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.
Warren Jeffs. Who is not only a pastor... but a prophet! So he knows all about God defining morality. Unfortunately for him society didn't agree that raping and marrying 12-year old girls was moral so he's sitting in prison. (Not to worry, Pastor. I'm pretty sure they let him keep his Bible.)
and
The Islamic fundamentalists who believe God says it's moral to decapitate journalists. Unfortunately For them, one society (our's) disagrees and they will probably be hunted down and, one day, look up to see the bomb that will wipe them off the face of the earth.
Viz has an easy "answer" for that ... Warren Jeffs and Islamic fundamentalists worship the wrong god, or worship the right god in the wrong way. Unlike him. He worships the correct god in the correct way, ergo, by definition, he is right.
Ironically, meanwhile, Warren Jeffs and Islamic fundamentalists claim that Viz worships the wrong god or worships the right one incorrectly, unlike them. They worship the correct god in the correct way, ergo, by definition, THEY are right.
What way do YOU have to judge Hitler, other than YOUR own personal opinion? What saith God concerning Hitler?
God condemns murder.
Quote:
How do you judge anything in the Bible to be good or bad? Or is it all good?
There isn't one, and we never, ever claimed that there was. That is, in fact, the entire point.
Can you please address (actually address) even ONE of the points I actually raised in my last reply to you? Disagreement is allowed, although, substantiation for your (dis)agreement is far better.
If the only way you can approach discussions on morality is to control the discussion and the entry points to it, then all that demonstrates is that you are gunning for a preconceived conclusion via your own personal system of chutes and ladders -- that is, via your own private chain of reasoning. I am not going to enter this discussion via Adolph Hitler or your assumption that morality can and must be "objective", and you're not going to enter it via debating what morality actually IS and how it actually WORKS.
So how about this. Can you explain how Christian morality is distinct from or superior to societal morality (or how societal morality doesn't actually exist, if that's you're belief)? And then can you substantiate that rather than just assert it? Can you argue for it?
God created the universe and he created human beings. He has the right to declare what is moral and what is not moral simply by that fact.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume he ALWAYS condemns murder. In that case, is it fair to say you are arguing that murder is not wrong in and of itself, or because of how it impacts individuals and society -- but solely because god says it is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
God created the universe and he created human beings. He has the right to declare what is moral and what is not moral simply by that fact.
Is this your answer to the question of what sets Christian morality apart from and above other moral claims?
In other words, what Christians claim to be god's morality has precedence because of his role as creator (and therefore ownership) of all things?
But for the sake of argument, let's assume he ALWAYS condemns murder. In that case, is it fair to say you are arguing that murder is not wrong in and of itself, or because of how it impacts individuals and society -- but solely because god says it is wrong?
Is this your answer to the question of what sets Christian morality apart from and above other moral claims?
In other words, what Christians claim to be god's morality has precedence because of his role as creator (and therefore ownership) of all things?
Above sake of argument is incoherent. If my post is ignored it will be well noted and a suggestion of concede in this area .
But for the sake of argument, let's assume he ALWAYS condemns murder. In that case, is it fair to say you are arguing that murder is not wrong in and of itself, or because of how it impacts individuals and society -- but solely because god says it is wrong?
Yes. God created life. He has stated it is sacred. We do not have the right to take a human life.
Having said that, it's imprinted on our hearts that it is wrong.
Quote:
Is this your answer to the question of what sets Christian morality apart from and above other moral claims?
In other words, what Christians claim to be god's morality has precedence because of his role as creator (and therefore ownership) of all things?
Yes. He is in authority over all things. He gets to call the shots.
Do you have siblings? Did you ever say to one of them, or did one of them ever say to you "You're not the boss of me!"? Only your parents have the authority in the household to order you around. In your workplace, you don't take orders from your peer. You take orders from your boss, or someone he puts in charge.
Above sake of argument is incoherent. If my post is ignored it will be well noted, a suggestion of concede in this area and will, surface again.
I would ordinarily ignore your post, but not for the reason you appear to believe I would be. I simply don't know how to respond to it because it's so poorly constructed that I'm not sure what you're saying.
Taken literally, sentence one appears to be asserting without supporting argument that my argument is incoherent. But it can't mean that, as it'd make no sense at all in an open discussion forum to declare something wrong without explaining how it is wrong. So you wouldn't even do it in the first place.
The second sentence appears to declare that if I ignore your assertion I am agreeing to it by default -- when you have no basis to decree any such thing and in fact the opposite is true. Finally, it appears to be making the empty threat that you will re-assert what you have already asserted unless I reply. But that doesn't make sense, so again, you must mean something else. I say this based on the (potentially wrong) assumption that you are a reasonable person with coherent ideas to discuss and the ability to put them into correctly constructed English sentences.
I await your clarification with interest. Future posts of this kind however WILL be ignored; I am replying here as a courtesy to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yes. God created life. He has stated it is sacred. We do not have the right to take a human life.
Having said that, it's imprinted on our hearts that it is wrong.
Yes. He is in authority over all things. He gets to call the shots.
Do you have siblings? Did you ever say to one of them, or did one of them ever say to you "You're not the boss of me!"? Only your parents have the authority in the household to order you around. In your workplace, you don't take orders from your peer. You take orders from your boss, or someone he puts in charge.
Except when god's prophet advises that ripping fetuses out of women's wombs is just and moral.
I noticed you completely side stepped, no avoided my answer back on post 574.
And no--God never said he would do it, nor did he say it was good and moral. You're reading that into the text.
Who are you to decide he's reading into that text?
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.
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.
