Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goober · 06-23-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Um Goober, the fact that you ask such a question indicates you have very little to no understanding of what Christians believe, especially regarding Old Testament Law Vs. the new covenent. Speaking as someone who is presently sitting on the fence between both sides of the God argument, I would strongly advise you to at least attempt a general understanding of Christianity before you start critisizing it on such fundamentally flawed premises.

-Odemus

Yes, Christians do not believe in the OT laws. But they are still there, in a book that Hired Gun is claiming establishes an objective moral system. Do think these are moral laws? I don't care if you think they have been repealed or not, or if Christians believe them or not, the fact that the Christian god once considered them to be moral precepts and put them in his book is enough to show that this god guy might not be such a great person to base a moral system on.

It is not at all clear that they have been repealed in the new testament, for example most Christians would not consider the ten comandments to have been invalidated, so which laws do or do not apply is not clear at all. Of course if there is a passage in the new testament that clearly states which laws still apply or which do not that I have missed, Hired Gun or indeed anyone could point me to it in about two words and correct me. I would be happy to be corrected here. But no.

Odemus, I would be interested to find out how you think my premises are fundamentally flawed. If they are so flawed, I would be happy to know why. Do you deny that they are in there? Do you deny that the Christian god considered them moral, even for a while? But please don't just tell me that my premises are flawed without any indication of why.

Quote:

What Odemus said. I won't debate you because, first, I would have to teach you logic. Then I would have to teach you how to debate. Then I would have to teach you doctrine and theology. This ain't no beginner's class.

-Hired Gun

Ah yes, ad hominem, apparently the strongest weapon in your arsenal of arguments :boohoo:

You could have posted 41 words of arguments showing why I am wrong, even if it were totally perfunctory it would still be better than nothing. Even 41 words explaining how you had no time to address my post would have been better, at least it would seem like you could refute me if you had more time. But no, I get 41 words of useless ad hom. I can't believe you wasted your time with this instead of posting something, anything, with some content.

winstonjen · 06-23-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hired Gun

You think it would be morally better to kill mom and dad and let the baby starve to death? Maybe 3,000 years ago, someone could have borrowed the wealth from our nation and established mass orphanages to care for war orphans.

Better idea - don't declare war in the first place.

Quote:

It's very easy to condemn the sentiments being expressed in this verse, but do you realize that it was the Babylonians who did this in their warfare against the Israelites? In other words, the Babylonians would grab the Israelite babies by the feet and swing them, head first, into the rocks. Sometimes, the best way to put an end to a horrific practice is to suggest that practice be done to those who do it. Please keep in mind that there was no Geneva convention 3, 000 years ago. Warfare was brutal, not the kind of cleaned up type of war that we have now. Do you think that a father who witnessed his son being killed in this manner is immoral for crying out to God to do the same to his enemy? I don't see it as immoral. I see it as human.

So two wrongs make a right?

Bill Snedden · 06-24-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Just keep chanting the mantra, "She really didn't make any sense at all. She really didn't make any sense at all...

...it's sorta true. You really didn't make all that much "sense." A lot of assertions, some of them interesting, most old hat, but not a lot of "meat." A lot of confusion, too, over "subjective" and "objective" and what it means for something to be "absolute." Oh, well...

I was going to respond to your last post to me, but as you're going, I'll just wish you good luck and bobspeed!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. I liked the article on "Divine Nature Theory" at theism.com to which you linked. In light of many of your assertions and questions here, you might think about why anyone should consider the addition of "divine" to be warranted...

Primal · 07-21-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

I never make the statement that atheists are immoral. I was a moral atheist for many years. I just recognize the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.

What is the logical basis for God being moral?

Also it seems that by "logical basis" you mean "encouraging power". In that even if an atheist has moral sentiment, his only reason can be fear of a more powerful being.

Does that then mean morality is determined by power?

TomboyMom · 07-21-2003, 01:28 PM

Hired Gun:

Do you believe that Christians are more moral than atheists?

Do you believe that Christians behave more morally than atheists?

Rene

ex-xian · 07-21-2003, 01:51 PM

Sorry...she's been gone for awhile now.

Autonemesis · 07-21-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Bottom Line: If our lives are products of random mutation and natural selection, we are only pretending to be worth more than a fungus.

But can a fungus pretend to be worth more than a bacteria? If it can, then perhaps you are right. If it can't, then maybe the fact that we can imagine such a thing and communicate that idea to other humans sets us apart from fungi somehow. What do you think?

Oh, and please explain what you mean by "worth" in this context, if you could please? I am pretty sure you do not mean "has higher resale value." But I am at a loss to figure out what you mean by suggesting an atheist thinks he's "worth more" than a fungus. Worth more to whom? Himself? I am guessing few atheists would argue with the proposition that they are worth more to themselves than a fungus is. But I also do not think that is what you meant, either. Please explain, if you can.

Autonemesis · 07-21-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hired Gun
It doesn't take much understanding to interpret 1) Love God 2)Love each other 3) Love your enemy. You can interpret the rest of scripture accurately if you able to grasp these 3 commands.

Where do you get the idea that these three commands are the ones to refer to when interpreting the rest of the Bible? Who told you that, and why are they more trustworthy than the Bible itself? Or did you learn that from the Bible? If the latter, how do you know that it's not really some other three commands in some other part that are to be used to interpret the rest, and not the three commands you mentioned?

Autonemesis · 07-21-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Sorry...she's been gone for awhile now.

Oh yes, I see that now.

How typical.

Primal · 07-21-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Bottom Line: If our lives are products of random mutation and natural selection, we are only pretending to be worth more than a fungus.

That's a total non sequitur. Significance is established by an agent. Of course we do not value bacteria as much as human, it is not in our nature to do so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-21-2003, 01:28 PM	#145
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	Hired Gun: Do you believe that Christians are more moral than atheists? Do you believe that Christians behave more morally than atheists? Rene

07-21-2003, 01:51 PM	#146
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	Sorry...she's been gone for awhile now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.