U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2010, 09:29 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,087,877 times
Reputation: 14878

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Thank you for helping to make my point. City councils, State legislatures, Congress, monarchs are all subject to change.
You could add, society, parents, and most germane to this conversation, the Church which brings us to the subject of slavery. THE CHURCH, was rather split on the issue of slavery, was it not? One part of THE CHURCH played a pivotal role in the abolition movement, the other part of THE CHURCH defended slavery, to war to maintain slavery, and one hundred years of the most pernicious racial discrimination. So, like you say, all are subject to change.

Quote:
Is immorality wrong because it's wrong or, is immorality wrong because the atheist says it's wrong?
Immorality is wrong because we as sentient beings determine it is wrong, this is no different for atheist as it is for theist. What I find remarkable is that you don't recognize the changing views of morality that Christians have undergone over the centuries.

Quote:
Again, what is or would be the atheists equivalent? It's perfectly OK for you to be honest here and admit that there is none.
Why establish an institution for the purpose of doing something that we are perfectly capable of doing without?

Quote:
...and what has been "ever changing" about the Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount and Golden Rule?
Rather selective in your choices especially with all of the Mosaic laws to choose from.

Quote:
Where have I expressed a "monopoly on morality?" In Christianity the existence of a transcendent law is both logical and sensible.
You just asked and answered your own question.

Quote:
I've been trying to get you to explain how any moral code can make sense in the absence of a transcendent eternal being.
Because we are sentient rational beings, and we use logic and rationality. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. I child takes a cookie from another child, a parent tells the child, "How would you like someone to take a cookie away from you?" Even the youngest of children understand that simple logic. You don't have to bring this "transcendent eternal being" into the equation. As we get older and issues of right and wrong become less clear cut as, who has the cookie, we use the same patterns of logic and rationality. Is this good for me, how does it affect others, does it harm me or the community. This process is no different than the process that theist have used for centuries when deciding which laws of their holy scriptures to keep and which to jettison.

I used the example of Paul. Were the Jewish dietary laws good for the recruitment of converts to Christianity or where they a hinderance. Paul weighed the cost and the benefits and made a rational and logical decision that the value of spreading Christianity far outweighed keeping the laws of the "transcendent eternal being" as a result Christianity grew and Christians can eat babyback ribs at church picnics.

Pretty simple actually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2010, 09:44 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,574,706 times
Reputation: 1760
Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy! (or Sunday is just as good, if you prefer.)

Is Slavery wrong? God endorsed it in the old testiment, (and even ordered it in some cases.) But most Christians would say it's wrong to have slaves today.

Some sins are only sins if humans do it, but not if God does it. Some sins are only a sin depending on whether you were a Canaanite or from the tribe of Israel.

The morality of Christianity changes from person to person, and year to year. The only constant is that you're supposed to do whatever God tells you to do - which is no more transcendent than simply doing what your brain tells you is right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 10:36 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,954,198 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
...and Christians can eat babyback ribs at church picnics.

Pretty simple actually.

And shellfish!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 10:38 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,954,198 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
The morality of Christianity changes from person to person, and year to year. The only constant is that you're supposed to do whatever God tells you to do - which is no more transcendent than simply doing what your brain tells you is right.
Keep in mind that the church is generally seen as the telephone of God. More pious people are seen as "closer to God," and their interpretation of the Bible is seen as far more accurate or correct.

So, "do what God tells you" is frequently "do what Church Leader tells you."

Even for those that supposedly have had God talk to them with reveled knowledge, this is frequently self-confirmation of ones own action or belief: the subconscious telling one what is right or wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:47 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,258 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
You could add, society, parents, and most germane to this conversation, the Church which brings us to the subject of slavery. THE CHURCH, was rather split on the issue of slavery, was it not? One part of THE CHURCH played a pivotal role in the abolition movement, the other part of THE CHURCH defended slavery, to war to maintain slavery, and one hundred years of the most pernicious racial discrimination. So, like you say, all are subject to change.
I realize that asking you simple direct questions and expecting straightforward answers is an exercise in futility. Call me a glutton for punishment...

Which part of the church was right - the pro-slavery or anti-slavery?

Again, if slavery were to be re-instituted, would it be right or wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Immorality is wrong because we as sentient beings determine it is wrong...
...and what happens when another group of "sentient beings" disagrees with your group of "sentient beings" about what constitutes immorality?

What makes the morality of any group of "sentient beings" rise to such a level that it must be duly recognized by all "sentient beings?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Why establish an institution for the purpose of doing something that we are perfectly capable of doing without?
Who intimated the need for establishing some sort of institution? Certainly not me.

Christianity recognizes a transcendent law established by a transcendent being. All quite logical and sensible.

Once again, here is the question:

In the absence of a transcendent and eternal being, upon what foundation would you establish a moral code for society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Rather selective in your choices especially with all of the Mosaic laws to choose from.
Do you really want to turn this discussion into a debate of hermeneutics and systematic theology?

If so, you can start by pointing out, theologically and systematically, how God's law has changed and which laws remain applicable to modern day Christians.

This should be quite easy for you being that you are engaged in "fighting the war against stupidity."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
You just asked and answered your own question.
If I want straightforward answers, perhaps I should get into the habit of answering my own questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This process is no different than the process that theist have used for centuries when deciding which laws of their holy scriptures to keep and which to jettison.

I used the example of Paul. Were the Jewish dietary laws good for the recruitment of converts to Christianity or where they a hinderance. Paul weighed the cost and the benefits and made a rational and logical decision that the value of spreading Christianity far outweighed keeping the laws of the "transcendent eternal being" as a result Christianity grew and Christians can eat babyback ribs at church picnics.


Pretty simple actually.
Amazingly amusing!

Take my word for it, you really don't want to debate Biblical hermeneutics with me. LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:56 PM
 
1,243 posts, read 1,316,743 times
Reputation: 55
There is nothing different about Christian morality. Take any aspect of it, regarding offenses to persons or property, and one can find it in societies both primitive and 'civilised', as law if not taboo, in all places and at all times. Christians believe that God created moral code when he created molecules and energy- that is why moral code is just about the same everywhere, varied mostly by local conditions.

Christianity is not about moral code- it is about salving conscience that is disturbed by breaking moral code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:21 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,954,198 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
In the absence of a transcendent and eternal being, upon what foundation would you establish a moral code for society?
I'd like to hear your response to Euthyphro's Paradox.

Second, cultural relativism would help you understand what we're talking about.
Cultural relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither the anti-slavery or pro-slavery group was absolutely right. They were both arguing positions of morality that they saw as right, and both backed Scripturally.

In today's society, we see ownership of another soveirgn person to be morally wrong. 2000 years ago, this was not.
Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:52 PM
 
37,573 posts, read 25,275,797 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
I'd like to hear your response to Euthyphro's Paradox.
Neither! God establishes a purposeful life and our actions that are constructive to achieving our purpose are Good (pious) and those that are destructive to achieving our purpose are Evil (Impious).
Quote:
Second, cultural relativism would help you understand what we're talking about.
Cultural relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither the anti-slavery or pro-slavery group was absolutely right. They were both arguing positions of morality that they saw as right, and both backed Scripturally.

In today's society, we see ownership of another soveirgn person to be morally wrong. 2000 years ago, this was not.
Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And this relativism and arbitrariness is only possible if we are cosmic accidents with no purpose for being. Of course that status would completely nullify any such concept as morality. Whatever accidents do or do not do is completely irrelevant. Tigetmax's point is that without God establishing a purpose to our existence . . . morality is a nonsense word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:58 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,954,198 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Neither! God establishes a purposeful life and our actions that are constructive to achieving our purpose are Good (pious) and those that are destructive to achieving our purpose are Evil (Impious).
And that purpose would be?

Quote:
And this relativism and arbitrariness is only possible if we are cosmic accidents with no purpose for being.
Cosmic inevitability.

Quote:
Of course that status would completely nullify any such concept as morality. Whatever accidents do or do not do is completely irrelevant. Tigetmax's point is that without God establishing a purpose to our existence . . . morality is a nonsense word.
Not to those living and giving purpose to their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 08:20 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,087,877 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
I realize that asking you simple direct questions and expecting straightforward answers is an exercise in futility. Call me a glutton for punishment...
I've given you straight forward question which is reflected in your asking of additional clarification which you had not previously asked for.

Quote:
Which part of the church was right - the pro-slavery or anti-slavery?
From my perspective, obviously the abolitionist.

Quote:
Again, if slavery were to be re-instituted, would it be right or wrong?
From my perspective, slavery.

Quote:
...and what happens when another group of "sentient beings" disagrees with your group of "sentient beings" about what constitutes immorality?
Hopefully we can reason together to arrive at the correct conclusion otherwise, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, we'll have to get biblical.

Quote:
What makes the morality of any group of "sentient beings" rise to such a level that it must be duly recognized by all "sentient beings?"
Power.

Quote:
Christianity recognizes a transcendent law established by a transcendent being. All quite logical and sensible.
As your previous questions should clearly demonstrated, "Christianity" may pretend to recognize some transcendent law, but the history of Christianity clearly demonstrates quite the opposite. Further, whatever that "transcendent law might be, it certainly has been subject to change without notice. As the example of Christian support of slavery, for instance, clearly would indicate.

Quote:
In the absence of a transcendent and eternal being, upon what foundation would you establish a moral code for society?
Once again, since there is no transcendent and eternal being to begin with and certainly none that Christians have found a reason to heed over the centuries, the duty falls, as it always has, to society itself.

Quote:
Do you really want to turn this discussion into a debate of hermeneutics and systematic theology?
Sure if you like, I think we have exhausted the above issue.

Quote:
If so, you can start by pointing out, theologically and systematically, how God's law has changed and which laws remain applicable to modern day Christians.
I believe that I already started that, so perhaps for a change you might like to move from playing inquisitor to playing contributor?

Quote:
Take my word for it, you really don't want to debate Biblical hermeneutics with me. LOL!
Well now you have me quaking in my boots!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top