Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Would you prefer it that Dave deified his morality so that his actions become the fulfilment of "God's will"? Talk about egocentric.
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.
What you are saying is that you did more bad than good, and that excuses you. But who is the judge that you did more bad more than good? Yourself?
It appears your view of justice is egocentric. I am not saying that as an insult, but a plain statement of fact.
Would you prefer it that Dave deified his morality so that his actions become the fulfilment of "God's will"? Talk about egocentric.
We would prefer him to come to terms with the fact that his worldview is devoid of any grounds for objective moral values and duties.
We would prefer him to stop talking as if it did and come to terms with the fact that everyday, he betrays his beliefs and lives like every other theist who believes certain things are really wrong.
God's assessment that all our "righteousness" is as filthy rags.
God's assessment that there is none who is good, no not one.
There is none who seeks after God, they have altogether become corrupt.
And again, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
That is our justification.
Why?
Because we are Christians not followers of Dave Ellis.
This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.
We would prefer him to come to terms with the fact that his worldview is devoid of any grounds for objective moral values and duties.
We would prefer him to stop talking as if it did and come to terms with the fact that everyday, he betrays his beliefs and lives like every other theist who believes certain things are really wrong.
Because if say, 95% of the things you do are good and the other 5% are bad, it's only reasonable to call that person good.
What's your justification for saying otherwise?
This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.
That's the difference of an anthropocentric view of morality and a Theocentric view. Do you have absolute proof one is true over the other?
By your standards, the passing grade is 50% then. Why can't it be 65%? Of 99%? Or a perfect score? Who decides that?
I think your criteria, ultimately, is arbitrary. My standard for goodness is absolute perfection and you can't say my standard is any worse than yours, and mine is just as arbitrary.
Absolute proof? No. But I see no reason to consider a theocentric morality at all.
In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.It gets us nowhere and may even set us back. By shifting the focus of morality to the purported desires of a deity, it no longer matters whether an action causes harm to someone.
A presupposition in your view is that doing one bad thing essentially cancels out one good thing. So, if I murder someone, as long as I save someone else from being murdered, I am now morally neutral. Then, if I help an old lady cross the street, I just became slightly morally good.I never said anything about a "passing grade". I said I have done many more good things than bad, so I am more good than bad.
No, it is indeed arbitrary as I have showed above.Not at all, I have a rational basis for my criteria.
If someone does a lot of great work for people, and does very little wrong, it's not reasonable to call that person evil because he messed up once or twice.
Guilty as charged, I have freed myself from my man-made religion and have seen its logical constraints.I think the only reason you hold to your current view is due to the poison that your religion has inflicted upon your mind.
I see no reason to consider anthropocentric morality being that there are so many other things other that sentient beings out there.
In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.
A presupposition in your view is that doing one bad thing essentially cancels out one good thing. So, if I murder someone, as long as I save someone else from being murdered, I am now morally neutral. Then, if I help an old lady cross the street, I just became slightly morally good.
Unless you agree with the preceding, then we must admit that bad acts are not always negated by equivalent good acts.
In my personal moral view, it is. Murdering one or two people, but then feeling bad about it and then becoming a fireman and saving dozens of peoples lives does not pay for it back.
Guilty as charged, I have freed myself from my man-made religion and have seen its logical constraints.
No, the mistake you're making here is saving someone from being murdered is not a moral equivalent to murdering someone.
It's not a matter of one bad thing cancelling out one good thing, what it comes down to is that there are various degrees of how good or how bad a thing is.
True religion is the only one not made up by manYou mean you've rejected Christianity?
Who says? Stealing a home run is just as good as hitting one for the team, what's the difference? Looks like your "objective standards" are rroding into arbitrary subjectivity.
What unit of measurement can we use to quantify these degrees?
True religion is the only one not made up by man
This is one of the perverse things about religious morality. It shifts the focus of morality from the wellbeing of humans and centres it instead on the purported desires of a deity.
I see no reason to consider anthropocentric morality being that there are so many other things other that sentient beings out there.
In Theocentric morality, yes, that is essentially the case.
Already solved:
Debating atheists on the Problem of Evil | Reformed Christian Theology
If you have new objections as to why evil somehow impugns the anture of God, get back to me.
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?