brighid

I would just like to post a friendly reminder to keep the discussion on topic, and refrain from the use of ad hominem attacks or derogatory language so this discussion is not derailed by remarks that lack substance, or fail to address the subject matter.

I hope every one has an enjoyable weekend.

Brighid

sweep

It doesn't apply to everyone king bud, it was a sweep-ing generalisation, and applies to the other side of the coin, in terms of the battle between theists and atheists

the point is i don't see why everyone needs to profess their pride in being a hard atheist- what exactly does that mean? I don't call myself either a theist or an atheist, what is in a name! Don't think i know it all, and can rule out the possibility of a creator of sorts. Nothing to believe in> on the contrary there is so much to believe in and so much we don't understand.

I also don't see much wrong with a little vehemence, if it gets the point across.

so, assuming we were created, assuming humans are designed- god is benevolent. Why? we are alive and our bodies are amazing. I don't think the creator designed us with quake 3 in mind.

Living is fine, life can be wrong, and we can't blame the creator for trying. Just because it say in some book that we are mean't to be punished doesn't mean it is so. We punish one another, the creator doesn't intervene, doesn't favour, and allows us to live by our mistakes.

how ungrateful we would be to pass the blame and sole responsibility unto our creator, assuming we have one or two, or three? How our creator must have wept when people cried out, "oh, my god, why hast thou forsaken me! punish that naughty murderer for me"

god- "oh no! my kids are squabbling again, what can i do?"

my parents have had to put up with me for years and hung their heads as i screwed up repeatedly. Are they immoral for abstaining? What coiuld they do, lock me in a cage?

thereby i see no inconsistency in the logic of the conservative christian.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

demrald

sweep
Then it's not immoral to refrain from preventing rape or murder, even when you can (unless they give you permission to, of course).
Are you denying premise 1, then?

Jamie_L
It has to be one or the other: morality is dictated (stated) by God, or morality is what God wants. It is possible for these two to be in conflict, as in the case of theists who believe that God has said it is wrong to refrain from preventing rapes or murders when possible to do so, yet God does not prevent them, meaning God does not want to (because if God wanted to, God would).
This contravenes premise 1, or means that morality is relative, which theists who subscribe to divine command theory reject.
We still have a contradiction if God is the standard. God doesn't prevent rapes and murders, even though God can, and many theists believe it's wrong to behave in such a manner, because they believe God's standards indicate such behavior to be wrong.

sweep

demrald:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. it is immoral to interfere with or otherwise control others without consent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it's not immoral to refrain from preventing rape or murder, even when you can (unless they give you permission to, of course).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

with the exception that one who breaks the rule in the first place, then others may stoop to the level of the intial perpetrator.

control can mean many things too so i will apply this only to instances where the person in question (the victim) becomes unhappy and listless as a result.

revised:

5. it is immoral to control another person for self gain

6. wilful destruction of a conscious person or a persons conscious without consent.

have a go at those demrald

Oh, if we do show the conservative christian logic to be inconsistent, then what? where does it get us?

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

demrald

sweep
This is only a discussion of prevention, not punishment applied subsequent to the act.
What bearing does this have on the argument?
This isn't even a proposition.
This is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Christian morality is arbitrary: Whatever God is beleived to have said we should do, is what we should do, no questions asked.

We expect God's morality to be similar to ours only because the Bible claims that we are made in God's image.

If God is omnipresent, then God includes evil, since evil exists, and where evil is, there would God be, also.

And yet apologetics maintains that God cannot be in the precense of 'sin' (odd, since if God is Creator, he had to create 'sin', before we could sommit it), and so forth.

All of these contradictions add up to only one conclusion: the Christain God--at least--is not possible.

Keith.

sweep

demrald

yeah, ok, then, the logic is bullshit &lt;esp no.2&gt; god doesn't stop anything- i illustrate as requested. end of story. happy?

so what?

demrald

sweep
What do you mean by "the logic is bullshit"?
I am in a general state of contentedness, but I think it has more to do with it being the beginning of a holiday weekend than your reply to my post.

sweep

so it isn't an argument, but a demonstration that conservative christians are a load of shit talkers- is that an ad hominem attack, moderators?

and you won't be satisfied until we demonstrate, with brass bells on, the obvious fact that the conservative christian logic is flawed.

and i'm happy if my posts aren't making you happy, they are intended to make you unhappy: they are obviously not for your benefit

dk

<ol type="1">[*]demrald: God is (perfectly) moral.
dk: Morality regulates human conduct because of particular inherited defects. Jesus as man was perfectly moral in the sense he was human and without sin. But it’s unintelligible to say God is moral, because morality is contingent upon God, not visa versa. God is perfectly just and merciful, and sent his Son to die so that our sins might be forgiven. I suppose one could suppose that god was a great trickster, but then it appears the universe is well ordered (but not perfectly ordered) so the hypothesis is unsupported.[*]demrald: God is aware of and can prevent certain evils (eg., rapes and murders).
dk: God is the creator created evil and good so that people can now the truth, and through truth know God, love God and serve God. But God being perfectly merciful and just gave people free will to participate in their own destiny. It is through the moral law that people participate in the natural law, and through grace people participate in the Divine Law.[*]demrald: God refrains from preventing these certain evils.
dk: God doesn’t refrain, he always acts according to his nature, or God’s acts in consort with the Divine Law that is eternal.[*]demrald: It is not immoral to refrain from preventing these certain evils.
dk: The power people have over evil comes from God, so the point is meaningless. What Jesus taught through example was as a human being, to follow God’s example is haughty. Jesus had two natures, God’s and man’s.[*]demrald: Any thoughts?
dk: Moral Law and 10 Commandments agree, “the liberty to wantonly kill, rape, steal, and make false promises” is wrong, and justice serves punishment for the transgressions. Still, people haven’t the power (liberty) to stop others from committing immoral acts. People are not gods. and God’s power isn’t a human liberty. Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins under human law, and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven by his own power. Clearly human law has no power over God, but I don’t recall reading anywhere in the Bible the disciples become gods. This mean God created man with a finite right of liberty, and morally one person’s liberty ends where the right of others begin. I believe it was Protagoras (ancient Greek) that taught, "Man is the measure of all things".[/list=a]