One thing when discussing Christians is that they aren't a monolitic group (unlike atheists who all think and believe the exact same things ).
Depending on which brand of CHristian theosophy you subscribe to a direct confession and appology to the wronged party may be required. However, the go in peace and sin no more angle (which I think is what you are refering to) stems from the perspective that God's forgivness stems from the the contrition of the believer, and is whole. Making amends is secondary (and of course impossible to actually accomplish in true equity) but advisable, and may be an aspect of one's pennance if one subscribes to a theosophy that requires such things.
The link and other similar sources are more specificly dealing with your relationship with God (which is necessary to be of any faith I would assume)and seeking said forgivness from God does alter your interactions with the diety greatly. Even if one has made amends with the wronged party, one may still feel that their relationship with God is not what it should be, the act of ceremonially confessing and receiving forgivness (even if this is an interaction between yourself and the diety alone without an intercessor) can help to alleviate the spiritual guilt you feel, even if you have already dealt witht he temporal guilt of the action.
As I always say, Faith is how god speaks to man, religion is how man speaks to god. These religious actions are not (at least in my theosophy) the requirments of God per say, but the things we have to do to feel we have made our communication accurate and fully. Likewise, the faith we feel directs us to understand that without these actions we have not fully made our communication to our diety.
As with most things related to God, it's a very internalized process, but as humans exist as both body and spirit, it is necessary that we have the physical and temporial manafestations of our internal experience in order to confirm its existence to ourselves.
Posted: 21 Jan 2010 17:47
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: One thing when discussing Christians is that they aren't a monolitic group (unlike atheists who all think and believe the exact same things ).
I needed the laugh. Thanks.
Quote: Depending on which brand of CHristian theosophy you subscribe to
There's the rub. According to that quote(and as I pointed out earlier, virtually everywhere else) a believer may confess to God through a representative or directly and be done. According to Steve and the opening you've made, it is either definitely or just maybe that you must also seek forgiveness from the wrong party. Since I have the passage to back up the former, perhaps one of you can back up the necessity or possible necessity of the latter(with something a lttle less vague than the golden rule if possible). I know a party or two here will absolutely insist that said golden rule is the one place and my answer to this is, if you were following that rule the wrong shouldn't have happened in the first place. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Jan 2010 20:59 Last Edited By: Steve Rogers
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote: Yet again with REALLY?
Its my favorite adjective.
Quote: Just as when some Christians look at another group or individual and say 'those are not REAL Christians' does not mean necessarily that they are not because of the proclamation.
Sometimes it can be clear if a person is not the Christian that he claims to be if you know he doesn't even try to follow the rules of his own faith.
Quote:
You'd figure if they REALLY meant it, they wouldn't have done it in the first place.
I think that sometimes people do bad things, that they later regret, and realize that what they did was wrong.
Quote: What's the purely objective measure for a Christian to know that they 'really mean it in their heart'?
If you know you're probably going to go do the same thing again, then obviously you didn't mean it.
Quote: According to this and every other time I've heard it, Christians must seek forgiveness from God, not from the wronged party.
If I did something I felt bad about, I'm sure that I would not only ask forgiveness from God, but also I would apologize to the person that I wronged. __________________
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
Posted: 21 Jan 2010 21:33
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Hey Pak;
Well in my example, the making restitution would be a part of your pennance.
Now, within this is a more esoteric question, can one have contrition without seeking to make restitutions for their wrong actions.
For example, if I steal from you, can I be said to be truly contrite if I keep the items I stole? As perfect contrition is generally a prequisite for absolution, it is hard to imagine how one can recieve Gods forgivness without also seeking mans.
Now, that said, often there is no restitution that can be made. If you kill someone, the most you can do is applogize for my actions to thier family. But and likewise they may not accept said appology as a way of restitution. That being said however, if you seek god's forgivness, you can attain it, if you are truly contrite about your actions.
Depending on the sin, restitution will be easier or harder, there are many sins, (such as sins of private desire, with no action) for which offering some form or restitution likely would cause more trouble than it would solve.
So although there is no quid pro quo for making restitutions (though of course in Talmudic law there often is) to receive true forgivness it is hard to imagine a situation where one could both avoid making amends for their sin with man and god.
Posted: 21 Jan 2010 22:47
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Sometimes it can be clear if a person is not the Christian that he claims to be if you know he doesn't even try to follow the rules of his own faith.
Since different types of Christians seem to have different rules(sometimes a simple matter of degree up to a full blown contradiction), how do you decide which are the ones to follow? Second, in those cases where another Christian has a different 'rule' in place, if they adhere to theirs and break yours, how are they doing something wrong exactly? That wouldn't be a case of them breaking their own rule. I know these are semantics, but worth asking just the same.
Quote: I think that sometimes people do bad things, that they later regret, and realize that what they did was wrong.
With your objective morality how could it not be clear to them beforehand?
Quote: If you know you're probably going to go do the same thing again, then obviously you didn't mean it.
There's a virtual limbo now where the person exists after repenting a sin and before they know they're going to do it again. This is what is wrong with such a vague standard as 'they really know it in their heart'; they really apparently don't because there is no way to know such a thing until you fail at it.
Quote: If I did something I felt bad about, I'm sure that I would not only ask forgiveness from God, but also I would apologize to the person that I wronged.
That's you personally; not that I'm not glad to hear it as a person sharing this plane of existence with you. You told me a 'real Christian' would also have to- now show me the objective reason why another would have to, preferably from the good book you're supposed to get your morality from. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Jan 2010 23:10
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Well in my example, the making restitution would be a part of your pennance.
A similar situation to Steve's. This is a part of your example, which is good for you, if not just your example. This is the way you and Steve and myself and many others go about making a wrong to another right in those cases where we can make apologies, amends or restitutions.
That's all fine and good but I am faced with being told that there is an objective morality, which is outlined, prescribed and mandated in scripture complete with procedures, incentives and penalties for how every 'good' person is supposed to act in a moral fashion. This means to me that this idea of making amends, apologies or restitutions to another must be in this scripture as well or the individuals that have made such claims are wrong on at least one account, if not all.
On the one hand I have John 1:9 as reference:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
You worded this as along the lines of go in peace and sin no more which is actually more like the afterglow of it. I can see the Christian(specifically Catholics in their upright coffins) making confession with their priest or reverend or pastor, perhaps even feeling sincere guilt at what they'd done and wishing to atone, using this passage as a one size cures all proposition.
'I feel horrible about what I've done and I promise to never do it again' gets said to the representative. They ascribe some piece of wisdom, perhaps a penalty of some sort, and they may even suggest that you should get forgiveness from the wronged party- but that last part is not definite or even necessary according to that one simple passage where if you repent to God and mean it, the slate is wiped clean, toil and worry no further. Surely in that wise and glorious scripture there must be something on restitution to the wronged party being necessary to right a wrong or it is not a part of this supposed objective morality. Perhaps it kills the idea of an objective morality through scripture outright. Maybe the passage is there and I don;t know of it. Let's see what happens. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Jan 2010 19:51
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
The thing is...and this is really the sticky whicket, absolution isn't a get out of jail free card. There is no something for nothing. So in being heartfully sorry, it is not something that is easily comprehended without a desire to make amends.
Now, all that said, there are many times where you just can't make amends. You can't unkill someone, so how do you make amends for it? Does that mean that such an action is unforgivable by God? No, the person in question can be forgiven if they recognize the wrongness of it.
Part of recognizing the wrongness of it, wishing it could be undone, and perhaps doing what you can to undo it, but there are limitations to ones ability.
By not requireing another human to give you absolution you eliminate the problem of someone refusing to forgive someone.
One can easily imagine a situation where one might demand much more than approrpriate to make amends, even to the point of unatainability. Since such a situation places the sinner in an impossible situation their forgivness cannot be tied to it.
To be heartfully sorry requires a recognition of the wrongness of your action. Recognition of the wrongness of your action will drive you to make amends for that action. The ability to make amends is unrelated to it's desire, and that desire is the thing that allows you to recieve forgiveness.
Of course not everyone's theology is as mature as that, and for some it is merely ritual and a sense of selfrightousness, but assumeing a uniform morality to God's forgivness one can imagine that the mature perspective of forgivness requiring true sorrow would be the one that would be actual (assuming the existence of a god).
In the end, what one needs to understand is that although one can see the bible as the source of their moral code, it is infact (for many believers) written on your heart, and your senses of sorrow over your actions has less to do with your recognition that a book or law says you have done wrong and more in that your spirit tells you the same thing.
If the only reason you don't steal is because a book says so, then you don't understand why the book says so.
This incidently is why the covetousness commandments exist. Because it is not enough that you just never steal or commit adultury, but the fact that you would like to shows that you don't recognize the humanity of those you would hurt with your actions. That you are not loving your neighbor as yourself. And if you cannot love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot love the lord your god with all your heart. And if you can't do that, you cannot receive forgivness.
How bout that?
Posted: 24 Jan 2010 22:21
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Very detailed and well thought out actually.
I'm still waiting for an answer from the person who wanted to argue with me before I go further though. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 06:28
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote: Since different types of Christians seem to have different rules(sometimes a simple matter of degree up to a full blown contradiction), how do you decide which are the ones to follow?
That's easy. You follow the rules that most closely resemble the ones presented in the Bible.
Quote: Second, in those cases where another Christian has a different 'rule' in place, if they adhere to theirs and break yours, how are they doing something wrong exactly? That wouldn't be a case of them breaking their own rule. I know these are semantics, but worth asking just the same.
I believe that there is a set definition of right and wrong, and it doesn't just depend on that particular person's morals. For example, rape is wrong no matter what you or anyone else thinks. But then, we've already had this argument I think.
Quote: With your objective morality how could it not be clear to them beforehand?
Sometimes people act impulsively without thinking.
Quote: they really apparently don't because there is no way to know such a thing until you fail at it.
If I do something I wish I hadn't done, I'd confess my sin to God, and repent. I think that I have to really mean it, and believe that I won't do it again. Cause if I don't, then I'm not really repenting for my sin, and God won't forgive me. __________________
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 13:10
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Last I checked we were arguing about whether or not morality is subjective. You and Tim have insisted like so many Christains do, that it is objective. To boot, the argument was at your behest.
I hate starting a statement with a definition post, but I feel left without the choice.
Quote: ob·jec·tive
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
The recurring themes for this discussion I believe are most important here are:
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Based on observable phenomena
First you gave me this Steve:
Quote: In order to repent, you have to really mean it in your heart. And the believer--if he really is a Christian--he would confess his sin to this person.
I asked you how someone would know they 'meant it in their heart'. To uphold your end with morality being an objective item instead of subjective, you're going to need an objective answer. There's no objective measure that two different people could use based on their individual feelings.
Second bone of contention here: The 'if they were really a Christian' part. This itself is a subjective measure by you again and typically falls under the heading of a logical fallacy called 'No True Scotsman'. Look it up. This is not to say that you've completely painted yourself into a corner however; you do have a way out that sustains your argument. Show the objective measure of a 'real' Christian versus a 'fake' one. For this to be objective I would have to insist on the exact scripture that comprises this measure instead of your personal biases and notions.
Third problem in those two short sentences: when you insist that the person has to confess to the person they wronged. This is also something you're going to need scripture to back you up on. Each of these three things I've pointed out are decidedly subjective. What's really fun also to note is that you have not given a reason for a Christian(real or otherwise) to act any differently than a nonbeliever- objective morality based solely on the Bible is nowhere to be found in your argument(s) on any level.
--------------------------------------------
In response to your last post:
Quote: You follow the rules that most closely resemble the ones presented in the Bible.
If it were that simple, everyone who followed Christ would be one group called Christians. You wouldn't have 1000's of seperate factions who place different emphasis on different elements of the same single book. This is yet another subjective argument Steve. I could ask you and 10 other christians what the 'rules' are in the Bible and I'd get at least 3 seperate answers. If you've got an objective way to decide whose rule list is better than anothers, feel free to post it.
Quote: I believe that there is a set definition of right and wrong,
Same problem; completely subjective, but at least you have a higher possibility of others agreeing with you if you keep a short enough list.
Quote: it doesn't just depend on that particular person's morals
You've got alot of work ahead of you in proving an objective morality exists; you have almost nothing supporting it yet, except there are places where we agree on things that are definitely and clearly wrong. The thing you have to ask yourself now, is how we could possibly agree on different things being objectively wrong when I 'don't get my morality from a Bible'. How can something be objectively wrong(such as rape) for both of us when I don't use the Bible to make that decision? Think about it.
As for your last statement about your confession, I asked how a person would 'really know they meant it', meaning what standard or measure would they use to objectively know. My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. You did not answer that question. Not even close. Please take another shot at it. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 18:54
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote: For example, rape is wrong no matter what you or anyone else thinks. But then, we've already had this argument I think.
Excepting that rape has a rather ambiguous lineage in the bible.
Any number of passages give the isrealites the right to take the women of their vanquished foes as slaves and concubines, and there are a number of what we woudl now call reprehensable rules with regard to rape and the treatment of women in the old testiment.
It's pretty clear that our understanding of people has come a long way in 6000 years, and the seeds of that understanding are available in the old testiment, but it's pretty important to understand that this seed did not grow to it's full furition until many thousands of years later, and is in many was only a recent development.
The bible was used to defend (as well as codemn) slavery up until the 19th century. It is clear in our modern understanding what should be left in the past with regard to the law, but for those who lived n the past, such things were not so evident.
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 19:00
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Pak;
I would argue that there is an objective morality, but that it just isn't specifically found in the bible, and relates to the evolution of projective empathy that I had discussed earlier.
This concept creates a rather simple moral law that of do not cause, and when able releave the suffering of fellow humans you encounter. That is relativly objective as a moral law, and for most nonsociopathic humans will feel guilt and sorrow when they do not obey it.
Gratned there is ample room for interpretation in that moral law (as there is in any codified moral rule) but in it's heart our social nature requries us to be good to oneanother at an intrinsic level.
Soemtimes people ignore their intrinsic moral codes, and ususally these people are shunned by the rest of humanity who has not done so.
It's not a divine book, but it is an objective moral code from which, one could argue all other moral codes derive.
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 22:07
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I would argue that there is an objective morality
Who would recognize it if they saw it, and how?
Who would you agree with if they said they knew it?
Quote: It's not a divine book, but it is an objective moral code from which, one could argue all other moral codes derive.
If basing it on the dual ideas of do not harm and relieve suffering(which are great by the way-thanks), how evident are those ideas in any of the Abrahamic texts? Now how ample are their antecedents? Based on do not harm and relieve suffering alone, those texts are decidedly immoral in my estimate. We don't even need to go on to genocides, misogyny, slavery or sexual abuses and deviation-though we can. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 22:14
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, as I said with regard to the rape issue, the seeds of the idea of love thy neighbor as yourself are there in the old testiment. The issue in Jesus' time and since is the question of who is my neighbor.
To this day people ask that question, but as they say if you have to ask, you probably already know the answer.
We ask who is my neighbor because we feel that everyone is our neighbor, but intelecutally some people we just want to not feel obligated to help. So in the time of Moses they decided that the Egyptians were not our neighbors, and later that non-europeans were not really our neighbors, and now a days that gay folks aren't really our neighbors, but of course, the very fact that you seek to exclude someone suggests that at it's core the ethics of it are irritating you.
humans are self directed and have free will, and can ignore their ethics (no matter their source) through the use of intelectual gymnastics.
The thing is, if you didn't feel the moral pull, you wouldn't need the gymnastics. If you could just be immoral you wouldn't need God to "approve" your actions in the bible. You would juse need to know that the Philistines are the enemy and so we will kill them and take their land. In it's own way the bibles immorality is evidence of the objective truth of the moral human. If we were not truly moral we wouldn't need an explaination for our immorality.
Posted: 25 Jan 2010 22:17
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: love thy neighbor as yourself are there in the old testiment.
That idea is older than the Old Testament. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 16:24
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote: That idea is older than the Old Testament.
Well of course it is, it's the objective moral code written into each human animal.
check and mate I do believe.
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 22:10
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'm still waiting to here from Steve, who wanted to argue for the heck of it as he was going to continue on in Tim's place, while I'm wondering why Tim himself doesn't continue.
Tim and Steve,
if you can't see fit to respond here, I'm going to have to assume that you've finally grasped that morality does not require a lawgiver or any one particular religion and we'll be done with it. I'd love to see that admission from either of you, but I will certainly understand if you can't bring yourselves to actually type it out or post it for fear of the pain it would cause your pride. For a fair measure, remember to hold your tongue the same way whenever you consider saying anyone needs God to have a conscience or morals in the future; you'd look foolish to do so after this point. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 22:29
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Now Pak;
Don't get testy, it's entirely possible that they felt my articulation of natural law was adequate, and didn't see a reason to add to it.
Certainly, as I've said, a law giver nor religion is necessary within evolutionary theory assuming that the advantages provided by projective empathy outweight the costs to the species.
However, that is an assumption, essentially, in both religous explaination and evolutionary explaination you are left with the same item, a balding ape with projective empathy which experiences both a questioning mind seeking purpose to its existence and an intrinsic moral compass.
Without God we assume that the questioning mind seeking purpose and an intrinsic moral compass are all part of a long series of random mutations that lead to the proliferation of mankind. With God we assume that these things are the result of her devine plan. In both cases we are assuming something with no real evidence to support us other than our claims of certainty about the universe.
There is no fossil record of the human mind, and no way to discover one. We assume the fantastic structures of human thought (which leave little to no physical trace on our brains) are part of the same evolutionary process that formed our bodies, but we have no more evidence of this than we do of the nature of dark matter. We have theories and assumptions but nothing concrete.
It is a leap of faith that given time and chance all these things are explainable, just as it is a leap of faith that God made it all happen, and I dare say it is no greater or lesser leap for either.
Once you assume God, any expression of her existence is as viable as the next, you can have the great cosmic mist of God quietly moving through eons to create man, or a booming voice of God declaring Let There Be Light, one is no more logical than the other, and no more logical than nothing at all.
If there is a God, and it has given us our intrinisc moral compass it is not illogical to assume that she would give us more works to go on. And so your faith is confirmed.
The requirement for God to give law exists only if God exists, but if God exists it is necessary for her to be active in this process. Once you assume God, God becomes a requirement, just as once you assume a lack of God, that lack of God becomes a requirement.
You can only really argue from a predetermiend point of view. If God exists they must have influenced our creation as they would influence all things, and if God did not influence all things than God must not exist, since by her nature she could not help but influence even through inaction.
Now, if you wish to argue that there is no intrinsic morality, I think I've shown the lie of that. There is something deep in humans that causes us to care, even when there is no reward to come that we can determine. Once you recognize intrinsic morality it's only a question of where it comes from, chance or design. But once you come to that question there is no discussion to have since each person has formulated for themselves the truth of their position based on nothing other than their faith. And there is simply no way to argue about what cannot be experienced independant of your personal prespective.
A person who believes in God can no more understand the perspective of an atheist than an atheist can understand the perspective of a diest.
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 23:43
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: it's entirely possible that they felt my articulation of natural law was adequate, and didn't see a reason to add to it.
Rest assured that this is not the case. Your point of view is clear and I have no major arguments with it but don't assume you have spoken for either of them or that your views have actually changed theirs. I can guarantee that as soon as you said evolutionary theory, they shut down, more than likely as a defense. This echange between us(don't take this rudely please, but understand that when I say us here it wasn't stated including you) is actually a longstanding piece of as yet unfinished business between me and them that deserves some form of closure. I think it's fair to even point out that this discussion board would not have been created were it not for this argument and a handful of similar ones. Not that they were my exclusive fault, of course, but I was one of the players Tim had in mind when he created this penalty box to keep such discussions off his other boards.
To be clear, I have greatly enjoyed your posts and hope to see more in the future but on this particular topic I'd like to see something from both of them, if at all possible. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 27 Jan 2010 17:23
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
No problem Pak.
I never take anything I say on a message board too seriously.
I would love to see Tim and Steve's responses as well, I just personally like to think silence is agreement when ever possible
Posted: 28 Jan 2010 04:04
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote: Tim and Steve,
if you can't see fit to respond here, I'm going to have to assume that you've finally grasped that morality does not require a lawgiver or any one particular religion and we'll be done with it. I'd love to see that admission from either of you, but I will certainly understand if you can't bring yourselves to actually type it out or post it for fear of the pain it would cause your pride. For a fair measure, remember to hold your tongue the same way whenever you consider saying anyone needs God to have a conscience or morals in the future; you'd look foolish to do so after this point.
This is not the case, Pak. I am just not able to respond as often as you, especially on weekdays.
Quote: when you insist that the person has to confess to the person they wronged. This is also something you're going to need scripture to back you up on.
I actually don't think I said that you have to do that only that you should, but it would make sense, but I will have to look through scripture to back it up.
Quote: Same problem; completely subjective, but at least you have a higher possibility of others agreeing with you if you keep a short enough list.
I'm sure of that, Pak, cause if there's only a short list of wrongs, than it makes it easy for the non-believers to agree with us. There are plenty of things that us Christians would disagree with atheists on. The first thing that comes to mind is abortion.
Quote: is how we could possibly agree on different things being objectively wrong when I 'don't get my morality from a Bible'. How can something be objectively wrong(such as rape) for both of us when I don't use the Bible to make that decision? Think about it.
The simple answer to that question, is that we can't. I do believe that what is right and what is wrong is defined by God and the Bible but I can never expect you to come to the same conclusions until you too become a Christian.
Quote: I asked how a person would 'really know they meant it', meaning what standard or measure would they use to objectively know. My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. You did not answer that question.
Yes I did. I said, "If you know you're probably going to go do the same thing again, then obviously you didn't mean it." Let me try to explain this a little better: If a person does something that he knows is wrong, and when he asks God for forgiveness, I think he may know if the same thing is going to happen again or not. If this person continues this same sin, and asks for forgiveness for it every time, thinking that that makes it okay, he's wrong. He obviously did not mean it at all, because he will not stop. Now lets say another person does something that is wrong and he asks for forgiveness. But unlike the other guy, he is able to change, and this shows that when he asked for forgiveness, he really did mean it. __________________
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
Posted: 28 Jan 2010 09:29 Last Edited By: pakratmak
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I will have to look through scripture to back it up.
That would be appreciated. If it's based strictly on the Bible as has been claimed, then it should be in the Bible. If it's not in the Bible, than it is subjectively yours alone and not objective-even if fleets of people agree with you after the fact.
Quote: cause if there's only a short list of wrongs, than it makes it easy for the non-believers to agree with us. There are plenty of things that us Christians would disagree with atheists on.
This is a new one: a response given out of context. The reduced number, higher probability was in comparison to the 1000's of factions calling themselves Christians, not believer vs nonbeliever. Let's get back on track.
You claimed that 'I believe that there is a set definition of right and wrong'. You've got the same task here as before; if it's not just your personal take or secondhand spin, then it should be in the Bible where you claim you get your morality from and you should be able to quote chapter and verse.
Quote: Now lets say another person does something that is wrong and he asks for forgiveness. But unlike the other guy, he is able to change, and this shows that when he asked for forgiveness, he really did mean it.
Until he does it again, which means he never meant it at all, which may or may never happen- we just don't know. Back in that limbo place again. It would be like if I had asked how a person would know that they were no longer hungry after eating a meal and you replying that if they still wanted food they were still hungry. You've made the negative outcome clear but have avoided affirming the positive- what way does a person know if they're being sincere aside from waiting to fail at it?
I asked for an objective measure and your answer relies on the individual 'just knowing' which is strictly unacceptible as a standard for a nonbeliever according to a Christian. Interesting double standard. Since you think that's a good enough answer; explain to me how that's any different from a nonbeliever who truly regrets some thing they've done. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 30 Jan 2010 23:09
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
For the intermission:
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 04 Feb 2010 18:19
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Eight days and counting Steve. Why on earth did you tell me you wanted to argue at all. I may not have been very polite in doing so but I did say to not start something you wouldn't finish, and here we are.
You claimed to have gotten something objective from a source which you at least partially base how you live your life on and yet you did not know immediately of any quotes from that source to back that up. This claim was a failure at exactly the moment you couldn't point to a spot in that source to back up that claim; either it is not there at all, it is not objective at all, or you have no idea where or what it is to say you base your morality or ethics off of it.
Your morality is no more unique or special or spiritual than mine or anyone else's and it is certainly not required to have an assumed title or a preferred book to have a conscience.
Are we closing the chapter on this argument now or not? Surely if you have the time to make a post about Black Canary on the other site, this would be answerable within the confines of your limited time online as well, wouldn't it? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 02:27
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
This just showed up in my inbox and seems really appropriate here:
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 08 Feb 2010 14:21
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Feb 2010 22:44
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
3 full weeks and counting Steve.
Why? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 18 Feb 2010 18:14
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
don't bait the man...he obviously has no arguement. That's a win. If he ever comes back with an argument the topic will pop back to the top.
It's just mean spirited to remind him his belifes have no reasonable argument.
I'm sure as soon as he thinks of one, he'll let you know.
Posted: 18 Feb 2010 20:11
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
No doubt I'm going to hear what an immoral creature I am within 3 months or so. Not exactly a win. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 12 Mar 2010 02:32
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Actually, less about Craig and more about the utility of quoting that line from the Brothers Karamazov about how without god all things are permissable, or using this as a point of contention. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
).
