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.
You seem oblivious to the fact that you are admitting to an absolute ignorance and lack of ability to make moral judgments with this asinine campaign of belaboring the obvious. If you have no internal moral compass . . . which is what you are admitting to repeatedly . . . why are you badgering others here who DO have an internal moral compass. Do you ACTUALLY think your lack of a moral compass is an admirable characteristic????? Agape loving human beings emulating Christ following what God has "written in our hearts" have no difficulty at all judging morality. Yet here you are a Pastor admitting that you can NOT do so. You need an ancient book and the whims of a capricious War God recorded in words "written in ink" as your gauge of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Please just stop it. Seriously. I'm almost ready to hit the ignore button on you because of you non-stop misrepresenting me. It's almost laughable. I've never said we have to follow the Law of Moses to be declared moral. Or that we even have to have the Bible to know morality.
Honestly...for a guy that claims to be all about agape love and knowing morality, you are really good at speaking falsely about others.
When you accuse people of not being able to judge morality using their internal moral compass . . .because you say it is subjective and has no authority . . . you are admitting to NOT having an internal moral compass. God is teaching His children morality and that means they are SUPPOSED to develop an internal moral compass about Good and Evil. You seem to be saying that it does not and cannot exist. That SEEMS anti-God and anti-Christ. What ELSE do you think Christ was teaching us????? Why do you think He unambiguously demonstrated agape love and instructed His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when they didn't???? It was to develop that internal moral compass in agape love that God has "written in our hearts". . . NOT parrot ancient words "written in ink" to our primitive ancestors.
We've been over this. Every human being on earth has an opinion of what is good and bad. There is no reason your opinion is better than anyone else's.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that your god exists. Without that proof, you're just peddling another opinion that just happens to be based on an ancient religion. But it's still just your opinion. After all, there are over 4 billion non-Christians in the world. Why should even one of them knuckle under to the rules set down by your specific god? Hmm?
So until you prove the existence of your god, the response you just gave is POINTLESS. Repeating it over and over doesn't change that fact. And yes, it really IS a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why? What tells you those things are nasty? Or immoral? Your opinion again? Too bad. It's just an opinion.
You're coming dangerously close to falling afoul of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
The fact that 2/3rds of the planetary population does not believe in your god, your Bible and your specific objective moral code yet without the mindless anarchy one would expect if everyone followed only their personal moral opinion shows without any question that your premise is wrong.
It's just wrong ... and this idea you have that we need some external, non-human lawgiver to TELL us what is moral (lest morality becomes meaningless and unenforceable) borders on the absurd.
As I've said many times, there is no absolute law in your Bible about pedophilia - at all. In fact, the Bible doesn't even mention anything at all about pedophilia, ages of consent, or protecting the innocence of children. According to your own logic, even WITH the Bible, it would be impossible to condemn kiddie-fiddlers of any kind of wrong-doing because no external non-human law-giver ever told us that having sex with children is wrong. It is only our opinion that raping children is bad and since opinions mean diddly-squat, even when 99% of the population has the same opinion, we have no power or right to tell the baby-rapist to leave the kids alone.
Hence why your logic is circling the drain of reductio ad absurdum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Is it? What tells you that? Your opinion? What it comes down to is that you don't LIKE it that God judged people and killed them.
What it REALLY comes down to is you flailing and flopping about trying desperately (and failing epically) to somehow juxtapose your own personal morality with God's actions in the Old Testament.
Somewhere along the line, you've apparently convinced yourself that you can be a moral person AND be a cheerleader for God's depravity at the same time.
But you can't. It just can't be done - any more than you can pretend that it can be both night and day at the same time or that water can be both dry and wet simultaneously. The actions of the OT god are so diametrically opposite of anything you and I would call "moral" that trying to defend those actions is a philosophical bust - and anyone who even tries is going to be looked at askance while people wonder if you're even safe to be around.
Is that not true, everyone else reading my post? Do you not think that anyone who can so staunchly and stubbornly defend genocide and baby-killing and cruel-and-unsual punishments should be looked at with at least a modicum of trepidation? After all, who knows what that god of his might say next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Is it? What tells you that? Your opinion? What it comes down to is that you don't LIKE it that God judged people and killed them.
You know what's missing from this argument? YOU.
That's right ... you. I've noticed that you have managed to keep your distance throughout this whole dizzying example of moral debauchery. I've noticed how you take great care to avoid putting the words "I," "me," "myself," or "Vizio" in front of ANY of the declarations you make.
If I didn't know better, I would almost think that you don't believe the tosh you're saying yourself. It's one of the reasons why I think you war with yourself over this issue more than you're willing to admit. It's a shame, though, because if you DID admit it, at least we would know that you haven't sacrificed your humanity in order to defend the heinous actions of an ancient desert god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm still waiting for you to give me an actual, logical, thought-out answer where you are not begging the question. What makes you able to decide that those things are immoral? You're assuming that they are, but you've never explained how your OPINION is superior to anyone else's.
*chuckle* I've observed that, even though the post you responded to contained a fair amount of "armchair psychology" on my part, you gleefully skipped over any of that and simply gave the ad nauseum fallacy a great big hug.
No matter. Nothing you say means anything until you prove that your God exists and that the Bible is both true and inerrant. Until you do so, your assertion is merely an opinion, too, no better than mine. The only difference between you and I is that I'm not locked into defending the actions of a four-alarm cretin who makes Adolf Hitler, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and Chairman Mao combined look like warm and fuzzy teddy bears sitting in a field filled with white fluffy kittens.
What it REALLY comes down to is you flailing and flopping about trying desperately (and failing epically) to somehow juxtapose your own personal morality with God's actions in the Old Testament.
Somewhere along the line, you've apparently convinced yourself that you can be a moral person AND be a cheerleader for God's depravity at the same time.
But you can't. It just can't be done - any more than you can pretend that it can be both night and day at the same time or that water can be both dry and wet simultaneously. The actions of the OT god are so diametrically opposite of anything you and I would call "moral" that trying to defend those actions is a philosophical bust - and anyone who even tries is going to be looked at askance while people wonder if you're even safe to be around.
Is that not true, everyone else reading my post? Do you not think that anyone who can so staunchly and stubbornly defend genocide and baby-killing and cruel-and-unsual punishments should be looked at with at least a modicum of trepidation? After all, who knows what that god of his might say next?
You know what's missing from this argument? YOU.
That's right ... you. I've noticed that you have managed to keep your distance throughout this whole dizzying example of moral debauchery. I've noticed how you take great care to avoid putting the words "I," "me," "myself," or "Vizio" in front of ANY of the declarations you make.
If I didn't know better, I would almost think that you don't believe the tosh you're saying yourself. It's one of the reasons why I think you war with yourself over this issue more than you're willing to admit. It's a shame, though, because if you DID admit it, at least we would know that you haven't sacrificed your humanity in order to defend the heinous actions of an ancient desert god.
The second portion of your post which I bolded, answers for me your question which I bolded.
IF I thought they really, deep down internalized what they say they believe, I'd be worried. There are some who do, and yes, I'm wary of them. I'm not sure Vizio is one of them.
When you accuse people of not being able to judge morality using their internal moral compass . . .because you say it is subjective and has no authority
Actually, if you've bothered to read my posts, I've said that morality is written on their hearts. Of course, we also know from Scripture and from simple observation that people have suppressed that and they do their own thing. The fact that there are many different opinions of morality tells us that people are not going by the morality that God writes on our hearts.
Quote:
. . . you are admitting to NOT having an internal moral compass. God is teaching His children morality and that means they are SUPPOSED to develop an internal moral compass about Good and Evil. You seem to be saying that it does not and cannot exist.
The Bible says there is none righteous...no, not one. We also know from simple observation that people do some really horrible things to each other.
Quote:
That SEEMS anti-God and anti-Christ. What ELSE do you think Christ was teaching us????? Why do you think He unambiguously demonstrated agape love and instructed His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when they didn't???? It was to develop that internal moral compass in agape love that God has "written in our hearts". . . NOT parrot ancient words "written in ink" to our primitive ancestors.
Please either provide me a link to where I have said we are required to follow the Law, or please stop misrepresenting me. I am about to suggest you're lying and intentionally speaking falsely of me.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that your god exists. Without that proof, you're just peddling another opinion that just happens to be based on an ancient religion. But it's still just your opinion. After all, there are over 4 billion non-Christians in the world. Why should even one of them knuckle under to the rules set down by your specific god? Hmm?
So until you prove the existence of your god, the response you just gave is POINTLESS. Repeating it over and over doesn't change that fact. And yes, it really IS a fact.
The existence of God is not even an issue here. I do believe in God, yes. But I'm not suggesting anyone is to be forced to obey a set of rules such as the Bible. I'm merely arguing for the absurdity of trying to claim your specific set of subjective morality is the "right one".
Quote:
You're coming dangerously close to falling afoul of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
The fact that 2/3rds of the planetary population does not believe in your god, your Bible and your specific objective moral code yet without the mindless anarchy one would expect if everyone followed only their personal moral opinion shows without any question that your premise is wrong.
It's just wrong ... and this idea you have that we need some external, non-human lawgiver to TELL us what is moral (lest morality becomes meaningless and unenforceable) borders on the absurd.
As I've said many times, there is no absolute law in your Bible about pedophilia - at all. In fact, the Bible doesn't even mention anything at all about pedophilia, ages of consent, or protecting the innocence of children. According to your own logic, even WITH the Bible, it would be impossible to condemn kiddie-fiddlers of any kind of wrong-doing because no external non-human law-giver ever told us that having sex with children is wrong. It is only our opinion that raping children is bad and since opinions mean diddly-squat, even when 99% of the population has the same opinion, we have no power or right to tell the baby-rapist to leave the kids alone.
Hence why your logic is circling the drain of reductio ad absurdum.
Rape is prohibited. As is premarital sex.
Having said that, what is your basis to suggest that it is wrong? I know it is. Do you? How do you know?
Quote:
What it REALLY comes down to is you flailing and flopping about trying desperately (and failing epically) to somehow juxtapose your own personal morality with God's actions in the Old Testament.
Somewhere along the line, you've apparently convinced yourself that you can be a moral person AND be a cheerleader for God's depravity at the same time.
But you can't. It just can't be done - any more than you can pretend that it can be both night and day at the same time or that water can be both dry and wet simultaneously. The actions of the OT god are so diametrically opposite of anything you and I would call "moral" that trying to defend those actions is a philosophical bust - and anyone who even tries is going to be looked at askance while people wonder if you're even safe to be around.
Is that not true, everyone else reading my post? Do you not think that anyone who can so staunchly and stubbornly defend genocide and baby-killing and cruel-and-unsual punishments should be looked at with at least a modicum of trepidation? After all, who knows what that god of his might say next?
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that ANYTHING is immoral, and that you can know it is.
Quote:
You know what's missing from this argument? YOU.
That's right ... you. I've noticed that you have managed to keep your distance throughout this whole dizzying example of moral debauchery. I've noticed how you take great care to avoid putting the words "I," "me," "myself," or "Vizio" in front of ANY of the declarations you make.
If I didn't know better, I would almost think that you don't believe the tosh you're saying yourself. It's one of the reasons why I think you war with yourself over this issue more than you're willing to admit. It's a shame, though, because if you DID admit it, at least we would know that you haven't sacrificed your humanity in order to defend the heinous actions of an ancient desert god.
Still waiting. Let me know when you come up with a real answer.
Quote:
*chuckle* I've observed that, even though the post you responded to contained a fair amount of "armchair psychology" on my part, you gleefully skipped over any of that and simply gave the ad nauseum fallacy a great big hug.
No matter. Nothing you say means anything until you prove that your God exists and that the Bible is both true and inerrant. Until you do so, your assertion is merely an opinion, too, no better than mine. The only difference between you and I is that I'm not locked into defending the actions of a four-alarm cretin who makes Adolf Hitler, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and Chairman Mao combined look like warm and fuzzy teddy bears sitting in a field filled with white fluffy kittens.
Yet...you've not given me a reasonable way to judge Adolph, Uncle Joe, or Mao as "immoral" that is not based simply on your personal opinion.
It is fascinating that you won't judge the morality of the Nazis but refer to their murdering leader by his first name. And use "Uncle" in front of the man who murdered millions more.
You do realize I was using the names that the poster I quoted used, right?
When you accuse people of not being able to judge morality using their internal moral compass . . .because you say it is subjective and has no authority . . . you are admitting to NOT having an internal moral compass. God is teaching His children morality and that means they are SUPPOSED to develop an internal moral compass about Good and Evil. You seem to be saying that it does not and cannot exist. That SEEMS anti-God and anti-Christ. What ELSE do you think Christ was teaching us????? Why do you think He unambiguously demonstrated agape love and instructed His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when they didn't???? It was to develop that internal moral compass in agape love that God has "written in our hearts". . . NOT parrot ancient words "written in ink" to our primitive ancestors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually, if you've bothered to read my posts, I've said that morality is written on their hearts. Of course, we also know from Scripture and from simple observation that people have suppressed that and they do their own thing. The fact that there are many different opinions of morality tells us that people are not going by the morality that God writes on our hearts.
You seem to be confusing the EXISTENCE of morality with whether or not individuals follow morality. They are completely separate issues and one has nothing to do with the other. We CAN KNOW what is moral without following it. God has "written in our hearts" and with the guidance of the Comforter using agape love . . . we CAN KNOW in our heart of hearts what IS and what IS NOT moral! If it is against agape love it is NOT moral. IF it is consistent with agape love it IS moral. You call that subjective . . . when it is the opposite. If we do NOT internally have a morality to follow . . .it does not exist. It is just human vanity and hubris in words "written in ink." You seem to believe we do NOT have an internal morality to rely on based on agape love.
Quote:
The Bible says there is none righteous...no, not one. We also know from simple observation that people do some really horrible things to each other.
Besides being of academic interest . . . what does the Bible have to do with the morality God has "written in our hearts"??? Again you seem to confuse following our internal morality . . . with having it . . . they are NOT the same thing.
Quote:
Please either provide me a link to where I have said we are required to follow the Law, or please stop misrepresenting me. I am about to suggest you're lying and intentionally speaking falsely of me.
Since you believe the Bible is God's Word instead of Christ and since you believe the Bible is the authority on morality . . . you automatically are endorsing the law and the many words "written in ink" as your God. You cannot believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible without believing it is therefore God. That makes your God a quartet . . . the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I think you simply do NOT believe Christ abides with us as the LIVING Word of God. IF you did there would be no need to revere the Bible as your God and authority.
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.
