The Moral Argument (revamped)

[2PhiloVoid]

Love is irrelevant to your moral philosophy. I could spend my entire life in hate and go to heaven, as long as I believe in Yahweh and his salvation at the moment of death. Or I could spend my entire life in love and service to humanity and go to hell, if I'm an atheist at the moment of death.

That is the only thing that matters - what is believed at the moment of death. Nothing else is relevant.

While I empathize with some of you that Gradyll's argument's might not cut the mustard in full, I'm going to have to go with the ol' "nah!" response, mainly because we all know that only a very marginal number of people actually do find faith in Jesus Christ 5 minutes before death. No, most go to their graves continuing with what they started with 10 minutes previous to the last 5. Moreover, not all of them get to have even a Sam Kinison moment ... Some people are killed instantly.

I don't think forgiveness is necessarily moral. If you forgive someone of an assault, instead of pressing charges, and that person goes on to assault someone else, you've acted immorally.

Obviously, that would be a non-biblical form of forgiveness since to do so doesn't mean a penitent perp isn't still to be held accountable for his actions here and now.

That's irrelevant though, because you don't have forgiveness in your moral system. Your idea of 'forgiveness' is Yahweh absolving you of 'sin'. You can't 'forgive' someone of a wrong that wasn't done to you. If I steal your wallet, only you can forgive me.

No, since God is the Creator, He's directly vested in our individual experiences as human beings, especially so if the person in question also has the Holy Spirit inhabiting that person.

Vicarious redemption completely destroys the concept of personal responsibility. And it explains the countless number of people I've known who spent their lives treating everyone around them like utter garbage, only to end up with a clean conscience because they 'found Jesus', and it's only his 'forgiveness' that matters, not the forgiveness of anyone they've actually hurt.

...it could also be that the church you went to was led by some confused pastors; if the head is sick, the body isn't too far behind many times.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

While I empathize with some of you that Gradyll's argument's might not cut the mustard in full, I'm going to have to go with the ol' "nah!" response, mainly because we all know that only a very marginal number of people actually do find faith in Jesus Christ 5 minutes before death. No, most go to their graves continuing with what they started with 10 minutes previous to the last 5. Moreover, not all of them get to have even a Sam Kinison moment ... Some people are killed instantly.

Doesn't matter how rare it might be, to the point.

Obviously, that would be a non-biblical form of forgiveness since to do so doesn't mean a penitent perp isn't still to be held accountable for his actions here and now.

Except it does. What, exactly, is to stop me from getting into heaven after a lifetime of serial rape and murder, provided I genuinely ask forgiveness of Yahweh, sincerely believing Jesus died for my repented sins and accepting him into my heart, five minutes before dying?

If the answer is 'nothing', then behavior is irrelevant, and we aren't actually speaking of morality at all.

No, since God is the Creator, He's directly vested in our individual experiences as human beings, especially so if the person in question also has the Holy Spirit inhabiting that person.

I understand that that is what's believed.

I also understand that if I can be forgiven by someone else for a wrong I did to you, then personal responsibility is a meaningless non-concept.

...it could also be that the church you went to was led by some confused pastors

I haven't attended church since I was fourteen, and have been an unbeliever since my very earliest comprehension of the concept. I'm speaking of people I've known in my adult life.

A very common kind of person who knows very well they've been complete slobs, creeps, and abusers to just about everyone they've known in their personal and professional lives. Who come to a point when, rather than take the responsibility of making good with anyone they've treated like crap, they take the lazy way to a clear conscience. They say 'only Jesus can judge me', and as long as they're right with him, they're 'forgiven' and can go forth feeling just dandy about themselves. The people they've actually harmed need never enter the equation.

And if Christianity is true, they're right.

 

[createdtoworship]

Love is irrelevant to your moral philosophy. I could spend my entire life in hate and go to heaven, as long as I believe in Yahweh and his salvation at the moment of death. Or I could spend my entire life in love and service to humanity and go to hell, if I'm an atheist at the moment of death.

That is the only thing that matters - what is believed at the moment of death. Nothing else is relevant.

In the Bible in 1 john 4:20-21 it says

"If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also."

so love is actually one of the evidences we are saved, if we don't have love and we say we are saved we are liars it says.

I don't think forgiveness is necessarily moral. If you forgive someone of an assault, instead of pressing charges, and that person goes on to assault someone else, you've acted immorally.

Vicarious redemption completely destroys the concept of personal responsibility. And it explains the countless number of people I've known who spent their lives treating everyone around them like utter garbage, only to end up with a clean conscience because they 'found Jesus', and it's only his 'forgiveness' that matters, not the forgiveness of anyone they've actually hurt.

what if they were mentally ill when they did the assault, do you still think forgiveness is not moral. what if they assualted you to steel your wallet to feed 9 kids? Is forgiveness still amoral? What if he was raised in the ghetto and his parents didn't keep him in school so he didn't get a diploma and all he needs is some good mentoring? is pressing charges and ruining his life the best option?

That's irrelevant though, because you don't have forgiveness in your moral system. Your idea of 'forgiveness' is Yahweh absolving you of 'sin'. You can't 'forgive' someone of a wrong that wasn't done to you. If I steal your wallet, only you can forgive me.

forgiveness of ones enemies is a form of sacrificial love, it's actually sacrificial love that was my main premise and evidence of God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit.

Prove it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In the Bible in 1 john 4:20-21 it says

"If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also."

so love is actually one of the evidences we are saved, if we don't have love and we say we are saved we are liars it says.

This doesn't address anything I said.

what if they were mentally ill when they did the assault, do you still think forgiveness is not moral. what if they assualted you to steel your wallet to feed 9 kids? Is forgiveness still amoral? What if he was raised in the ghetto and his parents didn't keep him in school so he didn't get a diploma and all he needs is some good mentoring? is pressing charges and ruining his life the best option?

I never said forgiveness is amoral.

forgiveness of ones enemies is a form of sacrificial love, it's actually sacrificial love that was my main premise and evidence of God. Animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit. But say for the pack in general an animal won't sacrifice eating, just to feed another pack member. I have dogs that fight for food all the time, I don't see sharing thats for sure. But humans and in particular christians share and love and forgive. There is no natural phenomenon where that type of love can originate from. Possibly yes, but not evidentially.

This doesn't address anything I said.

 

[createdtoworship]

Prove it.

because I have asked a hundred times for evidence for it, and you have provided none. So you prove it. Eventually you have to agree with where the facts lead, but again that is taking debate honestly anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

This doesn't address anything I said.



I never said forgiveness is amoral.



This doesn't address anything I said.

I adressed your whole post, please repost anything i did not adress, I am not afraid or unwilling to answer any question you have.

 

[Moral Orel]

because I have asked a hundred times for evidence for it

It's not my job to prove your claim. It's your job to prove your claim. Can you prove your claim, or should we dismiss it?

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not my job to prove your claim. It's your job to prove your claim. Can you prove your claim, or should we dismiss it?

I don't care what you do with it. I can only do so much.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't care what you do with it. I can only do so much.

Then it can be dismissed as an un-evidenced assertion. If you think that's sufficient, then can I just claim that "Animals do forgive their enemies, also animals love sacrificially, even when it's not for their family unit" while offering zero evidence like you have done? What do you think we should do with these claims that have zero evidence offered for them?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then it can be dismissed as an un-evidenced assertion. If you think that's sufficient, then can I just claim that "Animals do forgive their enemies, also animals love sacrificially, even when it's not for their family unit" while offering zero evidence like you have done? What do you think we should do with these claims that have zero evidence offered for them?

Well heck, if you’re going down the non evidence road, you might as well just say that scientists have proven the Christian god to be impossible and then just keep repeating “prooooove that they haven’t!” until everyone gets sick of arguing about the burden of proof and stops replying. The you can claim victory and do the superior dance.

Go big or go home...

 

[createdtoworship]

Then it can be dismissed as an un-evidenced assertion. If you think that's sufficient, then can I just claim that "Animals do forgive their enemies, also animals love sacrificially, even when it's not for their family unit" while offering zero evidence like you have done? What do you think we should do with these claims that have zero evidence offered for them?

so you admit there is no evidence animals love sacrificially. So my point stands. It would appear from the evidence or lack thereof, that animals do not love the way humans love. You admit that in this post.

 

[Moral Orel]

Love is irrelevant to your moral philosophy. I could spend my entire life in hate and go to heaven, as long as I believe in Yahweh and his salvation at the moment of death. Or I could spend my entire life in love and service to humanity and go to hell, if I'm an atheist at the moment of death.

That is the only thing that matters - what is believed at the moment of death. Nothing else is relevant.

I'm going to disagree with this one too. Maybe the impending fear of death has changed some hearts, it's probably a pretty emotional experience. And while I would liken belief to a feeling, there are more emotions at play than merely believing in Yahweh or not. You have to genuinely feel sorry for being a hateful jerk your whole life too. And if that's the case, you've got a different attitude going forward from the experience such that if you just happened to live, you'd start behaving differently. If it takes seeing death coming to change your attitude such that you have the right attitude for Heaven, that isn't a knock against Christianity for being more about having the right attitude, which is reflected in your behavior, than the behavior itself.

That's irrelevant though, because you don't have forgiveness in your moral system. Your idea of 'forgiveness' is Yahweh absolving you of 'sin'. You can't 'forgive' someone of a wrong that wasn't done to you. If I steal your wallet, only you can forgive me.

Vicarious redemption completely destroys the concept of personal responsibility. And it explains the countless number of people I've known who spent their lives treating everyone around them like utter garbage, only to end up with a clean conscience because they 'found Jesus', and it's only his 'forgiveness' that matters, not the forgiveness of anyone they've actually hurt.

Eh... This one I disagree with too. If I love Sally, and I never want any harm to come to her, and you smack her around, that hurts me too. I feel bad because you hurt Sally. I'd say you owe both of us an apology. So Christians who think it's enough to only ask God for forgiveness and not the people they wronged directly are incorrect, I agree. But if He's real, and you're being a jerk to His kids, then you owe Him an apology too. Christians who don't think they owe an apology to the people they hurt don't have the right attitude that I talked about in the first point, I'd say.

Now if only we could establish that He is, in fact, real all of this would matter.

 

[Moral Orel]

so you admit there is no evidence animals love sacrificially.

I did no such thing. Read my post again. I simply said I wouldn't present any evidence if I made that claim, which I didn't make. I never said the evidence doesn't exist.

So my point stands. It would appear from the evidence or lack thereof, that animals do not love the way humans love. You admit that in this post.

Your point doesn't stand. Try again. Prove your claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did no such thing. Read my post again. I simply said I wouldn't present any evidence if I made that claim, which I didn't make. I never said the evidence doesn't exist.

Your point doesn't stand. Try again. Prove your claim.

well then since you never said the evidence does not exist, then go and find some.

because the claim that love has evolved in nature needs proof.

and if you cannot prove that statement, then we will nullify it and scratch it from the record, and my original OP argument stands.

 

[Moral Orel]

well then since you never said the evidence does not exist, then go and find some.

because the claim that love has evolved in nature needs proof.

I never made the claim. Mind the question mark. I asked a hypothetical, that isn't stating a claim.

and if you cannot prove that statement, then we will nullify it and scratch it from the record, and my original OP argument stands.

Deal! Any statement that isn't proven can be nullified and scratched from the record. So your claim about animals is nullified and your original OP argument fails.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never made the claim. Mind the question mark. I asked a hypothetical, that isn't stating a claim.

Deal! Any statement that isn't proven can be nullified and scratched from the record. So your claim about animals is nullified and your original OP argument fails.

my op does not rely on that statement at all.

this is a subtle form of reversing the burden of proof, you really need to read the OP to see where you stand.

 

[Moral Orel]

my op does not rely on that statement at all.

It only took one page before someone suggested that evolution played a part in our developing morals. That's when you started making the claim that animals don't have them. If morality developed as a result of evolution, even if that means it's all just an illusion that we feel is real, then your OP fails.

this is a subtle form of reversing the burden of proof, you really need to read the OP to see where you stand.

I haven't asked you to prove anything other than your claim. You telling me that I need to disprove it is reversing the burden of proof. Don't be a hypocrite too.

You've got this wrong idea that negative claims can't be disproven, so you get to make negative claims and other people have to prove them wrong. That is incorrect. You don't get to make whatever negative claim you want and then we all act like it's true until it's shown otherwise. Every claim must be supported by evidence, or it can be dismissed, positive or negative.

 

[createdtoworship]

It only took one page before someone suggested that evolution played a part in our developing morals. That's when you started making the claim that animals don't have them. If morality developed as a result of evolution, even if that means it's all just an illusion that we feel is real, then your OP fails.

I haven't asked you to prove anything other than your claim. You telling me that I need to disprove it is reversing the burden of proof. Don't be a hypocrite too.

You've got this wrong idea that negative claims can't be disproven, so you get to make negative claims and other people have to prove them wrong. That is incorrect. You don't get to make whatever negative claim you want and then we all act like it's true until it's shown otherwise. Every claim must be supported by evidence, or it can be dismissed, positive or negative.

so you admit that someone made the positive claim "evolution played a part in our developing morals."

but then it was not proven, yet you attempt to trap me but look at the chain of events.

it's you guys that made the claim evolution did it.

 

[Moral Orel]

so you admit that someone made the positive claim "evolution played a part in our developing morals."

but then it was not proven, yet you attempt to trap me but look at the chain of events.

it's you guys that made the claim evolution did it.

Other people's claims don't matter. Even if their claim wasn't proven, we're left with "I dunno". It doesn't default to you being right. This is your claim:

Animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit. But say for the pack in general an animal won't sacrifice eating, just to feed another pack member.

You made the claim, now prove it, or we can both dismiss and ignore it.