Jesus is the "son" in the Holy Trinity.  He is both divine and human.  It's called the "hypostatic union".  Google it.

How so?

Morality does not "apply" to God.  Morality is a manifestation of God himself.  God is a specific way and he can't be anything but that way.

Umm, no.  I never said that.

Humans give life all of the time.  Creating life in a lab wouldn't be much different.  Your question isn't any different from asking if parents have the right to kill their children.  No they do not. 

God created the world ex nihilo.  He didn't use any preexisting matter or laws of nature.  And it wasn't just the world.  He is the ultimate basis for rationality (and therefore, laws of nature) itself.  There is absolutely no comparison between creating life in a lab and God creating the world out of nothing.

Actually, he does have foresight of everything.  He knew that he would take Pharaoh's child, he knew that he would bring about a flood, he knew that you would be here trying to get me with bible contradictions.  Most importantly, he already knows whether or not you are going to Hell.  His elect is already chosen.

Of course, they don't teach you this at the Joel Osteen bible study.   

Why do you get to decide what is and is not moral?  Did you create the universe?

Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not right.

According to the rules of Christianity, would these children be in heaven or hell? Or, is it impossible to judge?  

I mean, morals have to be absolute. Right? It isn't like things are good in one area of the world, and bad in another....or things are good in one era and bad in another. I mean, beating your children, slavery, and beating your wives (plural) are ALL FANTASTIC THINGS.

RIGHT GUYS? RIGHT?

Hold on, someone took my pencil. I have to cut off their hands.

It's only one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity.

In general, it is better to actually, you know, learn about something before you decide to criticize it.

Jesus was a human.  Humans feel pain. 

I said, "God's nature does not permit him to be immoral."  How is that any different from saying that morality is a manifestation of God?

He is not an exception.  The events described in the Bible, in the context of the situations, were not examples of any wrongdoing on the part of God.  As I've stated, he has the right to take the lives of babies because they are born under original sin and are under his righteous condemnation.  Likewise, Pharaoh sinned and deserved his punishment.

All you are doing is applying your own morals to God.  What makes your morality superior?

I have no idea what you just stated.

God is the absolute standard of morality, therefore he cannot be moral?

I'm sorry, I don't follow you.

I never said that killing was morally wrong.  I said it was morally wrong in certain situations. 

You are trying to equate a human producing a baby to God creating the world and being the standard of rationality and goodness itself.  It is just a bogus comparison.

He did not create you with the intention of sending you to Hell.  He created the world KNOWING that you were going to go to Hell (if that is indeed the case).  There is a fundamental difference.  Foresight is not causation. 

I'm not getting into a debate on euthanasia.  You can start a different thread for that.

He doesn't decide.  He just is.

He didn't create morals. 

I did not say there was no free will.  Even if you have an indeterminate universe, an omniscient being would still know what is going to happen.  Once again, you are conflating foresight with causation.  That is a fallacy. 

The rest of your paragraph is built off of this, so I'll move on to the next rant.

That's your opinion. I really don't care what your opinion is. 

It's not special pleading anymore than it is special pleading for a mother to forbid her 5 year old child to use the stove but allows her 18 year old child to use the stove.  Or to use another analogy, we have much harsher punishments for people who send death threats to the President than to those who send death threats to an average Joe.  This is not a perfect analogy, but you simply cannot elevate every single person to the same level. 

That's specious.  Just because you are not persuaded by the proof being presented does not mean that there is no proof.  It just means that you are probably stubborn.

There are a lot of bad teachers out there. 

I really cannot fathom how someone could claim that s/he used to be a Christian and yet have no concept of the hypostatic union or the Holy Trinity.

There are plenty of great Christian Apologetic websites out there.  Once again, google "hypostatic union" if you want to learn about the divine/human nature of Jesus.

Why is it wrong? 

He is the standard of all that is holy and righteous.   

Yes.  All humans have a fallen nature and are under the rightful condemnation of God.  

Once again, I really do not care what your opinion is. 

No, it follows that he cannot be immoral, because he is goodness.  God can only do what is right.  His nature will not permit him to do what is wrong.

God couldn't be any different without ceasing to be God.  God's nature is not a contingent fact of his reality.  God could not be any other way.  We know a priori that God cannot do evil because goodness is contained in his category of existence.

If what you say is true, then I am also saying that "Killing is morally right with some exceptions."  But no, saying that killing is morally wrong in certain situations is completely different from saying it is morally wrong with some exceptions. 

There.  You said it:  The only things that matter are the act and the SITUATION.  Thank you for agreeing with me. 

Now you have to accept the fact that God, being who He is, IS relevant to the situation.

That does not follow at all.

"Free will" does not mean the inability to predict.  "Free will" simply means that given choice A, an agent could have chosen ~A under the exact same circumstances. 

An omniscient being would know what you are going to do, whether or not you are free.

God is immutable, and therefore so is right and wrong. 

I'm just saying, simply because atheists are not persuaded by theist arguments does not mean that the theist arguments are true or false.

Imagine that I am being visited by a group of Japanese tourists who do not believe in the existence of lions.  To prove that lions exist, I bring them to the Bronx Zoo and show them a lion.  But they are not convinced, as they believe the lion is simply a few men in a costume.  So then I bring them to ten different zoologists who all confirm that lions exist, but these tourists believe the zoologists are liars.  Then I show them the skeleton of a deceased lion, but they believe that it is simply the skeleton of a tiger.  No matter how hard I try, these people just will not believe that lions exist.

Does that mean that the existence of lions is unprovable?

P.S.

I'm just curious:  Is English your first language?  I only ask because your spelling and grammar have been deplorable.

If it makes no sense to you, then you do not know all about it.

?

The Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, not just Roman Catholicism. 

Okay.  But if you do not know anything about a particular topic, then you have no business criticizing it.

How does it hurt society?  God killed Pharaoh's child and society did not suddenly end.

What difference does it make how we "feel"?  Casey Anthony felt pretty good when she killed her child.  Did that make it okay?

He gives him the right, since goodness is his very nature and could not have any meaningful existence without Him.

Opinions are statements which have the implicit qualifier, "I think".  I really do not care what you think.  If every statement you've made so far is qualified with "I think", then all of it is true.  I'm sure that it is true that you really do THINK these things.  But that has nothing to do with truth.  The sun will not start revolving around the Earth as soon as you start thinking that it does.

We have to use our rationality and I do not deny that we learn morals from our rational discourse.  But it is God who gives an objective reinforcement to them, such that it can be said that there is a right and there is a wrong, irrespective of what we think. 

Scripture's teaching on morals is often ambiguous and requires thorough exegesis, but some of the rules are not ambiguous.  For example, idolatry, telling a lie, lusting, etc. are all wrong and that is clear.  That does not mean that we will have no fuzzy situations, but we can let that along with a healty dose of critical thinking, be our objective guiding posts.

"Omnipotent" does not mean that he can do anything.  God cannot do anything which is contrary to his nature. 

Once again, you are confusing foresight with causation.  All your choices are free.  But God is omniscient and he knows what choices you will make.

And I may not care if a truck is heading towards me driving 100 miles per hour.  But that does not change the fact that in a few seconds, I am going to be really hurt.

Yes it should, because you have an innate propensity toward the unrighteous and you need to be saved.

I'll pray for you.

God is not pouting at your doorstep because you've decided to rebel against him.  You act like God is somehow unfulfilled by you rejecting him.  Guess what?  God is the greatest conceivable being.  He is infinite fulfillment.  You have not rejected him, you've rejected freedom. 

Absolute means that something is true without exception.  For example, raping a little girl is always wrong.  It is not right for some people and wrong for others.  It is always wrong.

We run into fuzzy situations because certain principles are not stated clearly in the Bible, but are implicit when one reads everything in context of the 66 books.  For example, the bible never specifically mentions that abortion is wrong.  Yet that becomes clear after you read the passages in Jeremiah, Psalm, and Exodus.

There are also ethical debates on things like stem cell research, business monopoly, etc.  The internet in particular has complicated debates on ethics.  The medium has allowed for things that weren't possible in antiquity, such as cyber sex and file sharing. 

So yes, ethics is situational.  Absolute, in this sense, would mean that given a set of circumstances in which an action is taken place, that action would always be right or wrong in those circumstances no matter where you are, when you are, or who you are. 

Many people point to slavery and act like the instances in the bible were meant to have application to every time period, which is totally false.  These were rules given in a time when slavery was the norm and a necessary medium of paying debt for many individuals, who were slaves willingly.  Slavery would be wrong today because we live in a more advanced  industrial society and have developed better ways to pay off debt.

Lying is never a good thing, no matter what the situation is.  But knowing that Christ has already atoned for my sins, and knowing that my sin will prevent an even greater sin, I would lie to save my friend.  God knows that we can't uphold his standard, which is why Christ took the penalty for us.  If it was a non-Christian, he would equally be under the righteous judgment of God just as the axe-murderer would be, because both of them were under the condemnation of God even before the hypothetical situation took place.

But such situations are incredibly rare.

That's not what I said.

Sin is infinitely offensive to God, because he is an infinite being.  I am not an infinite being and sin does not affect me the way it affects him.  Therefore, I do not have the decree that he has and cannot rationally apply what he does to myself. 

God is not exempt and I did define "absolute".

Because subjective morality is irrational.

Why do you ask?  Are you going to use my answer to quote some bible passage from the OT that you want me to defend?

Absolute in the sense that it is so and cannot be otherwise.  The morality of an action must be evaluated in its particular context, such that *if* the context was ever to present itself a second time, the moral value of that action would not change.

I don't believe I said that all slaves were willing.  In fact, if you want to say that this period in our history was one of great barbarism, then you would get no argument from me. 

Why is it wrong?  I'm under the ownership of another person.  So what?

Take away every other contingent aspect that we've come to associate with slavery through our classes on the Civil War-- racism, deception, abuse, neglect, etc.-- and explain what is wrong about simply owning a person.

God was working within a particular system, i.e. during an era when slavery was the norm.  What you are essentially asking is why God did not give us solutions for all of eternity.  Sure, he could have just said that slavery was not a good idea.  He could have said a lot of things about the society at that time.

Perhaps we'll find out in another hundred years that many of our current practices are considered barbaric by the standards of future societies.  We could then ask why God didn't mention those things in the bible either.

Only that we have absolutely no reason to do it nowadays. 

Let me ask you a better question:

If someone walked into your house holding a gun to the head of a hostage (for the purposes of the example, let's say that this hostage is your mother) and then he told you that the only way he would release your mother is if, right in front of him, you force your 5 year old daughter to have sex with you, what would you do?

By raping your daughter, you save your mother.  At the same time, would you say that raping then becomes something that is right? 

Obviously, moral relativists like to go with the lying example because they already believe that lying is not that big of a deal.  But using the rape example is a lot stronger and I'd be interested if you could give an answer other than, "Oh, that could never happen."

No, it is not the right thing to do anymore than raping your daughter would be the right thing to do. 

Now if an axe murdered came and asked where my friend was, I actually wouldn't even have to lie.  I could simply just not tell him.  Or I could tell him and then while he is searching for my friend, my friend will be able to make an escape out of my back door.  If I was to lie and say that my friend was not in my house, then the murderer would leave and as my friend was making an escape, the murderer would catch him and kill him.  And now I would be partly responsible because my lie played a part in my friend's murder.

Because God is good by his very nature.  Any being who was not good could not be God, by definition.

I said a lot more than that.  I said that morality is situational and God, being who he is, is related to the situation and I've explained why this is the case.  And it isn't just the nature of God, it is also the biblical accounts of the situations.  For example, Pharaoh is a creature.  He was worshipping false idols.  Since God is an eternal being, sin is therefore an eternal offense to God, whereas it would be a finite offense to a finite person.  Therefore, certain rights are allocated to God alone because of who he is.  Pharaoh committed an eternal sin against God, God had the right to take his child as a punishment to him.  Life works that way:  The president has certain privileges that you do not have, a doctor has the authority to do things that you cannot do, a politician is able to do things that you are not allowed to do, etc.  So I don't see why this is really hard to accept or fathom.

He does not live by different morals.  I've used the example of a mother telling her 5 year old daughter that she is not allowed to use the stove, but her 18 year old brother is.  There are different circumstances which justify saying that something is okay for one person but not okay for another.  If you were on his level, then these things would be okay for you as well.

It violates the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle?

No.

According to God, even if you exhaust all other options, sin is never okay.  Thus, if I lied and my friend's life was saved, I would have done the wrong thing.  If I told the truth and my friend died, I would have done the right thing.

I may not like this message, but it really is not up to me.

But these are just hypotheticals.  In 99.99% of the situations that come up, there will always be other options other than doing something that is a sin.  And even if such a situation comes up, I have already put my faith and trust into Christ who paid the penalty for me.  God knows I cannot uphold his standard, which is why he sent his son to die for our sins.

They did love their rapage, didn't they? But, no, you'd just feed me some apologist drivel, and I'd think it was lame, and it would be uninteresting to me. 

If the context is taken into account, it's situational, not absolute.

If all slaves weren't willing, then whey use it as a justification? That's like saying, "well, sometimes a serial killer will kill someone who is suicidal, so serial killing is okay."

And that barbarism was endorsed by the Israelite god. A particularly anal retentive fellow who took them to task over some very trivial stuff. But slavery? "Knock yourself out. It's cool."

What person are you under the ownership of? Are you referring to your god?

Sure thing. I'll give you two reasons. I'm sure there are more I could come up with and that others have come up with, but two will do.

1. I have empathy. I value my personhood. I cherish being able to make my own plans, decide my own future. My time is mine, and it is precious to me. I hold dear the fact that I get to choose what activities I will pursue in labor and in play. If I were property, I would lose all this. I would be stripped of personhood - I would be an object to be bought and sold. My plans and future would rest in my owner's hands. My time would belong to someone else, and my pursuits would often be chosen for me. Now none of this may matter to you. You may not value any of these things. But I do. And so do most people. And I would not view it as ethical or moral or good or right or whatever else we could call it, to take the things I would hold dear for myself away from someone else.

2. When we view people as property, we dehumanize them, objectify them. We lose the ability to truly empathize them with. We can become apathetic to their needs and wants. And in some cases become cruel. This also make it harder to get to the situation in reason one. Why would I care about denying the things I want for myself to someone I see as below me, less than human, mere property, and have no empathy for? Now this isn't universal. I'm sure there would be those who would treat their property very nicely. But that wouldn't justify it.

I just wish I knew how you can bring yourself to swallow this. I really do. I tried for years as a Christian to buy this stuff. It just never sounded like anything more than very poor excuses. And it made God sound weak and unimaginative. Especially considering that God didn't even try to encourage them not to keep slaves. Or extend the same treatment to foreigners, women and children as he did to enslaved Israelite men. Or tell the Israelites to treat their slaves as people and with kindness. Instead slavery got his seal of approval and a code of conduct that included coercing freed Israelite men into staying in bondage for life by keeping their wives and children enslaved after the man had been freed. Making a separate set of rules for Israelite men than existed for women, children and  non-Israelites. And giving permission for masters to beat their slaves to pulp if they chose. They were, after all, their property.

Is there something wrong with asking why he didn't?

Probably. In fact, I'd be surprised if humans didn't. And, yes, they very well could ask why they weren't mentioned. And why shouldn't they? It's a damn good question.

I'm not sure exactly why you think there would be no reason. For one thing, slavery is still very much alive in the world. So since these slave owners still see a reason to hold their slaves, it must be fine.

And why exactly would there being no reason for it be your reason to object to it? What's objectionable about something that is obsolete (which slavery is not)? Do you object to 8-tracks or vinyl records or rotary phones since there really isn't any reason to still have them? Seems a weird reason to object to something.

What would I do? That would hard to say. Especially since I wouldn't get the opportunity to sit down and mull it over rationally in the midst of the situation. But being given the opportunity now to mull it over, I can tell you what I might do. There are a few variables to consider first though. Is there any reason to believe this guy will do as he says? If I refuse will he simply kill all of us? Is that preferable? It may well be. If I refuse will he simply rape my daughter himself? I would rather it be me than him. But for the sake of answering your question, we'll assume that he will do as he promises and let us go if I rape my daughter. So would I? Probably. Would she be traumatized? Probably. But she would be traumatized by the entire situation and certainly by watching her grandmother murdered in front of her. Which would be less traumatic is hard to say. But having been raped before, I would choose being raped by a loved one under duress to having to watch someone I love murdered in front of me. Perhaps someone else would fee differently. But that's what I'm going with. And for me and my family in that situation, yes, that would be the right thing to do. Not ideal, but the right thing to do.

And here again we face the problems of absolute morality. Absolute morality would dictate that I not rape my daughter, even if it lead to my mother's death and my daughter being raped by the gunman and even greater trauma. It wouldn't matter if that were the likely outcome. Outcomes don't matter. Situations don't matter. They are both irrelevant. And I would be equal to any other rapist under absolute morality. 

Lying may be no big deal or it could be a HUGE deal. That's the whole point. The damage an action can cause is relevant. In absolute morality it is not. The action itself means everything and the outcome means nothing.

I'm not so naive as to say "Oh, that could never happen."

Except I answered that it would be the right thing to do under those circumstances. And I would find lying to save a life far less objectionable and difficult to do than raping my daughter, as the lie may save a life without causing harm, but the rape would save a life and almost undoubtably cause some harm.

The same could be said if you just didn't tell him, so he assumed your friend was there, searched the house, found him and killed him. But as you made clear in your reply to butterbattle, consequences are irrelevant to absolute morality.

Why assume his nature or good or that he is good "by definition"?

When did I say it was hard to accept or fathom? I'm not discussing whether God was justified in killing children by virtue of being God. I was asking, in a universe where God's actions are moral for him but immoral for us, how is morality absolute and how is God the absolute moral standard? How can we look to him as the standard when his actions may be immoral for us? But now you've said it's situational. And if morality is situational, it isn't absolute.

Again, I was asking how the morality was absolute, not justified.

You're scaring the hell out of me.  

Edit: How about if you had to either lie or let 100 children get tortured to death? Lie or let Satan deceive the leaders of the world? Um, what if you had to pick between different sins? Which sins are worse?

Edit: So, if Jesus were presented with the problem, he would rather let the 100 children get tortured to death rather than lie? 

It depends on what you mean by the term 'right.' In certain situations, one may be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Thus, something that is not 'good,' can, nevertheless, be the best course of action or what ought to be done. Does that make the action 'right?' 

Edit: Jeez, I can't get over this. I can't believe you can subscribe to a form of morality devoid of any consideration for intention or consequences. The terms right and wrong become meaningless for me if you take away these factors; it might as well be gibberish. How/in what sense, is it even right or wrong? How does it have any substance at all? What does it even mean? 

Punishing the kid is only the tip of the iceberg for Biblical god. He was fond of declaring and having others declare how he would punish the children for the sins of the fathers upon three or four generations (there's some justice for ya). He is, after all, a jealous god. Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18. The loathsome behavior you have to justify to believe in this religion was too much for me. I could never do it. And when people start justifying it, it makes my skin crawl. And I'm supposed to be the immoral one.

You are just making assumptions.

The child may get to be with God in Heaven, which, if that's a punishment, is one that I would love God to bestow on me for all of eternity.

In that instance, the only one who gets punished is Pharaoh, who loses his child. 

Tissue?

It is. 

Nevertheless, even babies were born under original sin, which brings them under the righteous condemnation of God.  Therefore, God has a right to execute any baby that he wants.