Hired Gun

I went with the one that makes the most logical sense to me.

Hired Gun

Soc may be rude and obnoxious but that doesn't necessarily mean that he has no compassion or empathy. I doubt that he can defend his attitude using Biblical principles. I don't recall the phrase, 'Taunt your enemy'; it's 'Love your enemy'.




I've no doubt that abrasive Christians turn some people away from Christianity and that charming Christians bring some people to Christianity (the same can apply to atheism). Either way, the personality of a follower of a philosophy is a poor way to judge a philosophy. Perhaps he was voted member of the month despite his personality and because of his ability to debate.



I agree! But when a Christian turns evil, one can point to a book that will provide a basis of authority by which to correct him. Atheism provides no such authority.



I think that you know my views on this from the discussion at T-web. We live in an established and comfortable culture. We blindly accept the values that our parents pass on to us and many people never question those values. We can be motivated to do good things because of the emotional high that we get from helping others. But we needn't look far to see how quickly it can all fall apart, respective philosophies aside. It's easy not to be a thief when one has many of the comforts that one wants. It's easy to refrain from murder when one has never experienced the motivation to kill.

A.S.A. Jones

Nowhere357

You speak for yourself, and certainly not for "atheists". Therefore your statement reveals your own personal lack of moral awareness, and says nothing about the morality of others.

Since you admit that without your "divine authority", you would have no reason to behave in a moral fashion, please hold onto your belief system and never let it go - there are enough immoral people in the world already.

Grizzly

Hello everyone,

There is some good discussion going on here, along with some undesired personal attacks. Let's keep the discussion on topic, please. Any further personal attacks in this thread will be moderated heavily.

Thanks

Grizzly

Hired Gun

A set of moral absolutes would be an attempt to simply list the do's and do nots and try to live by them in order to declare oneself as moral. Logically, this cannot be done.

The Bible describes the character of God. It reveals His 'will' for His creation, or what He desires His creation to be. When you read a book, you get a 'feel' for the personality of the characters in that book and God is no exception. You can get to know the character of a person by reading the text that describes him just as you can get to know a person by their spoken words. When you spend a lot of time with another person, you get to know that person well enough to know their likes and dislikes and what they would approve or disapprove of. You may not always be right! But if you love that person, you will seek to please them. In this regard, a man, who sincerely loves his wife, might buy her a pair of frumpy, furry slippers, not realizing that she abhors them. The wife will know the sincerity of her husband's heart and accept the gift, lovingly. Of course, the wife will continue to desire that her husband would realize that fuzzy slippers do not match her Saks 5th Avenue personality.

When we base our moral decisions on our relationship with God, we are establishing an absolute foundation of principle; To sincerely try to know God through His word to the best of our ability and to govern our actions to do that which we think will please Him. No matter the situation, this is the objective rule that a Christian uses to make moral decisions. Christians may subjectively differ in their assessment of God's likes and dislikes, just as people misunderstand even those whom they love. Righteousness becomes a matter of positioning, of relationship to the Objective Moral Standard, God Himself. In this system, our grasp of morality moves from the dead letter of the law, to a living spirit of the law.

No, I don't believe my interpretation of God or His will to be seriously flawed. I'm sure that you don't believe your interpretation of your philosophy to be seriously flawed, either. Why would my interpretation of any written matter be any less flawed than anyone else's interpretation of any other written material?

One thing that I have learned in my debating adventures is that both participants usually walk away thinking that they are the victor. I see nothing here to make me believe that this one will turn out any differently. No logical argument convinced me of Biblical truths. These are truths that one has to experience and no amount of talk will be an adequate substitute for that revelation. For those readers who may be making a serious attempt to see the truth that I saw, my advice is to go looking in the place where others keep finding it. It's usually the Bible, rarely a forum.

I don't debate to convert. I am here for purely selfish reasons. I need the mental steel that is present in these forums to maintain the sharpness of my own intellect. I honestly appreciate any person who causes me to grind my gears.

A.S.A. Jones

Odemus

I just finished reading this thread and missed the 'undesired personal attack'. Are you serious or just marking a worthy adversary as a target? I've seen people behave like vicious animals in these forums without notice. There hasn't been anything in this thread beyond heated playful banter.

ex-xian

Hired Gun - It can be difficult and frustrating to answer multiple posts, especially when you're position is being attacked from all sides. Kudos to you for making the attempt to keep up with all the posts.

That said, here's a question for you:

Suppose that I am a trained martial arts instructor. I am walking down the street one day and see in an alley a man dragging a young child into alley. I recognize him as a convicted child molestor who was released from prison after serving his term. His hand is over the child's mouth and I see the child struggling and trying to get away and to scream. Am I morally obligated to try and help the child?

I would say that I am. Furthermore, even I did not have martial arts expertise (which, in reality, I do not), I would still contend that I am morally obligated to try to rescue the child.

If I ignored the child and went on my way, do I bear responsibility for the crime? Did I commit an immoral act by not stopping the child molestor from harming another victim?

If you answer yes to these questions, then I ask why god is not committing immoral acts by not stopping child molestors. He certainly has the power to do so. If you answer "free will," would not anyone who tries to stop the molestor interfering with his free will? Why are other people allowed to interfere, but god is not? Surely the health and safety of thousands of children (or of one, IMO) is worth more than assuring the free will of one criminal.

Also, in the bible, god regularly "overturned" free will. Exodous records god hardening pharoah's heart, 1 Kings records god moving David to take a census (which was considered sin). Also, you have stated that god has the pergotive to take life when he chooses. Isn't this the ultimate robbery of free will? If it's ok to overturn free will sometimes, why isn't is ok to save the life of a child?

Hired Gun

Isn't feeling *happy* a reward in and of itself?

I can't see why motivation would matter if both individuals end up doing the 'right' thing. I personally don't care why people don't rob me. However, I don't make moral decisions based on fear of punishment, I make moral decisions based on my love for Jesus Christ, which, by the way, doesn't always make me feel *happy*.



Tell you what. You cite the chapter and verse and I'll give you the meaning in context.



This isn't what it is advocating, just as Steinbeck's novel wasn't about a cold blooded murder.

I use this moniker to provide others with an opportunity to say something stupid about it. That hasn't happened on this thread yet.

A.S.A. Jones

Grizzly

Contrary to popular belief, we like to discourage people from behaving like "vicious animals". My post was meant to keep the discussion from becoming personal.

Nowhere357

There are thousands of Christians sects, each making the same claim.

What reason do you have to elevate your opinion above all others? If you are unable to provide a reason, then why should anyone take you seriously?