Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (hell, bible, quote)

Originally Posted by Sophronius

All three are interconnected with each other. Making formal suggestions they are not is nice but doesn't explain anything.

I will have a look at the rest in a moment.

Right! And that is why in my first sentence I said: 'There are three possible things that can happen and all of them can overlap.' I never once said there are not interconnected. Can you quote where I did?

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Right! And that is why in my first sentence I said: 'There are three possible things that can happen and all of them can overlap.' I never once said there are not interconnected. Can you quote where I did?

just a second

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Both!
TO paraphrase Paul . . . Nothing is of itself unclean . . but to Him who thinks it unclean it is unclean.
There is NO reasoning behind them. It is dogma. It is unthinking acceptance of whatever is in the Bible . . . no matter how contradictory or evil it may be.
You cannot see what you have decided a priori cannot BE, Vizio. Your pretense to seeking answers is just that . . . pretense. You will not accept any answer except that YOUR God and his subjective morality as described in the Bible is the only morality by which anything can be judged. You are allowing Bronze Age primitives to define your morality.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I'm nt quoting Biblical verses here, Shirina. I'm arguing from philosophy. If your morality is subjective and is based on your opinions only.....how are they authoritative over anyone else.
Can you answer that?

You can't and that applies to your morality as well, Vizio. No matter what morality you use it is subjective based on what YOU personally believe is its source. Your source is the God you believe in as described in the Bible that YOU subjectively believe is authoritative. Others do NOT! Your attempt to pretend that it is objective is silly. The ONLY objective and absolute morality is the one based on our purpose for existing, period.The problem becomes discerning what that purpose IS. It is not to OBEY YOUR God's caprice, Vizio! We are not toys or pets or puppets for YOUR God's entertainment. There is a genuine purpose for our existence and it is to produce agape love. Everything that is constructive to agape love is moral. Everything that is destructive to agape love is immoral. If it is neither constructive nor destructive it is amoral.

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Where have you been Vizio? Just look around at history. There are three possible things that can happen and all of them can overlap.

1) Force/Fear - people force others to acquiesce to their position and through fear get them to submit.

2) Reason - people debate and discuss their differences and some change their mind and eventually a consensus develops based upon principles that are based upon reason, science, logic, etc.

3) Freedom - you allow others to exist with such differences and set boundaries to that freedom based upon principles that are based upon reason, science, logic, etc.

You fall into #1.

The rest fall into #2 and #3. They have exercised their mind to arrive at an understanding of why reason and freedom are better off than otherwise. This is how the real world works. Start paying attention.

If its agreed they overlap in the human experience, it seems a contradiction to label and suggest people fall into any one of the three.

Originally Posted by Sophronius

If its agreed they overlap in the human experience, it would be a contradiction to label and suggest people fall into any one of the three.

It would not be a contradiction but it would suggest an exclusivity - I do not suggest that a person can only fall into one category - I meant to suggest that Vizio uses number #1 as his basis/foundation/starting point not that he can't build upon that foundation using reason or some form of freedom. You are putting words in my mouth and drawing unwarranted conclusions. Vizio basically says that what is right is what God says and builds from that point. When people disagree on what/who is right they engage in these three methods of discourse/actions. Others have their foundation by reason and freedom and then proceed to consensus and then to force by way of laws, etc.

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

It would not be a contradiction but it would suggest an exclusivity - I do not suggest that a person can only fall into one category - I meant to suggest that Vizio uses number #1 as his basis/foundation/starting point not that he can't build upon that foundation using reason or some form of freedom. You are putting words in my mouth and drawing unwarranted conclusions. Vizio basically says that what is right is what God says and builds from that point. When people disagree on what/who is right they engage in these three methods of discourse/actions. Others have their foundation by reason and freedom and then proceed to consensus and then to force by way of laws, etc.

I'm not putting words out, above is an amendment. Finding things to do with reason, logic etc which guide and promote the initiatives in human progress in the bible and used for inspiration would be considered due to its nature, a valued second opinion. If the valued second opinion is referred to, it wouldn't necessarily suggest an absence of any of the three and a doorway for categorizing. Seems reasonable, in general.

Originally Posted by Sophronius

I'm not putting words out, above is an amendment. Finding things to do with reason, logic etc etc which guide and promote the initiatives in human progress in the Bible and used for inspiration would be considered due to its nature, a valued second opinion. If the valued second opinion is referred to, it wouldn't suggest an absence of all three and a doorway for categorizing.

It is a clarification because you took my three points in a direction that was not intended - remember my listing those three things were in response to Vizio's question - 'what happens when people disagree?' I described what people actually DO I did not try to explain mortality on any other level other than a descriptive one - not a normative, metaphysical, etc. level.

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

It is a clarification because you took my three points in a direction that was not intended - remember my listing those three things were in response to Vizio's question - 'what happens when people disagree?' I described what people actually DO I did not try to explain mortality on any other level other than a descriptive one - not a normative, metaphysical, etc. level.

Alright sounds good even though I don't know how a descriptive explanation of morality -speaking to what happens when people disagree as mentioned ( an effort and supposed act of morality itself ) can be apart from any level of the word.

Originally Posted by Sophronius

Alright sounds good even though I don't know how a descriptive explanation of morality , speaking to what happens when people disagree ( an effort and supposed act of morality itself ) can be apart from any level of the word.

This might help: See Ethics (moral philosophy) in Wikipedia and specifically Descriptive Ethics. It is not separate from morality in general but there are different levels of discussing and explaining morality. I am actually trying to bring Vizio back to reality instead hiding out in his metaphysical world and refusing to engage practically or epistemologically.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I am actually trying to bring Vizio back to reality instead hiding out in his metaphysical world and refusing to engage practically or epistemologically.

This might be impossible since he seems not to understand the issues here. He just invokes God and stamps objective on it and then ask everyone else to do the labor he refuses to do.