Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 04-15-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irishbrutha
On another note, as I said in another post if you have an ethical problem with God sending people to hell from outside the system, you have to somehow provide me with a convincing reason to agree that your standard is in any way shape or form applicable to anyone other than you.

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Christians SHOULD have an ethical problem with God sending people to hell. According to the Bible, the punishment must fit the crime. By that Biblical definition, infinite punishment for a finite crime is UNETHICAL.

Quote:

In other words why should I even consider your moral principles since they are most likely simple "I don't like that" claims.

That must be one of the most arrogant, ignorant and self-righteous statements I have ever read. Please learn a little about different ethical an moral systems before your pride makes you look even more foolish.

Quote:

The lack of veridicality of an entity to the individual in no way entails the nonexistence of said entity.

Then by the same criteria, you should give equal probability to the extistence of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Quote:

Just because I don't believe the moderator of this board exists doesn't mean he doesn't. And if I start cussing at you and calling your mother bad things I'm going to be penalized regardless of whether I knew the rules or not.

You would probably get a warning, and after repeated offenses, you may get banned. The moderator won't curse you and curse all your children unto the third and fourth generations.

Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Quote:

The crime is not in not believing Him.

Not according to your Bible:

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Quote:

The crime is in breaking the moral standard that is written upon our hearts.

Not according to your Bible:

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Quote:

remember guys I'm talking doctrinal consistency here;

Your "doctrinal consistency" directly contradicts the doctrine your scriptures is teaching.

-Mike...

Mageth · 04-15-2003, 12:08 PM

In other words why should I even consider your moral principles since they are most likely simple "I don't like that" claims.

And why should I consider yours, which appear to be simply "I like that" claims?

parkdalian · 04-15-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irishbrutha

The lack of veridicality of an entity to the individual in no way entails the nonexistence of said entity. Just because I don't believe the moderator of this board exists doesn't mean he doesn't. And if I start cussing at you and calling your mother bad things I'm going to be penalized regardless of whether I knew the rules or not. As to our knowledge of the consequences, your lack of belief in the consequences is not a sufficient answer as to why God should spare you. You have most definitely heard of the consequences and unless you are the indigenous tribesman, have heard the whole plan in detail. Your epistemic rejection of the claims is not relevant to their application to you.

My point was not to prove that hell does not exist. I'm simply stating that for me to be either guilty of something or to have a fair warning to avoid something undesirable, I must know the consequences (including the evil caused to others and potential harm to myself) of a punishable action based on a reasonable amount of evidence. I must know what I'm doing is wrong and failing that, I must at least be aware of the consequent punishment. In order for something to be "my fault" I should have a more than an unsubstantiated warning. What I need is some proof or some realistic expectation that the person warning me is telling the truth. The deterrent must be credible and/or the knowledge of direct harm to others must be apparent for any kind of fairness in judgement.

"Hearing" of the consequences is not nearly enough. I once received a pyramid scheme/chain letter in the mail. It warned me of bad luck and other dire consequences if I broke the chain. Like most people, I tossed it in the garbage.

Nobody has experience of Hell. No one is in a position to tell me (based on their own experience) that I will go to an unseen hell for not believing in something else that is unseen and unproven.

Mageth · 04-15-2003, 12:18 PM

Our being sent to hell is not causally related to our non-acceptance of Christ.

That's a strange brand of Xianity you've got there. Since, according to the bible, acceptance of Christ is the only way to gain heaven and escape hell, it would seem that not accepting Christ would lead directly and unavoidably to hell, no matter how closely you followed the moral standard supposedly written on your heart.

Do you believe that a hypothetical person who lives totally up to the moral standard, yet doesn't accept Christ, is hellbound or heaven bound?

Jinto · 04-15-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tdekeyser
These are left over friends from my girlfriends past. They are nice to us, but it is very rare we go out with them. This night they invited us to dinner.

As they began to hold hands (I knew this was coming) we asked to be skipped and just sat there quite while they finished praying.

During the meal, one of the girls (22 yrs old I would guess) said straight out to me, "I am unable to understand how anyone could not believe in God."

Shocked a bit, but gleefully waiting to answer, "Why not? I asked.

She explained, "I was in a car accident and almost lost my life, god saved me and that is why it is difficult for me to understand how someone cannot believ in god."

I said, "Was there human doctors there helping to save your life?"

She said, "Yes, but it was gods hand that kept me alive."

I said, "You might have surely died if the doctors were NOT there."

Her young husband could see that this missile was aimed well and interjected, "But god created those doctors and gave them the intelligence to do their job."

That was not going anywhere, so I said, "I would rather a human save my life. God makes more mistakes and humans have overall saved more lives."

The conversation quickly got the rest of the table involved and I was ambushed.

I remember going to the point that I would not worship a flawed god that created a human torture chamber. Human torture is never ethical, blah, blah, blah....

It did not matter which way it went, they had a excuse for everything. Even that Hell was an Eye-for-an-eye for not believing, so it WAS ethical!

I'm not sure any of them heard any logic there. The evening went well despite of the conversation and they even invited us out again in the near future.

Don't worry about having lost. The Kobayashi Maru is not meant to be a test of one's cognitive abilities, but rather a test of one's character. And you did very well, considering.

Irishbrutha · 04-15-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

ME: In other words why should I even consider your moral principles since they are most likely simple "I don't like that" claims.
You: Wow. Pretty arrogant assumption. Is everyone but you eye-poppingly stupid?

Not at all. I'm asserting that you must provide me with a legitimate objective moral value, that warrants my turn to your side of the table. You've attacked God's ethicality. I'm saying that within this consistent set of propositions God's ethicality stands. If you want to provide me with an alternative set of propositions that has more explanatory power than mine, then I'm all ears. The problem you'll have is that from naturalism springs not objective moral value. Unless of course you can argue that it can in a logically consistent fashion. And if you can, then i'll take up that new argument at that time.

Quote:

mike-decock: That must be one of the most arrogant, ignorant and self-righteous statements I have ever read. Please learn a little about different ethical an moral systems before your pride makes you look even more foolish.

Forgive me if I came across that way, but the statement is a legitimate one. I'm not saying that I"m better than you, just that my study of moral philosophy leads me to believe that a naturalist metaphysic cannot sufficiently account for objective moral value. Actually mike I'm fairly familiar with the theories (phil. major and all; they make us take it). I'd ask you to pick one then and not simply complain that I'm arrogant. My only intent was to ask you to posit justified objective moral value. . If you disagree then make your case. That's all. Please don't take it so personally. I'm not attacking atheists, just naturalism.
-Shaun

Invader Tak · 04-15-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

The crime is not in not believing Him. The crime is in breaking the moral standard that is written upon our hearts. Our being sent to hell is not causally related to our non-acceptance of Christ. If you could achieve God's moral standard apart from Christ, then you would receive heaven and avoid the punishment of hell.

This is where I just. don't. get. it. Yes, being sent to hell is *related* to our non-acceptance of Christ. The implication being that the *only* way to achieve "God's moral standard" (and be worthy of heaven) is by accepting Christ. If you don't, you're SOL (and burning for eternity).

This statement reminds me of another Christbot conversation I had:

Christbot: Jesus gives you the *free* gift of salvation and forgiveness of your sins!!! You just have to accept him into your heart!!!

Me: And if I don't accept him into my heart?

Christbot: You'll burn in hell for all eternity.

Me: Doesn't sound so *free* to me.

Christbot: Jesus gives you the *free* gift of salvation and forgiveness of your sins!!! You just have to have a personal relationship with him!!!

Ad Nauseam

Mageth · 04-15-2003, 01:37 PM

Not at all. I'm asserting that you must provide me with a legitimate objective moral value, that warrants my turn to your side of the table.

First, explain why there is a need for "objective moral value". I don't see one, so I see no need to provide one.

Oh, and explain how "your side" claims to have an objective moral value.

The problem you'll have is that from naturalism springs not objective moral value.

And explain why this is a "problem".

tdekeyser · 04-15-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by parkdalian
......I'm simply stating that for me to be either guilty of something or to have a fair warning to avoid something undesirable, I must know the consequences of a punishable action based on a reasonable amount of evidence...

What do you think would happen if our laws punished by death anyone who did not vote?

Whould that be an equal punishment for the crime? Even if the person WAS warned of the punishment beforehand?

If that was a law, I would be the first to break it. Why?

Because it is UNJUST and I would want the world to see my death and the UNJUST nature of our laws.

**now I sound like a messiah

**

mike_decock · 04-15-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irishbrutha
Forgive me if I came across that way, but the statement is a legitimate one. I'm not saying that I"m better than you, just that my study of moral philosophy leads me to believe that a naturalist metaphysic cannot sufficiently account for objective moral value.

OK, so it's just your opinion.

The problem I have found with a supernaturalist metaphysic is that the "objective moral value" is completely arbitrary as it is defined by whatever moral code the deity dishes out (or whatever the reader decides the "moral code" of the scriptures really is). The Bible serves as nothing more than a moral Rorschach test.

Quote:

My only intent was to ask you to posit justified objective moral value. If you disagree then make your case. That's all.

I don't believe in an "objective" moral value. I believe morality is situational and the best guideline we have for making the best decision in each situation are the ethics of reciprocity (universally accepted by almost every religion and philosophy humans have dreamed up). It's really that simple.

Quote:

Please don't take it so personally. I'm not attacking atheists, just naturalism.

I'm not taking it personally, I'm just pointing out the arrogance of your statement. Even so, I have detailed why, Biblically, eternal punishment is unjust.

-Mike...

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

04-15-2003, 12:08 PM	#22
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	In other words why should I even consider your moral principles since they are most likely simple "I don't like that" claims. And why should I consider yours, which appear to be simply "I like that" claims?

04-15-2003, 12:18 PM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Our being sent to hell is not causally related to our non-acceptance of Christ. That's a strange brand of Xianity you've got there. Since, according to the bible, acceptance of Christ is the only way to gain heaven and escape hell, it would seem that not accepting Christ would lead directly and unavoidably to hell, no matter how closely you followed the moral standard supposedly written on your heart. Do you believe that a hypothetical person who lives totally up to the moral standard, yet doesn't accept Christ, is hellbound or heaven bound?

04-15-2003, 01:37 PM	#28
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Not at all. I'm asserting that you must provide me with a legitimate objective moral value, that warrants my turn to your side of the table. First, explain why there is a need for "objective moral value". I don't see one, so I see no need to provide one. Oh, and explain how "your side" claims to have an objective moral value. The problem you'll have is that from naturalism springs not objective moral value. And explain why this is a "problem".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.