Judging morality

[The Nihilist]

So how is having nothing absolute more beneficial than having something absolute that you can trust and count on?

Oh, it's not, but doesn't matter. The ability to shoot lasers from my eyes is more beneficial to me than not having that ability, but I still don't have it.

 

[Dogbean]

Oh, it's not, but doesn't matter. The ability to shoot lasers from my eyes is more beneficial to me than not having that ability, but I still don't have it.

So you cannot accept it if a Supreme Being laid out absolute morality for us to follow?

 

[The Nihilist]

So you cannot accept it if a Supreme Being laid out absolute morality for us to follow?

No, I could completely handle it, but you're making your argument circular. If you're using absolute morality to prove the existence of God, you can't then appeal to the existence of God to prove that morality is absolute. It's called circular logic, and it's invalid.

 

[Dogbean]

No, I could completely handle it, but you're making your argument circular. If you're using absolute morality to prove the existence of God, you can't then appeal to the existence of God to prove that morality is absolute. It's called circular logic, and it's invalid.

I don't know what I'm trying to do. I'm just asking questions to see where this goes. I know that both God and absolute morality exist, but I know I personally won't prove it to anyone. Just a discussion.....that's all.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't know what I'm trying to do. I'm just asking questions to see where this goes. I know that both God and absolute morality exist, but I know I personally won't prove it to anyone. Just a discussion.....that's all.

I think you mean that you think they exist, and you're pretty convinced. You don't actually know.
What you do know, though, is that the argument from morality is invalid, and now you can tell anyone else who asks. Hurray!

 

[Dogbean]

I think you mean that you think they exist, and you're pretty convinced. You don't actually know.
What you do know, though, is that the argument from morality is invalid, and now you can tell anyone else who asks. Hurray!

Hey, don't come on this board and tell me what I know and what I don't know. Are you in my mind? No. I am not telling you what you think and mean. So don't do that to me.

I do know God exists, and that His morality exists. I know that from faith and experience, which I know atheists (and you) can easily shred in a debate. It happens all the time.

 

[Beanieboy]

But while many agree that killing and stealing is bad, some think it's good.

Name one country where killing or stealing is officially not against the law.

I'm not saying that people don't do it.
I'm saying that people do it, knowing that it's not okay, because they don't love their neighbor.
They don't think they are loving their neighbor by killing or stealing from them.

I asked my students about their government, and in some South American countries, even police will steal or kill. That doesn't mean the citizens say, "Well, it's good for the economy" or "It will help the population." They police know that it's wrong, but no one holds them accountable. However, they hold citizens accountable.

 

[Beanieboy]

So how is having nothing absolute more beneficial than having something absolute that you can trust and count on?

People not only kidnapped Africans, but also raped them (they weren't really people, so it didn't count), beat them, stripped them of their language, treated them worse than animals, chopped off their big toe if the tried to escape, and sometimes wore white pointy masks to cover their faces while hanging them from trees.

This was back when the US was a "moral" country and a "Christian" nation.

Most people cringe at this, but at the time, people did this, then went to church on Sunday.

The bible even talks about slavery, and people looked to the bible to try to justify it.

So, either God changed, or man's understanding of God's word and God himself, has changed.

There may be an absolute, but to think we are there is to deny history that shows people mistreating others, and thinking it perfectly moral.

 

[Dogbean]

Beanieboy,
I remember you from Theologyonline.com You are one of those people who loves to point out the hypocrisy of the way alleged "Christians" act, and the bad things that have been done through history in the name of the church. And I know that people like you attribute the mistakes and bad deeds of individuals and attach them to the organization they claim to represent, even though some individuals are in error. I acknowledge all those things happened. Your mind is clearly made up and you have chosen to deny the living God.

 

[Beanieboy]

Beanieboy,
I remember you from Theologyonline.com You are one of those people who loves to point out the hypocrisy of the way alleged "Christians" act, and the bad things that have been done through history in the name of the church. And I know that people like you attribute the mistakes and bad deeds of individuals and attach them to the organization they claim to represent, even though some individuals are in error. I acknowledge all those things happened. Your mind is clearly made up and you have chosen to deny the living God.

Yes, that was me. I had the same name, so that should have been a tip off.

Do I like to point out the hypocracy of Christians and the bad things done in history? Only when a poster seems to call Christians the victims while conveniently ignoring those bad things that Christians have done.

I'm happy that you can acknowledge that those things have been done, while I can also acknowledge that Christians also act very Christ-like (my sister's family takes a Mission Vacation once a year, and works for Habitat for Humanity, Katrina Victims, etc. ) I can further acknowledge that I have seen very Christ-like Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists, as well as very poorly acting ones.

I have not "made up my mind to deny the living God." I have made up my mind that just because someone claims to be Christian, that they are not necessarily following Christ, or would recognize God if he sat next to them in the bus. (You've been to TOL, and you know what I mean. Anyone who claims that hate is the most loving thing they can do, or hates because God hates, is way off base. Telling sinners how Christians will rejoice in their spilled blood borders on psychotic) And I have made up my mind that no one judges me but God, that no one or nothing can keep me from being loved by God, and that the most important thing that Christ ever taught is to love one another, not be tangled in laws like the Pharisees.

Surely, after telling off the Pharisees in a full Chapter in the Gospel, you would say that Christ had "made up his mind" or that he "denied the living God" to those who claimed to know him so well. He was pointing all that out for a reason, and that wasn't it.

 

[Dogbean]

Yes, that was me. I had the same name, so that should have been a tip off.

Do I like to point out the hypocracy of Christians and the bad things done in history? Only when a poster seems to call Christians the victims while conveniently ignoring those bad things that Christians have done.

I'm happy that you can acknowledge that those things have been done, while I can also acknowledge that Christians also act very Christ-like (my sister's family takes a Mission Vacation once a year, and works for Habitat for Humanity, Katrina Victims, etc. ) I can further acknowledge that I have seen very Christ-like Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists, as well as very poorly acting ones.

I have not "made up my mind to deny the living God." I have made up my mind that just because someone claims to be Christian, that they are not necessarily following Christ, or would recognize God if he sat next to them in the bus. (You've been to TOL, and you know what I mean. Anyone who claims that hate is the most loving thing they can do, or hates because God hates, is way off base. Telling sinners how Christians will rejoice in their spilled blood borders on psychotic) And I have made up my mind that no one judges me but God, that no one or nothing can keep me from being loved by God, and that the most important thing that Christ ever taught is to love one another, not be tangled in laws like the Pharisees.

Surely, after telling off the Pharisees in a full Chapter in the Gospel, you would say that Christ had "made up his mind" or that he "denied the living God" to those who claimed to know him so well. He was pointing all that out for a reason, and that wasn't it.

I'm glad you see what I'm saying. Basically, the teachings of Christianity are clear. Whether people follow them or not is another story.

 

[Beanieboy]

I'm glad you see what I'm saying. Basically, the teachings of Christianity are clear. Whether people follow them or not is another story.

There is a story about a Pharisee who goes into the temple, thanks God for how holy he is, how he tithes and obeys the laws, and is sooooo glad that he's not like THAT man, a tax collector who would not even look up and said, "Please forgive me, a sinner." The second man is that man whom God loves.

The congregation then says, "How terrible to be that Pharisee. I'm soooooooo glad that I'm not like that. And I go to church, unlike our burnout neighbors! And we put money in the offering plate, unlike the cheap people behind us.

You would think it would simple...

Why is it that when most people think of Christians, they have a stereotype of someone who is condemning, threatening, self-exhalting, etc? I think it is because their stereotype is reinforced more often than it is conflicting.
Shouldn't that concern Christians?

 

[cantata]

Tackleberry: would you say that a moral quality or status is inherent in an act? For example, would you say that stabbing someone with a knife with malicious intent has some kind of inherent quality of wrongness about it?

 

[Dogbean]

Tackleberry: would you say that a moral quality or status is inherent in an act? For example, would you say that stabbing someone with a knife with malicious intent has some kind of inherent quality of wrongness about it?

That's a very vague question. What I get out of that is "Is it wrong to stab someone with a knife?" I guess my answer is yes. Where are you going with that?

 

[cantata]

That's a very vague question. What I get out of that is "Is it wrong to stab someone with a knife?" I guess my answer is yes. Where are you going with that?

What is it about the act of stabbing someone with a knife that makes it wrong?

Is wrongness a quality of actions?