- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,057
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.No; on post #404 you said I have access to the truth not just feelings. Are you changing it now?
You don't have a truth either, merely an interpretation of what you believe to be a truth. Others have different interpretations of what they believe to be a truth. If I ask a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon if it's moral to use caffeine, birth control, and alcohol, I'll get different answers from each.But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.
It is relevant here. But I know it’s easier to just dismiss.Yes, but it's not relevant here.
I’m not contradicting myself.You'll have to explain why, because you're contradicting yourself.
And you said elephant illustration wasn’t relevant. Pity.You don't have a truth either, merely an interpretation of what you believe to be a truth. Others have different interpretations of what they believe to be a truth. If I ask a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon if it's moral to use caffeine, birth control, and alcohol, I'll get different answers from each.
Christians can't seem to agree on if the Earth is flat or round. I personally know someone who believes it's a sin to claim the Earth is round. If you can't agree on something as fundamental as the shape of the Earth, which has been definitively established, then trying to determine more complicated matters is pointless. "Access to the truth" is a difference that makes no difference.
So a command to kill someone and then another later command not to are not at odds with each other? Do me a favour. I'm very well aquainted with the bible and plaintive suggestions that 'you need to read it all' cut no ice. It's because I am well aquainted with it that I am well aware of the dichotomies.Not at odds. Different reasons. Remember, it’s important to understand the whole thing, and not just pick a line here or there to try to advance your view, like you did. And like you did with my post.
It’s easy when you declare the argument irrelevant.Since you can't defend your argument, I'm happy to declare victory by default.
No I haven’t.You've contradicted yourself
Since this is either all made up, or completely ignored what I’ve previously said, I’m not sure how to respond.So a command to kill someone and then another later command not to are not at odds with each other? Do me a favour. I'm very well aquainted with the bible and plaintive suggestions that 'you need to read it all' cut no ice. It's because I am well aquainted with it that I am well aware of the dichotomies.
Jesus spent His life effectively telling us to ignore what we'd been told in the OT. That now things had changed. That the old rules were no longer applicable. He is the embodiment of that fact.
Yes, but it's not relevant here.
I don't base my morality on wishful thinking. Or emotive reactions. You are clearly not reading what is being written.
I base my morality on my naturally evolved conscience, together with all the other concepts that have been explained you so many times. If God does turn out to exist then that conscience will appear to have been God-given as opposed to having evolved naturally. In which case, nothing would change except the genesis of that particular characteristic.
I take full responsibility for the decisions I make and the life I lead. I do nothing simply because I have been told to do it. I want reasons. And if I personally disagree with those reasons then so be it. Nobody else can make that call except me. You can look over your shoulder every time you need to make a moral decision. That's up to you. But I answer to no-one excpet myself and my fellow travellers.
You're wrong.
On those posts you spoke of a Universal Moral principle. When I tried to get more details of this principle, you refused to give answers.
Of course not! But the fact that I don’t want it done to me, does not make it a universal moral principle.
And how did you imply it should be applied? Just because the majority of people don't want to be injured does not make it a universal moral issue.It becomes universal when it's applied in the way I implied it should be:
Okay; perhaps I’ve misunderstood you concerning the contradiction. But as I said before, the Christian point of reference is about as fixed as mine considering it’s point of reference is constantly changing. So there really isn’t any advantage to having the Christian point of reference for morality; do you agree? If not; please explain why.No I haven’t.
And how did you imply it should be applied?
It’s not changing. So I disagree.Okay; perhaps I’ve misunderstood you concerning the contradiction. But as I said before, the Christian point of reference is about as fixed as mine considering it’s point of reference is constantly changing. So there really isn’t any advantage to having the Christian point of reference for morality; do you agree? If not; please explain why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?