Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course. It is a trivial point that not all Christians adhere to Christian moral teachings. The point I made was simply that Christian ethics involves other means of moral reasoning, aside from Scriptural exegesis -- how sonhouse interpreted this to mean that Christians themselves are ethical is quite bizarre. I thought he was humouring me.
Actually with all due respect Conrau, whether he was being witty or not, i cannot say, however the point is a valid one. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of the Christ, in word and deed. Sonhouse has provided details of actions that cannot in any shape or form be traced to the teachings of the Christ, making the claim that those who ...[text shortened]... ally a Christian either through baptism or social geography, does not mean that one actually is.
Originally posted by Conrau KLol, there are so many crossed wires in this thread, i myself thought you were referring to Freakys point!
Of course. It is a trivial point that not all Christians adhere to Christian moral teachings. The point I made was simply that Christian ethics involves other means of moral reasoning, aside from Scriptural exegesis -- how sonhouse interpreted this to mean that Christians themselves are ethical is quite bizarre. I thought he was humouring me.
Originally posted by amannionSo you live in an area that produces murderers, do you have people who lie there,
I live in Victoria - a state with a population of a little over 5.5 million people. Last year across the state there were 206 murders. That means that around 5.5 million people didn't commit murder. I'd say something's going right there.
Bummer for the 206 of course, but overall the morality that my society requests of people is sort of working.
or break their oaths, not pay back others when they agreed to, steal from work,
rob others, and so on?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionMost are doing pretty well by what standard? Against only that murder?
Countless?
I think we can pretty easily count them, and as you might see in the statistics I mentioned in my previous post, while horrible stuff happens to some people, most of us are doing pretty well.
Difficult to come away from that standard feeling good about one's self in my
opinion, you are part of a race that kills its own for trinkets, power, position,
anger, and other odds and ends. You are juding you own self by what you I
assume are the worst of us. What standard is acceptable to you, just being
someone who does not murder, what else would be bad? If morals are a moving
target why do you think those that do it are not being moral? After all in their
opinion, killing someone maybe the "right thing to do" who are you to say
otherwise?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI would question whether anyone thinks murder is right! Even murders know morality when they see it, they just don't act appropriately. And so, when they are caught, we punish them. This is how our society works and how all do.
Most are doing pretty well by what standard? Against only that murder?
Difficult to come away from that standard feeling good about one's self in my
opinion, you are part of a race that kills its own for trinkets, power, position,
anger, and other odds and ends. You are juding you own self by what you I
assume are the worst of us. What standard is accep ...[text shortened]...
opinion, killing someone maybe the "right thing to do" who are you to say
otherwise?
Kelly
My point was that 200 murders out of 5.5 million people is probably as good as it's going to get. Would it be great if we lived in a world without any murder? Sure. But we don't. And whether you are Christian or not; whether you live in a Christian society or not, there are going to be murders.
Originally posted by amannionYou're killin' me man! 😀
I would question whether anyone thinks murder is right! Even murders know morality when they see it, they just don't act appropriately. And so, when they are caught, we punish them. This is how our society works and how all do.
My point was that 200 murders out of 5.5 million people is probably as good as it's going to get. Would it be great if we lived in ...[text shortened]... istian or not; whether you live in a Christian society or not, there are going to be murders.
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course. I was using murder as an example - perhaps one of the most egregious examples of what people can do. But there are other things that happen - rape, theft, and so on.
So you live in an area that produces murderers, do you have people who lie there,
or break their oaths, not pay back others when they agreed to, steal from work,
rob others, and so on?
Kelly
My point is, we humans do alright with the rules - the morality - that we've constructed over the past million years or so. Could we do better? Of course.
Originally posted by John W BoothCongrats to you ,John.
You are absolutely right. I do not have to explain or account for, or theorize about, the claims, stories and beliefs laid out in the New Testament in any shape or form. That is surely something for Christians to do.
Thank you for showing jaywill the patience and sincerity to be a valid voice on the spirituality forum without subscribing to the tenets that make this forum viable for other posters.
Originally posted by amannionDo you think being dishonest, like lying, breaking one's word, stealing are also
Of course. I was using murder as an example - perhaps one of the most egregious examples of what people can do. But there are other things that happen - rape, theft, and so on.
My point is, we humans do alright with the rules - the morality - that we've constructed over the past million years or so. Could we do better? Of course.
along the same lines of being immoral, or they are okay as long as the one who
does those things has a good reason, at least between their ears that is?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Do you think being dishonest, like lying, breaking one's word, stealing are also
along the same lines of being immoral, or they are okay as long as the one who
does those things has a good reason, at least between their ears that is?
Kelly
Do you want to build a list of all the bad things people do? We can do that if you like.
But so what?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell take a look at Deuteronomy 4:15-19: 'You saw no form of any kind the day the lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed, like a man or a woman,17 or like any animal on Earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the water below, 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars-all the heavenly array-do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.
[b]Justified by their bible.
Do tell. You had me at justified by their religion, but when you bring the Bible in it, you're going to have to better than simply laying down such allegations. Quote the person quoting the Bible in justification of unseemly behavior, or else your charge is without merit.[/b]
That is exactly what the priests saw in the Aztec codex, and human sacrifice. So in their arrogance they destroyed nearly all the literature of an entire culture. So there it is, right in their bible. Like I said.
Maybe you haven't read the bible much lately but there is that kind of crap everywhere in it.
Slavery, how much more a man is worth than a woman, how much damage you can do to slaves. Nice religion you have there. A man is worth 50 sheckles, a woman only 30. Hmm, so there is no sexual bias in your bible?
Originally posted by sonhouseWell take a look at Deuteronomy 4:15-19...
Well take a look at Deuteronomy 4:15-19: 'You saw no form of any kind the day the lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed, like a man or a woman,17 or like any animal on Earth or any bird that flies in th ...[text shortened]... e. A man is worth 50 sheckles, a woman only 30. Hmm, so there is no sexual bias in your bible?
Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That is exactly what the priests saw in the Aztec codex, and human sacrifice. So in their arrogance they destroyed nearly all the literature of an entire culture. So there it is, right in their bible. Like I said.
Huh?
Maybe you haven't read the bible much lately but there is that kind of crap everywhere in it.
I dare say you don't know crap from steak.
Hmm, so there is no sexual bias in your bible?
Whatever do you mean?
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you will note, this is an objection I have repeatedly brought against epiphinehas' arguments, and he simply has not addressed it: give me some plausible reasons why I should meta-privilege God's mind on moral matters above the minds of other agents.
Without God, without any outside, static standard of being, who gives a rat's ass how anyone behaves
Well, again, I have some major problems with such a line of reasoning that neither you nor epiphinehas has bothered to address.
First, your stance in this particular respect does not even seem internally consistent because you are basically cla ...[text shortened]... er and to live characteristically free from pain and suffering and the like?[/b]
Okay, I see your point. But truly, as far as I have read, there is not a believer herein who has asserted there exists some external standard to which we are all beholden... including God. Instead, we have been affirming that God Himself is that standard. Many people love, but of only one person has it ever been said "He is love." Likewise with truth. Christians claim that this God of ours (ha!) has superseded all descriptors, to the point of being the (definite article) unique person of the universe.
You or epiphinehas cannot be serious when you tell me that you can usher in some extrinsic agent who imposes external standards and heteronomy on us and then go on to say that it is somehow in virtue of this that our lives are intrinsically or inherently anything.
When that extrinsic agent is the one responsible for the existence of all other agents, there is a presumption that creation came about with a purpose in mind.
Completely regardless of your considerations, do we not still have abiding interest to live well with each other and to live characteristically free from pain and suffering and the like?
Strange that when considering things in this light, that how we ought to treat one another looks so incredibly identical to the manner in which God says we ought to treat one another.
That being said, we're still at an impasse when it comes to that nasty ought. Neither epi or myself have offered that longevity determines veracity or justification of any way of life. These lives extrapolated over the course of eons do not by any means increase their attractiveness--- if anything, such a proposition only serves to make them more unbearable! The Christian yearns for transformation, not perpetuation.
However, this is still a secondary concern. It is the ought that proves the hang-up, the disconnect for the antitheist. If all world views are equal (except, of course, that one that says all world views are not equal, and all but it are wrong), this is the rule. No other rules can be added to that rule, without danger of changing the rule itself. And, if all views are equal, then no one can rightly tell the murderer, the rapist, the thief that he is wrong. What could we possibly say to such a person?
'I don't like what you are doing, so please stop?'
His answer is obvious:
'I like what I am doing, so I will continue.'
'Many of us don't like what you're doing, so you should stop on the authority of our number.'
'Yeah? Well many of us like what we're doing, so we will continue.'
From whence cometh the moral authority, the one impeachable standard?
Originally posted by Conrau KThis story concocted in your bible that things were so bad spiritually speaking there needed a supernatural boost 2000 years ago is just plain silly on many levels.
Of course. It is a trivial point that not all Christians adhere to Christian moral teachings. The point I made was simply that Christian ethics involves other means of moral reasoning, aside from Scriptural exegesis -- how sonhouse interpreted this to mean that Christians themselves are ethical is quite bizarre. I thought he was humouring me.
Supposedly your omniscient god sees life on Earth equally from 10,000 years ago to the present day, I guess like looking at all the frames of a movie simultaneously, somehow.
So looking at that 10,000 year slice of time, how can you justify yourself that those actions that supposedly happened to your Christ happened because times back then were so onerous they needed this boost from your god but in times like the 20th century where evil existed in so many places and more people died from atrocities in the 20th century than actually existed 2000 years ago but yet your god let all of those atrocities happen with out a single supernatural word.
Why is that? So far the 21st century is positively on the moral front compared to the 20th so where was your god or Christ back then when all those millions were dying from the absolute evil going on there in so many places around the world, several genocides in the same century.