|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 17:58:18 [Permalink]
|
byhisgrace88:
...Nonetheless, the inconsistencies in your arguments are self condemning. |
Please see:
Absolutely... not |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2009 : 18:47:32 [Permalink]
|
I could at least interact with each and every section of that video, though it would be long and pointless. I have no interest in interacting with a long video. I am here to interact with people and their specific idea's.
I'm not trying to dismiss you or your post, I just don't have the time to go step by step through a video like that. The only thing I will comment on is that his definition of morality is a human definition of morality, therefore invalidating anything said thereafter. He says that we are wrong about theism defining morality because morality is A, B or C. To which I would say again, there is no basis to be able to start on that definition. His argument starts by doing something that my argument would say he cannot do. His entire premise is built on the assumption that he is right on his narrow definition.
The entire video is essentially a "nuh-uh". A "I can define it, so screw what your argument actually says". |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 18:56:32 [Permalink]
|
I just re-read my second to last post and realized there were a number of typos, and even some that change the meaning of a sentence. Hope everyone understood what I was saying in general.
Is there a way to edit a previous post? |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 18:59:23 [Permalink]
|
| I figured out the editing... |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 19:02:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
| As for such morals being subjective, let me ask, did you stone any children to death for talking back to their father lately? Did you put anybody to death for working on Sabbath? Eating shellfish or wearing mixed fibres? Force a rape victim to marry her rapist? |
It is not subjective that I do not follow these practices because they are the law of the old covenant. New Testament Christians are completely freed from the law of the Old Testament. I make no claims about what is, or is not, sin unless it is overtly stated in the New Testament.
I don't eat meat, or work on the Sabbath because I am inconsistent, but because it no longer applies.
Any Christian who still claims that the Old Testament law has any effect on us is not only being inconsistent and subjective as you say, but is also going directly against the New Testament's teaching about how Christians should live in the post-Christ era.
|
Just quickly, because I have to go back to work...
Where does Jesus say that the Laws of the old covenant do no longer apply?
I remember Matthew 5:17 that seems to say the exact opposite.
| "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them". |
It seems to me that not only you pick and choose which laws to obey to, you also pick and choose the justification for that...
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 19:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
It's not that an atheist can't have "morals" in the sense that we feel them in our every day lives, but rather that the application and judgement of them is completely subjective and arbitrary. |
Same with Christians. Only God can provide non-subjective and non-arbitrary application and judgment of His laws. Humans are imperfect, and so cannot be expected to apply God's moral rules with any consistency (and by observation, they do not).| But ultimately the idea that that we came from no creator, yet there are things that are fundamentally right and wrong is a flawed argument. |
Good thing that nobody here is making that argument.| There is just no basis to say that our feelings or emotions dictate whether something is right or wrong. We might as well flip a coin. |
Good thing nobody here is saying that "our feelings or emotions dictate whether something is right or wrong."In the end you are no better or worse off no matter what you did. You are dead and eventually forgotten. The idea that life is this meaningless is theoretically possible, yet you all seem to live in a delusion of morality as great as the one you accuse me of living in.
I understand and even respect the Ernest Hemingway's of this world, who deny God's existence and logically deny any meaning in life. I have a harder time understanding those who deny God's existence and invent a morality, sense of justice, or meaning in life that has no basis whatsoever. |
I don't know anyone who invents "a morality, sense of justice, or meaning in life that has no basis whatsoever" (bolding mine, of course).
I already said that it is easy to derive the Golden Rule (you know, "do unto others...") from a few basic observations and hypotheses. Those are its basis. Once we get to the Golden Rule, we can derive all sorts of specific moral rules (don't murder, don't steal, etc.) from just it.
Just because you don't know how to provide a basis for an atheistic morality doesn't mean that it "has no basis whatsoever." Either you can spend some time thinking about it, or you can ask for help in learning it. Or (of course) you can continue to try to maintain the false idea that you've already got.
(Note that obviously, it's probable that a large proportion of atheists won't be able to offer a basis, because they haven't thought about it, either. They just run with the rules their parents taught them. Just like most people with religion.)
As for Hemingway and "meaning," nihilism isn't much fun. I don't believe I know any. And Hemingway didn't seem to be one in 1954:Things may not be immediately discernible in what a man writes, and in this sometimes he is fortunate; but eventually they are quite clear and by these and the degree of alchemy that he possesses he will endure or be forgotten. Perhaps as he sank deeper into depression, he went more and more the nihilistic route, but that speech was only seven years before his death.
But why would anyone, BHG, want to point to someone with serious, possibly familial mental disorders as an example of what atheists should believe?
In the end, our lives have whatever meaning we give to them. If you live a meaningless life, you're going to die and be forgotten on Earth regardless of your religion.
Of course, in your theology, this Earthly life is meaningless to begin with, but your God apparently frowns upon suicide, so you're trapped for a handful of decades in an existential wasteland. But what gives your existence any meaning after you die? You either get to be punished forever or sing God's praises forever, both also meaning-free. While God may have some plan in mind, you don't know it, and so can't share in whatever meaning He intends for the universe as a whole, either.
So, BHG, what meaning does your individual life have? What meaning could it possibly have that you don't invent for yourself? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 19:31:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
I'm not trying to dismiss you or your post, I just don't have the time to go step by step through a video like that. The only thing I will comment on is that his definition of morality is a human definition of morality, therefore invalidating anything said thereafter. |
So you would prefer an inhuman definition? Could you even understand a definition of morality which is not intended for humans?
Jesus' morality was clearly intended for regular human beings to follow and understand, and as such must include a "human definition" of morality, even if to follow it 100% requires divinity (and then only because the standards which are set are inhumanly high). The definition of morality is independent of the amount of difficulty in following that morality.| His argument starts by doing something that my argument would say he cannot do. |
Yes, and your "argument" isn't so much an argument but simply an assertion that there is no basis for morality outside of God, one you really haven't supported. You can prove to yourself that you're wrong, simply by giving it some serious thought. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 19:32:59 [Permalink]
|
The word fulfill means to bring to completion. When Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross, this means that the the entire old covenant has been fulfilled and completed for us in a way we could not have. The tearing of the veil also represents the end of the old covenant.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace," -- Ephesians 2:14-15
"1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." -- Romans 7:1-6
Most of the first half of Romans relates to our new standing before the law. This section is saying that our "old husband" (the old covenant) has died, and we are no longer bound to it. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 19:44:10 [Permalink]
|
| Either you can spend some time thinking about it, or you can ask for help in learning it. Or (of course) you can continue to try to maintain the false idea that you've already got. |
Dave, we disagree. Clearly. I still believe that your argument is as flawed as you think mine is. I am fine with that. Please don't condescend to me by saying that if "I thought about it", or "asked for help", I would come to a different conclusion. I have made the study of many of these exact things the focus of my life. I am not stupid or naive. I do disagree with you. I am here because you disagree with me, and I enjoy honing my thoughts. Simply telling me that my idea's are false is just insulting, and unproductive. Please treat me with respect as I always try to do with everyone here.
(edited)
|
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
| Edited by - byhisgrace88 on 04/05/2009 19:48:13 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 20:17:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
The word fulfill means to bring to completion. When Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross, this means that the the entire old covenant has been fulfilled and completed for us in a way we could not have. The tearing of the veil also represents the end of the old covenant.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace," -- Ephesians 2:14-15
"1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." -- Romans 7:1-6
Most of the first half of Romans relates to our new standing before the law. This section is saying that our "old husband" (the old covenant) has died, and we are no longer bound to it.
|
Since well does 'fulfil' means abolish? How can you 'fulfil' a law, except by obeying it?
How do you know that 'it is finished' referred to the old covenant rather than Jesus' own life or passage on Earth? Wouldn't it make more sense?
If the Old covenant was limited in time, how come Isaiah and Jeremiah call it: 'everlasting'?
Seems like more contradictions within the Bible.
Of course, for me, it is pretty easy to explain it, when the Jews rejected Jesus' message, the Pauline wing of the church decided to bring it to the gentiles, it is the source of the well documented clash between Paul and the Jerusalem elders such as James. And then, as the new 'customers' rejected many of the rules of the OT, they justified making away with them. Even if, really, there is nothing that justify it in Jesus' teaching. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 20:24:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
Dave, we disagree. Clearly. I still believe that your argument is as flawed as you think mine is. I am fine with that. Please don't condescend to me by saying that if "I thought about it", or "asked for help", I would come to a different conclusion. I have made the study of many of these exact things the focus of my life. I am not stupid or naive. I do disagree with you. I am here because you disagree with me, and I enjoy honing my thoughts. Simply telling me that my idea's are false is just insulting, and unproductive. Please treat me with respect as I always try to do with everyone here. |
Then you'd better quit insulting me by telling me that my morality "has no basis whatsoever" or "that our feelings or emotions dictate whether something is right or wrong." That was my entire point, really, but you seem to have discarded that in favor of taking offense at what was supposed to (at the very least) spark a dialog. I think you should get off your high horse and down in the dirt with me for a while.
Because you telling me that you think my argument is flawed does nothing to further the discussion. You haven't explained how my argument is flawed or anything else that I might be able to agree with. You can assert that my argument is flawed, but until you back it up with an actual argument that my argument is flawed, this goes absolutely nowhere, and nobody's thoughts get honed.
And I was (and am) counting on your lack of stupidity and naïveteé. If I thought otherwise of you, I would have just laughed at you as another religious whack-job who is out of touch with reality. Instead, I tried to engage with you, and you've locked me out in return. Unproductive? You should remove the log from your own eye before going after the splinter in mine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 20:59:50 [Permalink]
|
Oh, by the way...Originally posted by byhisgrace88
I am not someone who speaks out against gays, though as any Christian who cares about scripture would; I believe that it is not God's design...
The last thing I want to do is descend into an argument about homosexuality, because I don't believe it is somehow worse than other sins. |
This is interesting to me. I don't believe Jesus is ever directly quoted on the subject, and homosexuality being a sin does not follow from His Two Commandments nor from any of the Big Ten. If I remember correctly, it is only Paul who calls homosexuality an "abomination" in the New Testament, and since Paul isn't a deity, from where do your conclusions arise?
Also...| I don't think that disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes one a bigot, but if it did, wouldn't you be a bigot towards bigotry? Why can you attack my lifestyle directly, with no "tolerance", but I am called a bigot simply for disagreeing with someone. You are attacking the very idea that a lifestyle could be wrong by telling me that my lifestyle is wrong. |
The idea that one who calls for tolerance must be tolerant of intolerance to avoid hypocrisy is lunacy. It is based upon the false equation of "tolerance" with an "anything goes" morality, something that few people, tolerant or not, have.
And your particular questions are based on your assumption that your mere equation of homosexuality with "sin" is enough to get you lumped in with the people that Simon called "current anti-gay bigots." In other words, you are self-indentifying as an "anti-gay bigot," and then reacting as if Simon had specifically applied that label to you, despite your protestations that you think that some of your bretheren embarrass you.
In still other words, you've either waaay over-personalized Simon's statement, or you're actually an anti-gay bigot who outed himself when he didn't have to. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 22:09:02 [Permalink]
|
I'll be: my reply got posted.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2009 : 00:14:57 [Permalink]
|
byhisgrace88, could you please outline the (God-directed, absolute, correct) moral position on each of the sometimes-controversial aspects of society & human relations listed below?
(Please briefly include the source of human knowledge on this correct position for each topic, since many of us won't know; e.g. what verse in the New Testament outlines the position, or what biblical teaching lays the groundwork upon which the position rests?)
1) Divorce
2) Polygamy
3) Slavery
4) Capital punishment (death penalty)
It might also help to have you give us a definition for "morals", as you use that word, but I don't want to assign too much, & am more interested in your comments on the 4 issues above. (Also interested about usury, corporal punishment of children, rights of women including marital rights & women in ministry, & other topics, but it seems most reasonable not to ask about all of these, at least not all at once.)
Thank you. |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2009 : 08:49:03 [Permalink]
|
To be clear and as Dave mentioned, I was not accusing you of being a bigot, just mentioning how some Christians were reading the Bible and getting an interpretation which, surprise-surprise- justified their own interest and bigotry, with the obvious contemporary example of anti-gay bigotry, very popular in some Christian circles today (cough*Fred Phelps*cough).
Now, I am not going to comment on the 'you are bigot against bigotry' accusation. Instead I am going to ask you:
Unless the Bible can be objectively interpreted into a demonstrably correct version, it is useless as a moral guide, as people can make up -as I argue they do- their own interpretation to suit their need.
Fair enough?
Now, if such an objectively correct version existed, how would you explain that there are above 38,000 different Christian sects in the world, with interpretation varying so widely as to cause wars between sects?
Which version is correct? Is this the one convincing the more people? The one that has the highest number of scholar backing it up? In this case, are you a Roman Catholic? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
From Javier, the xian concept of "morality"
