How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Hammster]

hmm, would be faster to come up with a new example.

Why or why not would you say the following statement is related to concept of "objective morality" ?

Statement:
A believer in God and his word can go further than someone that just says "it is wrong to murder our neighbor for his dog" without explaining why it is wrong to murder their dog.

It’s not a true statement.

 

[perplexed]

It’s not a true statement.

Then why did you almost say the same thing in post 105

 

[Hammster]

Then why did you almost say the same thing in post 105

Let’s see what I said.

Not really. In general, both you and I have the same grounding. We are both made in the image of God, and he made us to know right from wrong. So it wrong to murder our neighbor for his dog, not because of feelings, but because we know it’s wrong intrinsically. The difference is that, as a believer in God and His word, I can go one step further.

Nope, not the same thing.

 

[perplexed]

Let’s see what I said.


Nope, not the same thing.

??? why do you say that ???

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are doing your best to avoid the point I am making. It's not what anyone can do to solve any problems that someone might have with an incorrect belief. Notwithstanding that it is not your job to decide when someone has misinterpreted what they consider to be divine guidance. It's that if they truly believe that they have had instructions from God and that God is always right, then it can lead to any act being committed. In His name.

I find that chilling.

Besides the fact that you're too easily "chilled" by other people's bone-headedness, you might realize that where the Bible is concerned and people commit atrocities in the "name of Christ" it's usually because they're paranoid delusionals, likely suffering from various psychological disorders or psychosis.

Maybe just face the fact where the facts are due, if you're so scientifically inclined to do so. At it stands, you're persistent resort to the claim of being "chilled" doesn't cut it for me. And your faux-concern really shouldn't pass as a form of informed observation, because it isn't.

 

[Hammster]

??? why do you say that ???

Because what you pretended I said and what I said aren’t the same thing.

 

[perplexed]

Because what you pretended I said and what I said aren’t the same thing.

would you care to grace me with your reason for saying they are not almost the same thing ?

 

[Hammster]

would you care to grace me with your reason for saying they are not almost the same thing ?

The only way I can is you can explain what you are seeing that leads you to believe they are the same thing. Right now, the best I can say is that I know the point I was making to the member, and you are way off.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're making similar arguments. I rejected his, and I reject yours. But as for Hammster, if you don't like what he says, just ignore him.

I never said I had a problem with what Hammster was saying, the only problem I had is you saying I’m full of crap because you looked at my response and made assumptions about me without reading the previous replies in order to get context concerning my response.

 

[perplexed]

The only way I can is you can explain what you are seeing that leads you to believe they are the same thing. Right now, the best I can say is that I know the point I was making to the member, and you are way off.

Both statements say "a beleiver can go further"
Both statements are about people saying "it is wrong to murder our neighbor for his dog"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never said I had a problem with what Hammster was saying, the only problem I had is you saying I’m full of crap because you looked at my response and made assumptions about me without reading the previous replies in order to get context concerning my response.

Well, you have my apologies. But if I see anyone doing what Bradsii was doing by offering up hypotheticals that obviously are precluded by the proper application of Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis and other scholarship, I'll roundly reply with the same accusation and knock them down as the house of cards that such hypotheticals are. It's not a matter of believing in God. It's a matter of academic and epistemological integrity.

In the meantime, you have my apology.

 

[Ken-1122]

It’s not a decision like deciding what flavor ice cream is best. It’s flows out of His nature. For instance, bearing false witness against your neighbor is sinful because God is truth.

Well killing my neighbor because his dog crapped on my lawn goes against MY nature. For instance; bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong because it is not truthful.

Nope. It’s a theological question which won’t get us anywhere. I have taught three of my kids to drive without explaining how a combustion engine works. They drive just fine knowing that it does.

Fair enough; if you want to believe I am a moral person because I was created in the moral image of your God; I have no problem with you believing that. However you might wanna keep that little tidd bit yourself because if you go around telling me that kinda stuff, I’m gonna challenge you on it, and if you want to be taken seriously in these type of discussions, you are gonna need to come up with a better answer than I dunno; that’s just how it works!

 

[Bradskii]

That’s not the claim you made.

Don't be silly. I said that the name of that which I think caused us was in a book (actually many books) that I have read. I think natural processes are that cause. I call that process Nature.

 

[Bradskii]

Besides the fact that you're too easily "chilled" by other people's bone-headedness, you might realize that where the Bible is concerned and people commit atrocities in the "name of Christ" it's usually because they're paranoid delusionals, likely suffering from various psychological disorders or psychosis.

And who is arguing against that? What you have described is the problem. If some people believe that what they are doing is morally acceptable simply because they are doing God's will then THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Saying that it doesn't happen (which is patently absurd) doesn't change that fact. It is plainly and obviously the wrong position to take. Period.

 

[Hammster]

Both statements say "a beleiver can go further"
Both statements are about people saying "it is wrong to murder our neighbor for his dog"

What I meant was that I could go further in my understanding of why.

 

[Hammster]

Well killing my neighbor because his dog crapped on my lawn goes against MY nature. For instance; bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong because it is not truthful.

Where did this nature come from?

Fair enough; if you want to believe I am a moral person because I was created in the moral image of your God; I have no problem with you believing that. However you might wanna keep that little tidd bit yourself because if you go around telling me that kinda stuff, I’m gonna challenge you on it, and if you want to be taken seriously in these type of discussions, you are gonna need to come up with a better answer than I dunno; that’s just how it works!

I do have a better answer. And if you were really searching for answers, I’d suggest going to Exploring Christianity.

The main thing you (and all of us) need to know is that man is born in sin, and will spend eternity in hell unless he repents of his sin and trusts in Christ, who bore sin on the cross and was buried and rose on the third day. That’s the most important thing to know.

 

[Hammster]

Don't be silly. I said that the name of that which I think caused us was in a book (actually many books) that I have read. I think natural processes are that cause. I call that process Nature.

Natural processes aren’t a “Him”.

 

[Ken-1122]

Where did this nature come from?

It is a part of the empathy I have; something I've learned as I grew up.

I do have a better answer. And if you were really searching for answers, I’d suggest going to Exploring Christianity.

If you had better answers, I suspect you would have provided them by now.

The main thing you (and all of us) need to know is that man is born in sin, and will spend eternity in hell unless he repents of his sin and trusts in Christ, who bore sin on the cross and was buried and rose on the third day. That’s the most important thing to know.

The main thing you need to know is I am not a choir, so if you gonna "preach to the choir", you need to find a choir to preach to; otherwise your claims will be dismissed, and you are just wasting your time.

 

[Hammster]

It is a part of the empathy I have; something I've learned as I grew up.

So you learned your nature?

If you had better answers, I suspect you would have provided them by now.

No. I just try not to allow myself to be goaded into theological discussions.

The main thing you need to know is I am not a choir, so if you gonna "preach to the choir", you need to find a choir to preach to; otherwise your claims will be dismissed, and you are just wasting your time.

Christians given a command to make disciples of all nations. This is done by proclaiming the gospel. I’m being obedient.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And who is arguing against that? What you have described is the problem. If some people believe that what they are doing is morally acceptable simply because they are doing God's will then THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Saying that it doesn't happen (which is patently absurd) doesn't change that fact. It is plainly and obviously the wrong position to take. Period.

I didn't say that misconstruals of the intended meanings of the New Testament writers aren't happening, now did I? No, I most definitely did not. There's been a lot of that kind of bad acting going on for a long, long time.

But please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying and thereby attemptting to misdirect our fellow readers about what I've said or what it is you claim that you think I've said. By persisting in your twisting, you show your own lack of willingness to demonstrate any level of maturity and education that makes mutual and bilateral understanding possible. This determined refusal on your part is something I won't abide, and the more you play the joker card that I know is in your hand, the more I'm going to raise my ante and my shields in this game, Bradskii.

So, you're the one who needs to come to a better, clearer, more informed and rounded understanding, or there's going to be a big headache for both of us. PERIOD!

I'm not accepting your "moral framework" and what's more, no one HAS to!