Secular Moralism

[bhsmte]

I don't know what rational calculus you use to determine a "good" action, so I don't know where your ethics might lead.



That's true, however I very specifically follow Christ, and there is no cause for me to suspect or expect that Christ will tell me to inflict suffering on others.

When you say you follow Christ, how do you go about doing that; the bible, does he communicate with you, etc. etc.?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Would you worship the person who dug the hole he fell into and who pointed him right towards it?

The same person who provided a bridge over the hole for those who saw it?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Oh, indeed I have! Have you?

Here is the concluding paragraph of your own resource:

"So, why did Abraham offer his son Isaac? He did so out of obedience--believing that God could raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19), and also in his obedience he acted out the true sacrifice of the true only begotten son, Jesus."

Can you explain to me why I wouldn't use that very quotation to support my assertion!?

I can make bolded and italicized claims as well:

You ask why I wouldn't offer anyone as a sacrifice if God willed it! Well if you knew Scripture, you'd know that Christ was the last sacrifice, and if you read the words of Christ you would understand I could never kill someone in the name of Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

OK, word it that way if you want. It's still a vacuous naked assertion.

And with this naked assertion, you've rather enthusiastically impaled yourself on the second horn of Euthyphro.

I'm not impaled on that horn, I've got an enthusiastic grip on it.

 

[RDKirk]

When you say you follow Christ, how do you go about doing that; the bible, does he communicate with you, etc. etc.?

In terms of general policy and strategy, the NT.

In terms of tactics and daily operations, yes, we communicate.

 

[KCfromNC]

The same person who provided a bridge over the hole for those who saw it?

Yep, that's my question - do you worship a being who built a deadly trap and then created people who are unable to avoid it?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Yep, that's my question - do you worship a being who built a deadly trap and then created people who are unable to avoid it?

We're not unable to avoid it . . . we just have a burning desire to plunge head first into it.

 

[bhsmte]

In terms of general policy and strategy, the NT.

In terms of tactics and daily operations, yes, we communicate.

Thanks.

 

[Strathos]

It depends.

If a person uses the religious book to justify judging and condemning others, it is bad. Some though, use the book in positive ways.

Bottom line, Christians can be moral and immoral and non believers can be moral and immoral.

Many factors involved in determining who is which.

Pretty much, although sometimes people should be condemned, like murderers and tyrants.

 

[Skavau]

I wouldn't support it. I would be saddened. At the end of the day, however, your fate is between you and God.

Saddened you might be, but you'd endorse it. You'd claim it the height of justice.

Said the criminal led away in chains to the courtroom, "Whether or not you have any say in the fate of others is irrelevant - if I shall be sent from this room and declared guilty, you'd support my imprisonment. That's hateful."

There's a slight difference in magnitudes between endorsing the imprisonment of a prisoner who might be dangerous to society and you endorsing my torture for thought-crimes.

Just like I would condemn a defender of the North Korean civil law, Iranian civil law or Saudi Arabia civil law I can make an equal condemnation for any defence for torture for the way in which you think or what you believe.

Thought-crime is wrong. Torture as punishment is wrong and people who defend them have a seriously twisted concept of morality.

Your fate is between you and God. Don't try to place the blame on me and call me hateful for accepting that you chose your fate. I'm not personally responsible for you.

I do not "choose my fate". I am an Atheist. I do not believe in a God(s). That is a conclusion I have come to. That is not a choice. If belief could be chosen then it could be anything at any time and psychological issues pertaining to it would not exist. I cannot believe in God or Christianity until I am convinced of its veracity and more importantly, its moral values.

I no more choose to go to hell than a Muslim chooses to go to hell. The notion is absurd and it is one of the parts of Christianity I find morally repugnant.

 

[Skavau]

Skavau, if you saw a blind man walking towards a cliff and shouted "Watch out for that huge cliff up there!" what would you say if he turned to you and said "If I were to (of my own free will) disregard your warning and trip on a rock, falling head-first off the cliff into the chasm beyond, you'd be hateful for allowing it."?

That's an incomplete analogy. In your analogy God put the cliff there and put a blindfold on me. I have no idea that this cliff is here. The people around me are screaming multiple things. Some are telling me that the cliff is not there, others are telling me it is right in front of me, others are saying that it is actually in a different location. I am presented with multiple scenarios with no way whatsoever to determine who is actually right.

Ultimately, in the context of Christianity - God created hell, God imposed the conditions for entering hell. He knew that billions would not satisfy his requirements to avoid hell and yet he did so anyway. He is directly responsible for the permanent torture of literally billions of people.

 

[Skavau]

I don't know what rational calculus you use to determine a "good" action, so I don't know where your ethics might lead.

I should say the deliberate suffering upon others. WirSindBettler's does.

That's true, however I very specifically follow Christ, and there is no cause for me to suspect or expect that Christ will tell me to inflict suffering on others.

Fair enough, but I don't know how you interpret Christianity. WindSindBettler literally believes that anything goes so long as God says so. He's already made the worst concession. Anything now is simply obedience to orders.

 

[Skavau]

The same person who provided a bridge over the hole for those who saw it?

God absurdly demands that people who want to avoid the hole and avoid hell must believe a series of metaphysical assertions and hold specific moral values despite knowing that most of the world, from their perspective, has no reason to preference Christianity.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Saddened you might be, but you'd endorse it. You'd claim it the height of justice.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be saddened.

There's a slight difference in magnitudes between endorsing the imprisonment of a prisoner who might be dangerous to society and you endorsing my torture for thought-crimes.

It's not thought crimes that leads to hell, it's sin. It's breaking the 10 Commandments, breaking the Laws set forth in the Sermon on the Mount, &c.

Just like I would condemn a defender of the North Korean civil law, Iranian civil law or Saudi Arabia civil law I can make an equal condemnation for any defence for torture for the way in which you think or what you believe.

Hell is not for either of those. It's for the way you act.

Thought-crime is wrong. Torture as punishment is wrong and people who defend them have a seriously twisted concept of morality.

Again, it isn't thought crime.

I do not "choose my fate". I am an Atheist. I do not believe in a God(s). That is a conclusion I have come to.

If that is a conclusion you have come to, then that is a conclusion you have chosen.

That is not a choice. If belief could be chosen then it could be anything at any time and psychological issues pertaining to it would not exist. I cannot believe in God or Christianity until I am convinced of its veracity and more importantly, its moral values.

Yet I assume you have taken no time to talk to a Christian theologian on the subject, listened to a Christian sermon on the issue, or read the countless words written by Christian Biblical scholars on the topic and yet your only familiarity is what you've either read online or picked up arguing an 18 year old on a Christian web forum.

I no more choose to go to hell than a Muslim chooses to go to hell. The notion is absurd and it is one of the parts of Christianity I find morally repugnant.

Your belief in the issue does not make it any less true. If someone shoots me with a gun and I say "I don't believe in bullets" that's not going to make it any less true or painful when a bullet passes through my chest.

 

[WirSindBettler]

God absurdly demands that people who want to avoid the hole and avoid hell must believe a series of metaphysical assertions and hold specific moral values despite knowing that most of the world, from their perspective, has no reason to preference Christianity.

You consider it absurd. God doesn't.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I should say the deliberate suffering upon others. WirSindBettler's does.

Except I've denied this in nearly every post I've made.

Fair enough, but I don't know how you interpret Christianity. WindSindBettler literally believes that anything goes so long as God says so. He's already made the worst concession. Anything now is simply obedience to orders.

Really? So why the heck did I post the following?

Actually, my "non-existent" values directly prohibit the infliction of suffering on others.

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
Matthew 5:21-24

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matthew 5:38-39

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"
Matthew 5:43-47

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either."
Luke 6:27-29

"Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.""
Matthew 26:52

 

[Skavau]

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be saddened.

No, I suppose not. You can be melancholic about it but you can still support hateful things.

It's not thought crimes that leads to hell, it's sin. It's breaking the 10 Commandments, breaking the Laws set forth in the Sermon on the Mount, &c.

Oh yes, of course, this trump card. The completely reasonable notion that existing in an imperfect state, that a single discretion is grounds enough to cast someone down into eternal torture for eternity and the entirely reasonable notion that the only way to avoid this fate is to believe in a series of claims about the universe and hold specific moral values as true. The idea that we're born guilty and drenched in sin, in our own imperfection is contemptible.

Hell is not for either of those. It's for the way you act.

Hell is, de facto for not believing in God and not being a Christian. You would say, presumably, that no-one is capable of redeeming themselves through action it becomes entirely relevant and the question that must be asked is:

Why? Why a system that causes so much needless suffering? For being human? For being imperfect?

Again, it isn't thought crime.

You might be able to use semantics to weasel out of it as thought-crime but it is still torture.

That's indefensible.

If that is a conclusion you have come to, then that is a conclusion you have chosen.

That is not how belief works. I cannot just choose to believe certain things - I have to be convinced. I cannot accept that 1+1=3 unless I can convinced that it is so.

Yet I assume you have taken no time to talk to a Christian theologian on the subject, listened to a Christian sermon on the issue, or read the countless words written by Christian Biblical scholars on the topic and yet your only familiarity is what you've either read online or picked up arguing an 18 year old on a Christian web forum.

Relevance to my point about belief not being a choice?

You could argue that I have a bias against Christianity, which is true (and Islam and other religions by the way) but how chosen that is may be another discussion entirely.

Your belief in the issue does not make it any less true. If someone shoots me with a gun and I say "I don't believe in bullets" that's not going to make it any less true or painful when a bullet passes through my chest.

I never said it did. I was making the point that I do not choose to go to hell. I do not believe that hell exists.

 

[Skavau]

You consider it absurd. God doesn't.

So from that, God has the endless torture of billions upon billions of people on his hands.

 

[Skavau]

Except I've denied this in nearly every post I've made.

You endorse the torture of people who die without belief in God. You might be saddened by it but you do also endorse it as just.

Really? So why the heck did I post the following?

Irrelevant. If God decided to scrap all of the below he could do so and you would have no grounds to object. You already believe in and support a God that allows the permanent torture of people for the 'crime' of being human. How can you get any worse than that?

 

[WirSindBettler]

You endorse the torture of people who die without belief in God. You might be saddened by it but you do also endorse it as just.

Irrelevant. If God decided to scrap all of the below he could do so and you would have no grounds to object. You already believe in and support a God that allows the permanent torture of people for the 'crime' of being human. How can you get any worse than that?

God, as a perfect being, demands perfection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So how is RDKirk better than me? He made the same concession in Post 64.