When certain Christians go too far

[Trial By Sshtone!]

edited by Moderator

reason: personal attacks will not be tolerated

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Actually, do not kill is not a religious law, it is a common sense and moral law. I will assume we are only thinking we disagree. We should have moral laws, not religious ones. End of story.
Second off, I am going to have to defend Sprinkles against this silly little attack. Tho he will doubtlessly do so himself. I have seen few arguments better than his from anyone save Alaric on occasion. d'oh, another aethiest...
he does admit when he is wrong, i.e. when he thought about being militant. he just isn't wrong very often. to someone with a poor grasp of reality, I suppose it could be seen that he loses his arguments, but this is also likely someone that is going to launch yet another circular reasoning assult on our poor brains. (ultra) blasphemy... heh. this is simply stating that he does not agree with your faith so... d'oh circular reasoning.
I will assume, until corrected, that Tall Poppy Syndrome is arrogance, as I am not veresed well in nursery rhyme euphamisms. so, he is arrogant about his beliefs? that couldn't possibly parrallel most of the religious folks, could it? so the best argument you can come up with is that other than his view point and the fact that he presents better arguments than you, he is onl as bad as most of the other people, which means he has broken into above average territory. hey, that's more than most accomplish. i can only hope that when I am weighed and judged by some random person hiding behind a veil of internet anonimity that i am found thus. Way to go sprinkles, your above average!!!!

 

[painted wolf]

edited by Moderator

Would this be one of those instances where a christian goes to far?
or just immature?

wa:do

 

[Fra.Morelia]

OK, please tell me where homosexuality is equal to abortion? i am not even going to open the can of worms that is abortion, but:In homosexuality no life is created. In abortion a life is created then aborted. Not arguing it as right or wrong.
Second:so is it OK for only some of the population to be black or chinese??? or would that be wrong in your book too?
And don't hand me, 'that's different'
It's not, and last time I checked it was still petty bigotry.
And what is so wrong with the human race being screwed? Aren't you waiting for some great smiting as is?

 

[dan]

Actually, do not kill is not a religious law, it is a common sense and moral law.

Well, that all depends on the brand of moral philosophy that you subscribe to. Divine-command ethics would make it a religious law. Deontological ethics might make it a moral law, but there are many ways to interpret our duties as people. Consequentialism could go either way, as could moral relativism and every other branch.

If you really wanrt to wax philosophic I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Generally I detest philosphy as a means of pondering and never effecting change. I think, in todays world, that most sane views of looking at the world would incorporate some kind of 'killing is bad' clause. at least into what they write. we all know what people do is a different story.
Logically: killing except in self defense is bad. stealing what you did not earn is bad. rapng someone is bad. if anyone argues this, well, frankly, they are off balance one way or another.

 

[dan]

Here you trap yourself. Logic has nothing to do with ethics. The word "bad" cannot in any instance collide in the same sentence with "logic" unless it is a negative. Logically, a murder is one human being terminating the life of another. Logically, that's as far as the application can go. If logic could be applied to ethics then it could also decide beauty, taste and preference.

Now you might say that the consequences render murder bad, but now you've entered into the realm of moral philosophy as a consequentialist. You might say that society deems it wrong, but you'd have pranced over to the realm of moral relativism (another brnach of philosophy). I'm afraid any kind of moral code is philosophy, from divine command all the way up to whatever you can come up with.

I could conjure up a million situations that would force you to admit that killing is in many instances necessary and good, but I'll spare you. You need to study philosophy a little more if you want to refuse to use it, because it keeps biting you in the butt.

 

[Alaric]

According to the bible, Gods reason for flooding the world was because peolple were killing eachother and prostituting NOT because they were having to much FUN!

How do you know whether they were having fun or not?

Now most UNCHRISTIAN things are wrong. Just look at the ten commandments. Most people in jail are there because they have broken one of our modern laws which is modeled on a commandment (eg armed robbery- thou shalt not steal, or murder in the first degree- thou shalt not kill?)

What does that prove? Do you judge the truth of God's moral law by modern standards, chamberlain? A Christian is not supposed to do that - a Christian is just supposed to unquestioningly believe and obey.

Now the only thing i do agree with is that God is a harsh taskmaster. In fact he is the HARDEST taskmaster. It is his nature to be completely just. Complete justice would be that any defiance against God (sin) is punishable by death. However as he is also a God of compassion and offered a sacrifice to atone for all of our sins (jesus christ).

How do you know God is completely just? Either you judge Him by your own standards, or you use circular reasoning and say that God is just because justice is God, making your argument meaningless.

Now as for a better society i would say that christianity offers that best model ive yet seen. Just because christians cant always stick to it doesnt mean it isnt the best way? Dont you think God desire better society for us and if his rules are applied to that will happen?

No - every attempt has failed. Only secular democratic states seems to contain happy, free, prosperous citizens.

Lastly back to loving your neighbour as i have already explained "morals are irrelevant without God because he provides us with what being moral is through his commands" and "IF there is no God to hold us accountable for our actions (and morals) we certainly dont owe our fellow man anything because our neighbour didn't create us." So people going around punching each other look at it this way- we created computers right, we programed them for a certain function am I right? When one part of the computer does something wrong it tells us in an alert. This it was program to do WHEN IT WAS MADE. In the same way we have a concience that God instilled in us when we created it isnt something that evolved out of a cocktail of chemicals in our brain. Just the same way love isn't a chemical, thats what separates us from the animals? Wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure that if a German deserted from the Nazi army back in WWII, he would feel guilty. This is because he was programmed by other people to feel obliged to serve his country no matter what. A large part of conscience is socially determined. If it was as simple as you say, noone would ever do anything immoral, or even disagree, because everyone would simply feel their 'alert' go off when they 'deviated from the path.' I, for example, think that Christianity is mostly detrimental to individual and society - I certainly don't feel guilty. I could even use the old Christian line and say to you "If you just open your heart, look deeply within yourself, you will see the evil of Christianity, you will feel your heart bleeding, you will beg for forgiveness," etc etc. Of course I don't believe it's that bad, but you get the point, I hope.

 

[Ceridwen018]

dan,

The word "bad" cannot in any instance collide in the same sentence with "logic" unless it is a negative.

Because sometimes the word 'bad' is used to explain something positive?

Logically, a murder is one human being terminating the life of another. Logically, that's as far as the application can go.

You have stated the definition of murder, not why it is logically 'bad'. We can logically conclude that murder is detrimental to society, on account of becuase if permitted, we would be robbed of our security. We would be unable to evolve and grow because we would be so wrapped up in a 'cover yours, kick theirs' mentality.

If logic could be applied to ethics then it could also decide beauty, taste and preference.

It can indeed! Lets use a wolf pack as an example: the most athletic males, ie, the ones most capable of survival, are the most attractive to the females. The females are drawn to them instictually because of their (the athletic male's) genetic superiority. The ultimate survival of the wolf pack is determined by the quality of offspring produced, therefore, only the most attractive females and the most attractive males tend to find mates.

This scenario holds true for all animals, humans included. Why do men traditionally prefer large breasted women over smaller ones? Because large breasts are a sign of sexual maturity, and so from a purely instictual point of view, this would attract a male. Our advanced species is slightly different from others, as brain power is also a tool which can be used to attract, (given that it is an important gene to be passed on), not just big boobs and athleticism (thank god!...no, wait...). So you see, we have just logically explained a specific preference! How exciting!

Now you might say that the consequences render murder bad, but now you've entered into the realm of moral philosophy as a consequentialist.

Technically, yes. However, it seems to be a pretty universally accepted idea that to live in constant fear of one's is a 'bad/negative' thing. Allotted murder would also cut the population down considerably, and extinction is also something which you'd be hard-pressed to find any fans for.

I could conjure up a million situations that would force you to admit that killing is in many instances necessary and good, but I'll spare you.

You are talking about war. (This just in! It seems that Captain Obvious has struck again!) :lol:

War is much different from murder. Murder is the unjust taking of life, whereas war is the recognized agreement between two parties to duke it out over a conflict, even if death be the result. In the perfect world, everything would be handled diplomatically, but due to our seeming imperfections, war is necessary.

 

[dan]

Why do men traditionally prefer large breasted women over smaller ones? Because large breasts are a sign of sexual maturity, and so from a purely instictual point of view, this would attract a male.

That's a mildly entertaining argument, but it doesn't hold water. Many men are attracted to small breasts. Many are attracted to enormous breasts. Many are attracted to men. Preference is not logical. Murder is murder, and logic has no bearing on the quality or value of it. If you want to make an argument why you think (logically) murder is wrong, you will have to borrow it from some branch of moral philosophy, regardless of what kind of breasts you prefer on your women.

Allotted murder would also cut the population down considerably, and extinction is also something which you'd be hard-pressed to find any fans for.

And that's consequentialism, a moral philosophy. I didn't come here to argue philosophy, but if you insist on trying to split hairs here you're going to lose.

No, I'm not talking about war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with dan on this one. Ultimately, the desires which are the basis of all our morals are not derived from logic. You can figure out logically how to behave in order to create a peaceful society, for example.....but the fact that you want a peaceful society to begin with was not obtained logically, it is just a desire most people have "built in" (just like our desire to survive is "built in" not obtained from logic).

 

[chamberlain]

Firstly let the record straight...
I have gone to school and worked with gay people. I do not hate them in fact i have got along very well with some of them. A good christian is not a bigot. Not all thosewho claim to be Christians telegraph it well by there actions. I thank you not to hint that i am a bigot.
To Fra.Morelia I thank you not to hint that i am a bigot. also, Abortion and homosexuality are related to sexual acts being "black or chinese" has nothing to do with that does it? unless you are trying to imply that all Christians are racist as well as bigots?
You cast many stereotypes.

Alaric, Whether people were having fun before noahs flood had nothing to do with the point i made you obviously weren't looking the concept i presented just arguing with the way i typed it. Democracy is ok but in my country we have about 4 tv shows that are devoted to people who are worse off in democracy. Democracy is about the good of the many not of the one which means it has many flaws.
Also i am interested to now why christianity is "detrimental to society and the individual"?
Maybe you could provide some reasons why you think this?

Also i am sorry if anyone is offended by what i say i am only here to question things and i am not here to attack peoples beliefs just to challenge them a bit.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

chamberlain-- would you mind telling us what country you live in? I would be curious to know.

 

[Orthodox]

chamberlain wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
Lastly back to loving your neighbour as i have already explained "morals are irrelevant without God because he provides us with what being moral is through his commands" and "IF there is no God to hold us accountable for our actions (and morals) we certainly dont owe our fellow man anything because our neighbour didn't create us." So people going around punching each other look at it this way- we created computers right, we programed them for a certain function am I right? When one part of the computer does something wrong it tells us in an alert. This it was program to do WHEN IT WAS MADE. In the same way we have a concience that God instilled in us when we created it isnt something that evolved out of a cocktail of chemicals in our brain. Just the same way love isn't a chemical, thats what separates us from the animals? Wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure that if a German deserted from the Nazi army back in WWII, he would feel guilty. This is because he was programmed by other people to feel obliged to serve his country no matter what. A large part of conscience is socially determined. If it was as simple as you say, noone would ever do anything immoral, or even disagree, because everyone would simply feel their 'alert' go off when they 'deviated from the path.' .

Is rape wrong then? If so why? If survival of the fitest is to be believed then the big man forcing himself upon as many women as possible is the good thing to do. Without this "rule of the fitest" then the human race is doomed to stagnation. If you say rape is bad give me a good reason why.

About the Nazis - have you heard of Dietrich Bonnhoffer (sp)?

I don't think chamberlain ever suggested that conscience is the same thing as will. I may really want to steal $50 even though my conscience tells me not to. Also, it is well known that consciences can be "seared" if constantly ignored.

 

[chamberlain]

Well said orthodox,

Mr sprinkles i live in australia.