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.
yeah, the christian group can't have bad people in it. too funnyeeeee. I just don't know why liberal's don't let christians turn off these sick people.
OK, I guess I missed the time you posted something like "I dunno about those Duggars, they're kind of creepy and they are living a little high on the hog" before Josh's, um, proclivities, became public. Can you show me where that was?
I have openly condemned Josh. He is what I'd call a false convert. But as for the rest of them, I'm sorry--I just can't say they're wrong.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that christianity is to blame. I'm saying that many times, even right here on c-d, some christian or other states that atheists can't be moral, or that morality requires religion, or something along those lines. Again, maybe I missed it, can you point me to where you said, in response to such a post, that people claiming to be christians are not necessarily more moral than people who don't claim to be christians?
The only ones I've seen say it that way are atheists. I've had the ongoing debate and I've had several discussions over the last few years about it that went on for about 240 pages each....but I've never said atheists can't be moral people. I have no problem believing that if I dropped my wallet in front of 99% of the people on this board they'd give it back to me with every dollar in it. If you'd like to challenge me, I'd suggest it's up to you to provide a link.
Having said that, what I have said is that without an objective morality giver, you have no way to objectively define and agree upon what is and is not moral. Your opinion of morality may be completely different than mine, or anyone else's. Without an objective standard, you have no way to condemn Josh Duggar, or even this pervy pastor--because their systems of morality might indicate it's acceptable behavior. Since all you've got is your opinion, you can say it's wrong for you, but you have no basis for saying it's wrong for them.
Having said that, what I have said is that without an objective morality giver, you have no way to objectively define and agree upon what is and is not moral. Your opinion of morality may be completely different than mine, or anyone else's. Without an objective standard, you have no way to condemn Josh Duggar, or even this pervy pastor--because their systems of morality might indicate it's acceptable behavior. Since all you've got is your opinion, you can say it's wrong for you, but you have no basis for saying it's wrong for them.
I'm going to have to think about this one.
Who is to say that Christian 'moral teachings' is correct? Is is not the opinion of Christians?
My DSIL would say I am immoral for sex before marriage while she thinks that judging and condemning others is quite fine (she's the staunch Christian). I, the atheist, think judging and condemning others is immoral while I think sex before marriage is quite fine.
I don't think there is any debate as to whether stealing, lying, murdering and so on is immoral.
Who is to say that Christian 'moral teachings' is correct? Is is not the opinion of Christians?
I'm not just advocating for the idea that Christians have "the list" of good and bad behavior. I'm saying that God defines it, and it's God that determines it. There are certainly Christians that act on their own and don't listen to God.
Quote:
My DSIL would say I am immoral for sex before marriage while she thinks that judging and condemning others is quite fine (she's the staunch Christian).
I, the atheist, think judging and condemning others is immoral while I think sex before marriage is quite fine.
That, in itself is a judgmental statement. Did you catch that? You have judged her to be judgmental.
The Bible does tell us to judge. Did you know that ? Jesus said not to judge hypocritically, though.
Quote:
I don't think there is any debate as to whether stealing, lying, murdering and so on is immoral.
Good for you. You agree with God on those issues. But if the only thing that tells you that is your own personal opinion, you have no basis by which to judge your Sister-In-law (?).
I'm not just advocating for the idea that Christians have "the list" of good and bad behavior. I'm saying that God defines it, and it's God that determines it. There are certainly Christians that act on their own and don't listen to God.
That, in itself is a judgmental statement. Did you catch that? You have judged her to be judgmental.
The Bible does tell us to judge. Did you know that ? Jesus said not to judge hypocritically, though.
Good for you. You agree with God on those issues. But if the only thing that tells you that is your own personal opinion, you have no basis by which to judge your Sister-In-law (?).
Seriously, Viz? Still on this? You just agreed in the other thread that no human has any objective basis for morality, which includes you! Why then are you trotting this stuff out again? We are all in the same boat here... We each make the best judgement we can, based on our experiences, our cultures, our reason, and sometimes even our "holy" books, but ultimately we all have exactly the same basis for judgment, our subjective assessment of right and wrong.
Seriously, Viz? Still on this? You just agreed in the other thread that no human has any objective basis for morality, which includes you!
You're correct. And for that reason I'm not arguing based on my opinion of what is right and wrong. You realize that, right? I'm not simply arguing my opinion. You don't seem to get that.
Quote:
Why then are you trotting this stuff out again? We are all in the same boat here... We each make the best judgement we can, based on our experiences, our cultures, our reason, and sometimes even our "holy" books, but ultimately we all have exactly the same basis for judgment, our subjective assessment of right and wrong.
-NoCapo
And your "best judgment" is no more binding or relevant to anyone else than mine would be on you. So....again. Here we go again.
He is what I'd call a false convert. But as for the rest of them, I'm sorry--I just can't say they're wrong.
Convert? Wasn't he born into it?
Again, if you, a professional christian, can only tell after the fact, it means that *no one*, try however so hard as they may, can discern who is a "true" christian and who is not. Logically, you might just as well say that "I just can't say they're right."
It is a trivial observation that we only know that someone is bad after the first time we catch them doing something bad. I am only harping on this because you said "What's frustrating is that you can't seem to tell the difference, nor does it appear you're even trying." I can indeed tell the difference between good people and bad, and it's my observation that professed religion has no necessary relationship to goodness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The only ones I've seen say it that way are atheists. I've had the ongoing debate and I've had several discussions over the last few years about it that went on for about 240 pages each....but I've never said atheists can't be moral people. I have no problem believing that if I dropped my wallet in front of 99% of the people on this board they'd give it back to me with every dollar in it. If you'd like to challenge me, I'd suggest it's up to you to provide a link.
Having said that, what I have said is that without an objective morality giver, you have no way to objectively define and agree upon what is and is not moral. Your opinion of morality may be completely different than mine, or anyone else's. Without an objective standard, you have no way to condemn Josh Duggar, or even this pervy pastor--because their systems of morality might indicate it's acceptable behavior. Since all you've got is your opinion, you can say it's wrong for you, but you have no basis for saying it's wrong for them.
Actually, I do have a way to objectively determine morality. It won't lead, however, to black/white rules, which I suspect is what you require to be comfortable.
There's lots of academic work regarding "ethical" systems in animals, including humans. For instance, in humans, what we see is that everyone has rules about who is responsible for rearing children. Those rules differ widely, but what is important about them is that if they are good rules, they result in most children growing up into adults who can stand on their own two feet, cooperate with others, and successfully raise their own children. Rules that result in widespread childhood misery (I am thinking of victorian england), for instance, are not moral.
As soon as I found out what he did, I condemned him. i was willing to give him a pass as a stupid kid...under the impression that he had lived an upstanding Christian life since then, but when I found out what he did as an adult, I condemned him.
Quote:
Convert? Wasn't he born into it?
No one is born a Christian. We must all trust Christ. That is what his parents teach, as far as I know.
If you're upset that some people born to Christian families turn out to be non-Christians? Yeah--it happens. I believe Josh grew up in the faith, he went along with it, but he never actually believed.
Quote:
Again, if you, a professional christian, can only tell after the fact, it means that *no one*, try however so hard as they may, can discern who is a "true" christian and who is not. Logically, you might just as well say that "I just can't say they're right."
It is a trivial observation that we only know that someone is bad after the first time we catch them doing something bad. I am only harping on this because you said "What's frustrating is that you can't seem to tell the difference, nor does it appear you're even trying." I can indeed tell the difference between good people and bad, and it's my observation that professed religion has no necessary relationship to goodness.
I disagree. I have known many professing Christians in my life, and they were fine people. I did a funeral for a 99 year old Christian woman a few weeks ago. She was a pillar of the community and everyone loved her. Her life demonstrated a love for God.
Did she sin? Yup--I'm sure of it. But by and large, her life demonstrated that she loved God. I don't know that we can say that about Josh.
But I do get what you're saying. Sometimes we just don't know. A person can pretend for a time. It's only in time that we see what they're really made of.
Quote:
Actually, I do have a way to objectively determine morality. It won't lead, however, to black/white rules, which I suspect is what you require to be comfortable.
There's lots of academic work regarding "ethical" systems in animals, including humans. For instance, in humans, what we see is that everyone has rules about who is responsible for rearing children. Those rules differ widely, but what is important about them is that if they are good rules, they result in most children growing up into adults who can stand on their own two feet, cooperate with others, and successfully raise their own children. Rules that result in widespread childhood misery (I am thinking of victorian england), for instance, are not moral.
Great. Good for you. Now what happens if someone comes along that decides they like to put children in misery. Who is right?
You're correct. And for that reason I'm not arguing based on my opinion of what is right and wrong. You realize that, right? I'm not simply arguing my opinion. You don't seem to get that.
I realize that you are claiming that you have something beyond your opinion, but so far I see nothing beyond that bald assertion. My point is, and correct me if I am missing something, your view of morality is based on your faith (subjective) based on your interpretation of a book (subjective) and your emotional responses (i.e the inner witness, leading of the Holy Spirit, whatever you wish to call it, also subjective). Even if one were to postulate some objective basis at the bottom of all this, you have no way of objectively knowing it.
So while you are claiming to have something more than your opinion, that has not been demonstrated. Until you can do that, yes, you are arguing based on your own opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And your "best judgment" is no more binding or relevant to anyone else than mine would be on you. So....again. Here we go again.
Yep, now you have it. Everyone must judge for themselves. Everyone weighs their own actions and those of others against their own standard. The consequences come when your standard is wildly out of step with the consensus morality of the society in which you live. That is when you get ostracized, thrown in jail, or beheaded, depending on where you live. You keep saying this like it is supposed to invalidate or destroy the idea of a subjective morality, but you seem to have a decent, if somewhat skewed grasp of how it works. My idea of morality is only binding on you if you agree to it, or if I can force it upon you. Even then, I cannot force you to agree only to behave. I get that it is abit unsettling, if you want some absolute standard, but human history just doesn't seem to bear that out...
Most of us don't consider those folks to have anything to do with Christianity....you realize that, right? They were shysters out to make a buck. They were not Christian pastors. What's frustrating is that you can't seem to tell the difference, nor does it appear you're even trying.
I think we could add to the list the name of Oral Roberts. Wasn't he the televangelist who said he saw a 900 foot tall Jesus figure who told him he needed to raise some amount in the many millions of dollars for a new building or else god was going to take his life ?
Is god really that concerned with money ? I thought that was one of those evil human things, to obsess about money and offer threats in order to get it.....lol.
You literally cannot make this stuff up :-)
Trouble is you CANNOT tell the difference between a good one and a bad one many times until they do something crazy/illegal/immoral like this.
How do you tell the difference Vizio ? If you know something the rest of society doesn't, perhaps you should be publishing a newsletter pointing out the fraudulent ones who have illegal/immoral/unethical intent prior to them revealing themselves.....that would save a lot of people a lot of anguish. I'm sure god would be very happy with you ! You could be a force for good if you would just point out these catholic priests carrying on with innocent young people....before it happens ! Obviously they are shysters and not real christians right ?
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.
