should like to keep you.  :)

BTW, did you have a chance to crack open Spero yet?

"SJ, if ever there was a statement which deserved derision and mockery it is you stating that you don't deserve derision and mockery."

Come on buddy.  Context.  That is not what I said.

"why did he make me unable to believe in him, but otherwise a good person, and make others believe in him with all their heart yet be able to commit murder? Makes no sense."

Eh?  What people did you have in mind here believing in God as Christians understand him committing murder?

Whether you are a good person or not is irrelevant, btw.

"Can't do the whole supernatural thang tied in with a clearly made up backstory from thousands of years ago. Can't do the petulant teenager god. Might be able to do some supernatural if it weren't so ridiculously difficult to believe unless you really really want to."

That's my point.  If you go the Francis Collins route you can avoid the 'backstory' stuff altogether.  There are a whole class of Christians who are essentially endorsing your assessment.  Therefore these cannot serve as reasons for dismissing Christianity. 

hat's my point.  If you go the Francis Collins route you can avoid the 'backstory' stuff altogether.

So I can be Christian without all that troublesome Christianity nonsense? I'm in!

...he died and rose to atone for your sins.

What sins?

I wasn't claiming perfection or freedom from guilt, I was asking a question and I'd like an answer. You told me I could be a Christian if I believe Christ died and rose to atone for my sins.

What sins?

I'm with EB. If you aren't claiming perfection or insisting that you are guiltless then it is not important for me to try to enumerate them.  You can enumerate them for yourself.  Pick any one thing that you've done that you know in your own heart was wrong- how you came to that conclusion is irrelevant- that thing or things is what Jesus paid for.

The New Testament describes it in one place as though you are put on trial for these things you admit guilt for.  When the declaration of your just punishment arrives, Jesus steps in and takes your place, receiving the punishment on your behalf, allowing you to walk out of the 'court room' an innocent man, at least in the eyes of the Judge.

The idea of 'faith' and 'believing' plays in here in the sense that what you are being asked to do is allow Jesus to be your shield, allow him to absorb the punishment that you deserved.  Failure to accept this offer on Jesus' part is akin to stepping out from behind Jesus and insisting on doing things on your own and in your way.  Without Jesus as your shield, there is no one to take the brunt of the punishment except the one who deserved it from the beginning- you.

Think of it as oil and water.  The two can't mix.  Think of God as oil.  A single sin, of the smallest magnitude, turns you into water.  Whatever it is that you have done that you yourself know was wrong is enough to keep you apart.

Jesus did not die on the cross so that you could continue to sin.

However, to your question about the sorts of things you deserve punishment for naturally we have to turn to Revelation for most specifics but these are ultimately irrelevant for our purposes if you can think of even one thing that you regret, knowing it was wrong.  Even that one thing, no matter how small, is enough to keep you from a relationship with God.  This flows from the definition of God.  The smallest sin would have required atoning.  That's somewhat academic, because in practice no sin remains small for long if left unchecked.  :)

Ok, well, things in the pornographic arena would be included.  As would murder, adultery, and outright theft.  If you have personally done these things, Jesus paid for them.  Malicious lying, gossip, and deception- paid for.   Broken promises to loved ones and friends- paid for.  Rudeness and bad language, rape, bullying... paid for.  Losing your temper with your wife and kids, paid for.

And even the willful effort to keep God at bay and out of your life:  wiped clean.

Obviously I don't know what things you may have personally done, but speaking for myself, except for rape in the list above I think I've been guilty of all of them at one point or another.  I consider these wiped 'off my record' and strive to abstain from these kinds of behaviors in the future.

I am at a loss. I need something less generic. What kind of things, that I may have personally done, did Jesus die for? Please be specific, this is important.

It is really not about what you've done...

SIN is defined as missing the mark.  So if you like porno and you imagine a god that desires the same thing then you haven't missed the mark.