How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Humanguy
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Humanguy » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:43 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:23 am
So why can't Christianity like people without pretending that they're perfect? Why can't we love people warts and all?
You tell me.

Og3
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:42 am

Humanguy wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:43 am
Og3 wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:23 am
So why can't Christianity like people without pretending that they're perfect? Why can't we love people warts and all?
You tell me.
We do.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:41 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:42 pm
For the majority of reasons it would be wrong as it harms people, robs their freedom, etc., but as in all moral questions there are grey areas or exceptional circumstances. What if the people that were going to be enslaved were told that if they resisted being enslaved they would suffer death by the sword? Or were so poor they couldn't afford to care for their children who would die of starvation if they weren't sold into slavery? To avoid death, slavery could be the better option. That's why all moral questions are subjective, not objective. Got another example?
Og3 wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:49 pm
So then slavery is NOT always wrong and NOT always evil -- which means then that all your blathering about why God didn't outlaw it in the ten commandments is just silly nonsense, right?
Nope, I quite rightly blather if "For the majority of reasons it would be wrong as it harms people, robs their freedom, etc.," Your god should have been condemning slavery just as much as the abuse of women and children, yet he approved of all that abuse according to your book and even gave handy advice about how to implement it.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:35 pm
Note what Mohammad says to Jesus in the second frame, "God could make anything good just by saying so." I have no problem with that. Why do you have a problem with that?
SEG wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:42 pm
Well, did you notice the quotation marks around "good"? "Good" would be subjective to what "good" means to him. He may decide to make slavery "good" and even make up regulations for it like how to sell them or belting them with a rod is ok if they don't die from the beating after 2 or 3 days. Hold on, he DID do that! Along with lots of other nasty prescriptions including making the rapist marry the girl he just raped. Why not punish the victim further and that would become "good" too.
In which case "Good" has no meaning, and thus your argument against God fails as well.
Nope, "good" as in this statement;
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Means what your particular god has a personal taste for being good, which means he is an outside agent, like a parent.
So you concede then that your subjective morals are merely nice things you like, such as ice cream? And have no meaning that can be applied outside your own skin?
Yep, the same as your god if you know his chosen "nature".
But if slavery is merely wrong because we say so, then it was NOT wrong back when we didn't say so, and it might not be wrong at some point in the future if we STOP saying so. No hidden assumptions: It's all out in the open. If it's wrong it's wrong; if not, then we just don't like it.
It's wrong because it harms people that are forced into it, NOT because it is objectively wrong.
Okay, so, is a thing that harms people that are forced into it really truly wrong always for everyone at all times in all places?
(yes, all we did there was to substitute a synonym, why do you ask?)
SEG wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:42 pm
See above.
where you said that no, it is not objectively wrong, and thus not wrong at all.
It is subjectively wrong for me and your god.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want slavery to be OBJECTIVELY wrong,
No I don't say that at all, I say it is subjectively wrong for a variety of reasons.
Mainly because if it were objectively wrong then that would imply God. But also for "reasons."
If that was true, what makes you think that it would imply YOUR god? There's lot to choose from ya know!
Many gods are possible small . jpig [/quote]
A different issue entirely, and one I have already explained on a prior page.
You mean you are bring out the Argument from Morality in this form?
A human experience of morality is observed.
God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
Therefore, God exists.
Your god can see nothing wrong with slavery as he never admonishes it, but made laws about how you should treat your slaves. Captain Howdy on this forum was saying recently that it would be great if we had an omniscient god who committed to our welfare and if we could actually have a reliable, consistent, and unambiguous conversation with them and could advise us what to do. But we have nothing of the sort. Not only can we not verify any omniscient adviser exists, we have no way of knowing what their advice is. If we wanted to ask him about whether slavery is a good moral choice, we don't get an answer. Therefore he or any other supernatural being that holds our moral behaviour is not relevant.
So either slavery is not objectively wrong, in which case neither you nor Howdy can argue against God re: slavery; or else it is objectively wrong, which means that God by fiat made it wrong, and merely didn't punish it as thoroughly as you would prefer. Which is silly.
Which god is that again? If that is true it could even be malevolent gods by fiat made it wrong.
"Which god" has been asked and answered, Counselor.
Nothing implies that it MUST be your god even if we assume the rest is true.
The first part is what some theists love to put up in front of atheists, but they rarely quote what lies under it.
This is obviously incorrect, there are loads of atheists who do good and have good morals, but this often gets swept under the carpet.
But that's not the point. No one does good ALL the time.

Who said that?
Imagine this, SEG: Say that you were caught running a red light. Maybe you didn't mean to; maybe you were in a hurry and on a mission of mercy, but you drove through a red light. When the constable stops you and writes the citation, are you going to say, "Oh, but I did many good things as well! I gave to the red cross, I donate blood, I helped my neighbor build a new garage?" -- No, because that doesn't matter. You ran the red, you deserve a fine, and you must pay the fine. That atheists do good things is not relevant; they're still not perfect.
I wasn't saying anyone was perfect, I was complaining that Psalm 14 is saying that atheists don't do ANY good!
Psalm 14
For the director of music. Of David.
1 The fool[a] says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Perfection is the plumb bob. You're a nice guy. But have you EVER been rude, unkind, or even possibly mean to someone? Then you broke the law. Good deeds don't offset bad. To be good -- truly spiritually good -- you have to never break the law, never be unkind, never be rude, never speak unfairly. It's perfection or nothing.
It's a method used by people who have authority in church to get otherwise good people into believing that they are really "bad" people. It's like inventing a disease and providing the cure for it.
Against that standard, Psalm 14 is exactly right. None of us are righteous.

Fortunately, there's a cure for not being righteous.
Yeah, your Jesus brought up Hell for the first time and priests used it to terrorise people, especially kids.
The argument is that without a god, human morality is merely a statement of preference, and no more meaningful than, "I prefer vanilla ice cream."
How do you know that it requires a god?
Is Vanilla ice cream "moral" and strawberry "immoral?"
Not at all, reality is the real arbiter, you need real people to sort out what is right and wrong, that's how we strive and drive through every day of our lives. There is no need for imaginary friends or tyrannical gods demanding our compliance.
See SEg, what you're doing is rationalizing. You feel that X is true -- for example that atheists are good moral people -- and from that you're reasoning backwards to try to make the answer come out that atheists are good moral people. There are no good moral people.
It's sad that you feel that way, I know plenty of good moral people according to my own standard.
Either there is a divine objective (to us) plumb line, and we fail to match it -- regardless which or how many gods are invoked
Why do there have to be any gods invoked?
-- or else morality is a figment of our imagination
More like that it is a concept.
and we just like it when people do what we like.

Correct
But you say that there are no gods.
Correct, they are figments of your imagination.
So that means that morality is a figment of your imagination.
It's a concept.
Atheists aren't moral
Incorrect, I know plenty that are moral.
They just do things you approve of. It's like preferring vanilla over strawberry.
Morals are a bit like that for everyone, that's why they are arbitrary
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:30 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:28 pm
Allow me to ask you some questions Og and I'll guess your answers.
1. Is gay marriage wrong? (yes)
2. Has it always been wrong? (yes)
3. Is it wrong for all people? (yes)
4. Regardless who's watching? (yes)
5. Regardless who's the bride? (yes)
6. Regardless who's the groom? (yes)
7. So regardless when, or where, or who, is gay marriage always, always, always wrong? (yes)

How'd I go?
Og3 wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:55 pm
From a standpoint of Biblical morality, you hit 100%.
Was it 100% for you then?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:34 am

Og3 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:55 pm
There are no good moral people.
Geez, that's pretty absolute! I know lots of moral people.
Either there is a divine objective (to us) plumb line
Why does it have to be divine if objective plumb lines exist?
and we fail to match it
if everyone fails to make that plumbline, then it should be lowered to much reality. Otherwise what's the use of it?
- regardless which or how many gods are invoked
Why include gods at all? It just adds to the confusion, especially if they are all figments of the imagination.
-- or else morality is a figment of our imagination
It's easier to think of it as a concept, then we can work out criteria and goals.
and we just like it when people do what we like.
Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't hurt them in the process.
Humanguy wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:43 pm
There are plenty of good moral people, just not in the eyes of Christians, and this, to me, is where Christianity falls down. It doesn't like people, instead it condemns them, and that I just can't get with.
Yes, I feel the same. In the eyes of Christians everyone is born sick with an imaginary disease and made to feel guilty about being human.
Og3 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:55 pm
Why can't we like people who are imperfect? Why does someone need to be morally good for me to like or even love them?
Because they are not trying to steal from you or otherwise take advantage of you.
The same book that tells me that there are none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10 quoting Psalm 14) also tells me to love my enemies, and to be kind to those who are mean to me.
So would you love someone that raped your wife and killed your kids? Would you be kind enough to visit them in gaol? I wouldn't, that's really dumb advice.
Now if morality is subjective, as SEG supposes, then surely my enemy has done evil to me in some way, and yet I am supposed to love him.
What? How does that work?
So why can't Christianity like people without pretending that they're perfect? Why can't we love people warts and all? Remember that Jesus is called the Friend of Sinners...
Except homosexuals and non-believers, which is contradictory to his "love your enemies" BS. When did Jesus love his enemies in the Bible?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Og3
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:38 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:30 am
SEG wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:28 pm
Allow me to ask you some questions Og and I'll guess your answers.
1. Is gay marriage wrong? (yes)
2. Has it always been wrong? (yes)
3. Is it wrong for all people? (yes)
4. Regardless who's watching? (yes)
5. Regardless who's the bride? (yes)
6. Regardless who's the groom? (yes)
7. So regardless when, or where, or who, is gay marriage always, always, always wrong? (yes)

How'd I go?
Og3 wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:55 pm
From a standpoint of Biblical morality, you hit 100%.
Was it 100% for you then?
Since I acknowledge biblical morality as objective, then yes.

But, again, I do not treat people different when they are openly gay than I do anyone else.

Og3
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:57 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:34 am
Og3 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:55 pm
There are no good moral people.
Geez, that's pretty absolute! I know lots of moral people.
Either there is a divine objective (to us) plumb line
Why does it have to be divine if objective plumb lines exist?
Because otherwise the plumb line isn't objective. It's just a string we stretched between two points.
and we fail to match it
if everyone fails to make that plumbline, then it should be lowered to much reality. Otherwise what's the use of it?
To help folks who think that they're good enough realize that they're just rationalizing their evil.
- regardless which or how many gods are invoked
Why include gods at all? It just adds to the confusion, especially if they are all figments of the imagination.
Invoke none; it is still true. Invoke any number: It is still true.
-- or else morality is a figment of our imagination
It's easier to think of it as a concept, then we can work out criteria and goals.
Fine. A concept that we made up, arbitrarily, from things we like.
and we just like it when people do what we like.
Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't hurt them in the process.
Well, that's your subjective opinion. But to people who like seeing others hurt, "morality" might mean hurting people.
SEG wrote:
Humanguy wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:43 pm
There are plenty of good moral people, just not in the eyes of Christians, and this, to me, is where Christianity falls down. It doesn't like people, instead it condemns them, and that I just can't get with.
Yes, I feel the same. In the eyes of Christians everyone is born sick with an imaginary disease and made to feel guilty about being human.
You're not supposed to feel guilty. You're supposed to seek and receive Grace.
SEG wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:55 pm
Why can't we like people who are imperfect? Why does someone need to be morally good for me to like or even love them?
Because they are not trying to steal from you or otherwise take advantage of you.
What stops me from loving someone who steals from me and tries to take advantage of me? People have even shown Christian love to their murderers.
SEG wrote:
Og wrote:The same book that tells me that there are none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10 quoting Psalm 14) also tells me to love my enemies, and to be kind to those who are mean to me.
So would you love someone that raped your wife and killed your kids? Would you be kind enough to visit them in gaol? I wouldn't, that's really dumb advice.
I would have to love them. We Christians are not permitted to hate, and we are not permitted to have enemies.
SEG wrote:
Now if morality is subjective, as SEG supposes, then surely my enemy has done evil to me in some way, and yet I am supposed to love him.
What? How does that work?
I am allowed to seek an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I can instead forgive. I can instead work to make him a better man. I can be kind to him, even when he is not kind to me.

It is a difficult discipline, and you would call it foolish -- but it can change the world.

Want to see a Christian miracle? Right before your very eyes? Okay, here's how: Think of the person who has taken the most advantage of you, hurt you the most deeply, and left scars on your life. Think of your enemy, the man or woman who you hate with a seething rage (or less passion, if you're not the seething rage sort). Now pray this, and mean it:

"Lord God, I forgive ________ for all that he has done to me, and ask you to forgive him as well. If you would hold his sins against him on the last day, so be it, but I ask in Jesus name that you hold nothing against him that he has done to me. Amen."

And do you know, you will be released from the seething rage. You will be healed by the fact that you have forgiven someone who sinned against you. Try it, and see if a miracle does not occur in your heart and mind.
SEG wrote:
Og wrote:So why can't Christianity like people without pretending that they're perfect? Why can't we love people warts and all? Remember that Jesus is called the Friend of Sinners...
Except homosexuals and non-believers, which is contradictory to his "love your enemies" BS. When did Jesus love his enemies in the Bible?
Actually, them too. Jesus loved the Samaritan Woman in John 4, even though she was a cultural enemy of the Jews, and mocked him when he asked for water, and was a woman of loose morals, and followed a corrupted religious practice (when she did anything at all religious). All through the gospels, Jesus healed sinners, forgave sins, healed people -- could the Gadarene Demoniac have been any bigger of an enemy to Jesus? But he healed him. The servant of the evil high priest, at Jesus' arrest? Jesus healed his ear on the spot.

Jesus practiced what he preached.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:27 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:38 pm
But, again, I do not treat people different when they are openly gay than I do anyone else.
Great, that's very Christian of you! So you would have no qualms going as a guest to a gay marriage? Would you kiss the bride?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Og3
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:36 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:27 am
Og3 wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:38 pm
But, again, I do not treat people different when they are openly gay than I do anyone else.
Great, that's very Christian of you! So you would have no qualms going as a guest to a gay marriage? Would you kiss the bride?
If it were a religious ceremony, I would have to politely decline. If it were a non-religious ceremony, and one of them were a friend, I would go in support of my friend.

I would not kiss the bride in any case. If, as in some ceremonies I have seen, the officiant made a "charge to the friends" to support the marriage, I would have to stand mute.

But I would certainly support the friend, and be happy for his happiness, while not endorsing the means by which he reached that state.

As I have said of many marriage ceremonies (all heterosexual to date): "Not my circus. Not my monkeys."

Humanguy
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Humanguy » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:25 pm

Og3 wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:36 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:27 am
Og3 wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:38 pm
But, again, I do not treat people different when they are openly gay than I do anyone else.
Great, that's very Christian of you! So you would have no qualms going as a guest to a gay marriage? Would you kiss the bride?
If it were a religious ceremony, I would have to politely decline. If it were a non-religious ceremony, and one of them were a friend, I would go in support of my friend.

I would not kiss the bride in any case. If, as in some ceremonies I have seen, the officiant made a "charge to the friends" to support the marriage, I would have to stand mute.

But I would certainly support the friend, and be happy for his happiness, while not endorsing the means by which he reached that state.
So you do treat people different when they are openly gay.

Post Reply