|
|
| Posted: 30 Dec 2009 23:15 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I've been pretty busy to argue, but here I am again.
All I got to say Matches is just because your kid decides to do it and you love your kid, that don't make it right either.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Jan 2010 16:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Well I guess that's the question, if my kids are moved by the spirit and become evangelicals, is that wrong?
What if they are still the intlegent loving compassionate children I raised, but they have taken on an aspect of personality that I have a hard time accepting?
Do I cut them out of my life because I can't tolerate their choice? Or do I accept that they are still my kids, still good people, who are doing good in their lives, despite my revulsion at thier lifestyle choice?
And if I accept their lifestyle choice, how can I really continue to say that choice is wrong by it's nature, shouldn't I recognize that each person is their own person, and any one aspect of their personae isn't the be all and end all of their nature.
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 21:08 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
The way you seem to be looking at it is that your children's choice determines what is wrong and what isn't. I don't see it that way. Right and wrong aren't determined by what feels good to a person. This just isn't for this one particular subject. It could pertain any number of moral issues.
I'm sure of course a person can find it in their hearts to love their kids no matter what, especially mothers who will tend to love their son even if they wind up in prison. Still doesn't make what that son did any better.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2010 23:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Fair enough, I guess the real question is, how wrong is being gay. It appearently ranks up their with armed robbery in your book. Many others think it's somewhat less than that.
If you do think it's less then that, then how much less?
If it is less, then when it comes to your own kids, how far do you go to decry it.
As always experience beyond theory informs one's knowledge of these kinds of issues. The more gay people you know the less likely you are to see just being gay as a bad thing. Which is why the issue of children coming out becomes such a tough issue. It's someone you knew your whole life, are they now evil because they have a love you reject?
|
| Posted: 05 Jan 2010 19:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Let me see if I can put my thoughts into words here effectively. What I think the difference between robbery and say a gay lifestyle is in fact they are both as equally wrong morally because I base my morality on the Bible and God says all sin is bad and all sin makes us need a Saviour. So in one sense I am as bad as a robber and a thief for just telling a lie or getting angry at another person.
On the other hand when you talk about legal rights and wrongs robbery immediately effects the person being robbed and must have some sort of quick solution thus the jail. A gay lifestyle hurts the person doing it first and then the country as a whole over a period of time. In much the same way as divorce, adultery, etc etc. We've gotten away from laws that deal with the moral structure of our country. The kind that actually help curb the robberies and the murders in the long run. When the moral foundation is weakened the rest of the structure starts to fall. Every compromise causes further breaks.
Now don't start imagining all the laws I want to create. I'm simply pointing out that as society as become more and more immoral there have been a lot of old laws on morality that have fallen away.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 05 Jan 2010 21:52 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
A list of wrongs that carry penalties is not a list of laws that enforce morality; morality cannot be legislated.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 06 Jan 2010 21:45 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, just to be difficult is not making robbery and murder illegal legislating morality?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 07 Jan 2010 00:32 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
No. In grand terms they are meant for people to respect other people's property or individual rights. In simpler terms they're there to let people know that if you do either of these things, there will be consequences if you get caught. Neither way makes people who obey them good or moral people, just law abiding. Just like how paying your taxes or crossing in a crosswalk does not make you virtuous.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 07 Jan 2010 11:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
For anyone who might be interested:
'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson; approx. 52 minutes. Fascinating lecture if you're up for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
Would have embedded if I could have been sure there were no size issue in doing so- it's posted rather large for some reason.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 08 Jan 2010 16:07 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, so you say there is no morality linked with not stealing or killing? Is not respecting other people's life and property fall into a moral code?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 08 Jan 2010 16:22 Last Edited By: pakratmak |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
No, I'm saying stealing and killing are moral issues in spite of your religious code, not because of it. A law that has a penalty for doing something 'bad' has nothing to do with an individdual's morality any more than a person following a law is virtuous simply because they followed that law. Penalty and reward for actions take morality out of the equation when the action is decided strictly because of said penalty or reward.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Jan 2010 16:51 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So taking away penalty and award what exactly in your opinion makes something moral or immoral, and don't say public opinion or societal evolution?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Jan 2010 19:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Remember this?
http://reallypolitical.com/article746.htm
This was my last refinement on those definitions which you never acknowledged.
Quote:
A proper moral action is one that that advances, upholds or secures values of creation, growth or well-being, even to the extent of sacrificing a lesser but decidedly positive value.
A negative moral action is one that will knowingly cause a result of some measurable loss or destruction for the purpose of some known personal gain.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Jan 2010 22:05 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
That sure is mighty fancy talk for I decide what is moral or not.
So then why is it immoral to hurt someone else, be stingy, etc? Why is it immoral to cause harm to other people? Because the people you harm don't like it? Isn't possible there are things that are immoral whether or not anyone agrees on it? In other words aren't there things that are just wrong, period? Even if nobody gets hurt?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Jan 2010 03:37 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
That sure is mighty fancy talk for I decide what is moral or not.
We do make that decision, every time we do something that might affect someone else. It is making that decision that offers morality into the equation, not just following a rules list, which offers none. Thanks for finally acknowledging you looked at it at long last. Now tell me what's wrong with it aside from it not being following the bible, which is only a crime to bible followers?
As for the rest of your post, these are vague examples you want justifications to.
Is it immoral to cause harm or hurt someone else in every single case, even when by accident or not intended or those cases when it's unavoidable? Also determine what the parameters are for 'hurting' someone else; for example, does this include hurting their feelings or wounding their pride?
Being stingy? I don't see this as being immoral all by itself either; at least a majority of the time. What are the circumstances? I'd also have to ask, if you believe being stingy is immoral all by itself, why are you against socialism then?
Is it possible for absolute objective morality? The great universal wrongs of murder and theft are observed even in the animal kingdom. To a lesser extent on the positive side we see different species being exemplars of sympathy to lesser fortunates. The question you may want to ask yourself here is if there is trully objective morality, how would we recognize it?
You're using hurt as a modifier toward the end when it was a standalone offense earlier. Is the hurting itself immoral or merely a condition of something else's being immoral? As before, I'm leaning toward the latter of those two. I don't believe a victim is always necessary for something to be immoral. Perhaps you should give me the specifics of the action in question; these things that are wrong, just because they're wrong.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 16:45 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
if you believe being stingy is immoral all by itself, why are you against socialism then
I'm always confused as to why this is brought up so much when judging conservativism. It's kind of simple to me. If an individual person is stingy. Then they have to answer to it in their own lives, but how does it become moral for some other voter to vote to take away somebody else's money to give to somebody else. That's like taking a gun and ripping some rich guy off to give to some poor guy. That's not moral either. I'm pretty sure Robin Hood had extenuating circumstances like an evil sheriff terrorizing the land etc.
I think in that regard we need to start teaching the next generation that nobody owes them a dang thing. This entitlement feeling people have these days is ruining us.
I'd say liberals are more stingy than conservatives cause they always want to take somebody else's money to do something instead of their own.
Quote:
I don't believe a victim is always necessary for something to be immoral. That was one thing I wanted to clarify.
I guess where we are always going to deviate is where morality comes from. Believing in God means you are here for a reason, and thus it becomes also logical to assume this higher being knows more about morality then we do. It is therefore at that point also logical to assume that there are a set right and wrong to everything created by this higher power.
Without a set value for right and wrong there really can be only chaos. When men are the ones making up right and wrong then it falls to the individual to create their own moral code and obviously we are going to have problems when that individual's morals are that of a psycho mad dog killer.
The Bible makes things pretty simple for the most part. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Sure you can point out specifics that seem confusing to those not having studied the Bible for years, but Jesus really did simplify the New Testament commandments down from the Old Testament period.
I like philosophical arguments I think more than political. I am beginning to wonder if I should take philosophy.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 19:46 Last Edited By: pakratmak |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I think in that regard we need to start teaching the next generation that nobody owes them a dang thing. This entitlement feeling people have these days is ruining us.
I'd say liberals are more stingy than conservatives cause they always want to take somebody else's money to do something instead of their own.
Your first statement has you being the 'stingy' one and your second ignores the fact that the government does not have any money of their own-regardless of who's been running the place(at least been parked in the Oval Office). They either have to print up their own money(which we haven't done since Lincoln, that I recall) or take it from us in taxes, or borrow it from somewhere else with the intent of taking from us later to pay back the debt. Keeping that in mind, do you really want to eliminate ALL social programs? Is this moral or immoral or indifferent on your part?
Quote:
Without a set value for right and wrong there really can be only chaos.
You don't need religion to have a conscience or values. The person who does good deeds of their own accord as opposed to the one who does good deeds because they think they're being watched- which is more moral? Myself, being godless, if I do something wrong to someone, I have to make amends to that person while the believer who thinks their victim is unaware can slink off and pray and possibly just feel better about themself instantly, just because they feel their sins have been 'paid for' by the blood sacrifice of an innocent man- which is more moral?
Quote:
we are going to have problems when that individual's morals are that of a psycho mad dog killer.
I'm no mad dog killer. Maybe you should look up some figures on such killers in prisons and find out how many of them call themselves Christian versus how many call themself atheist. You might be surprised.
Quote:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" "Love your neighbor as yourself"
These concepts are observable in nature when the food chain and territorial disputes don't force division. These concepts are as old as the concept of being pack animals, were around long before Jesus himself and are NOT the sole exclusive property of your religion. To stand by this false conclusion, you must also ignore every drop of hate and venom that resides in that same tome- which is a Herculean task of selectiveness that is nearly as immoral as the acts themselves.
Quote:
Jesus really did simplify the New Testament commandments down from the Old Testament period.
For better or worse, by all accounts he was a heretic according to how things were done by the OT standards of Mosaic law and I would actually argue the NT enhances the OT, not replaces it. Whenever a Christian tells me that the OT was done away with at Calgary, this strikes me as exactly the same crime you accuse the godless of- making up your own moral code.
Quote:
I am beginning to wonder if I should take philosophy.
It's a fascinating and complex subject-one could get lost in it. Matter of fact, one could get LOST with it. 
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 20:48 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Keeping that in mind, do you really want to eliminate ALL social programs? The question is, is it moral to take money forcibly by the power of government from one person to give to another for any reason? I'd have to say no, it's not really when you boil it down to it.
Quote:
You don't need religion to have a conscience or values. Whether you know it or not it was God that gave you and everyone else a sense of right and wrong. To try and explain morality apart from a supreme being is very difficult. Without a concept of a higher code of morality we are left with only opinions and that can get really messy. Then you got one guy saying murder is ok by his standards and another saying that even calling somebody a name deserves a jail sentence. A set standard is definitely helpful wouldn't you think?
Quote:
Maybe you should look up some figures on such killers in prisons and find out how many of them call themselves Christian versus how many call themself atheist. Well I'm sure a lot of people in prison give their hearts to Christ after the fact. Anybody that murders without guilt would have to be a non-Christian no matter what they confessed.
You have to consider that going to jail and hitting rock bottom would definitely cause a lot of people to seek God. They have nowhere else to go.
The old testament presents God's laws to condemn us, to show us we cannot be sinless and we need someone to pay our penalty or go to hell ourselves. Jesus took the penalty for us, but we don't have to go that route. We can pay for our own sins for all eternity. Which brings us back full circle. I believe in an ultimate judge, being God who demands justice. I'd rather accept that Jesus paid for my sins in this world than to believe they were all on me.
Of course then you get upset and think that means I can do whatever I want, but that disregards the fact that a change is made in one's heart after salvation. Not one of perfection in this world, but an added conscience in the form of the Holy Spirit that nags at one on the inside when you do wrong. Very religious I know, and it's not somewhere you wish to go in our discussion, but morality and religion go hand in hand. It's impossible to split the two because since the beginning of time man has looked to God for direction in matters of morality ever since Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 21:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
If I may interject, the states obligations are NOT to be moral, simply to ensure a well functioning society.
A well functioning society in fact will require that the state act immorally on occasion.
If you come from a perspective of absolute morality (which very few do, but most claim to) then at some point, the very grey choices made by the state for the expediency of it's operations will cross the line into immorality.
The state should not concern itself with right and wrong, merely the constant and equitable operations of it's systems. Right and wrong at the end of the day is an individual choice.
The Christian says it is morally wrong to do work on Sunday, the Jew says it is morally worng to do work on Saturday, the Muslim friday, and the Odinist Wendsday and Thursday. In these areas the state can either require a two day work week to accomodate everyone, or make no statement and allow each individual to decide for themselves when to close their businesses.
You can say that we are a largely christian nation and that the christian norm should rule, but that is a direct violation of the first ammendment.
A secular nation must be amoral, which is not the same as imoral, simply that it makes no statement about the morality in its laws. Some laws may fit nicely into your morality (don't kill no body unless hey have it coming) while others might be an aboration to you (a fetus is not a person and cannot be treated as such).
In the end, the state can't be bothered with right and wrong, because they can ask 100 differnt rabbis and get 200 differnt answers. They can only operate on what leads to a well functioning society.
Which indidently is why it is fair to argue that gay marriage might lead to a net negative outcome for society, but it would be helpful if you had something other than your personal moral objections to back up that statement.
Poligamy for example has demonstrable societal costs outside of the moral issue (inheretance, shared benefits, paternity etc.). It's fine to be a moral person, and to not get gay married if you feel it is abhorant. But if there is no demonstrable societal cost to gay marriage or gayness in general it's hard for me in my conservative mindset to think that the government should expand in a way to limit the behavior.
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 21:27 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
The question is, is it moral to take money forcibly by the power of government from one person to give to another for any reason? I'd have to say no, it's not really when you boil it down to it.
Until the government gets around to printing it's own money again, you don't have a choice in the matter. Label it whatever way you like.
Quote:
Whether you know it or not it was God...
On the same amount of evidence you can provide- no, God didn't do anything. Your response is going to be something about what the Bible says and then I go to the next round of saying the Bible is wrong and so on. You do not possess personal knowledge of this thing supposedly happening-it is a lie to pretend as much, and last I checked lying is immoral, whether on a static rule list or having to figure it out yourself. 'God did it' is not acceptible to convince me of anything all by itself- why are you not getting this?
Quote:
To try and explain morality apart from a supreme being is very difficult.
It's a little less difficult when you haven't decided the case is closed in advance of hearing other ideas on it than a universal lawgiver. Fact is that we don't have it set in stone where humans get their conscience from, but science is working on it and so far the popular consensus is that it is part of our social evolution as pack animals.
Quote:
Without a concept of a higher code of morality we are left with only opinions
Your concept of a higher code is only an opinion itself.
Quote:
Then you got one guy... A set standard is definitely helpful wouldn't you think?
That's what we've been developing here in society. There's never been a society that has given a thumbs up to murder. As for the locking up somebody who calls you a name part there, check out the recent UN resolution of an anti-blasphemy law and get back to me.
Quote:
Well I'm sure a lot of people in prison give their hearts to Christ after the fact.
Completely agree.
Quote:
Anybody that murders without guilt would have to be a non-Christian no matter what they confessed.
Even though that's blatantly the No True Scotsman fallacy, I'd let it slide on a technicality.
Quote:
You have to consider that going to jail and hitting rock bottom would definitely cause a lot of people to seek God. They have nowhere else to go.
I think that may be why people seek God before they even have to go to prison, those that aren't bullied into it by their parents in the first place.
Quote:
The old testament presents God's laws to condemn us, to show us we cannot be sinless and we need someone to pay our penalty or go to hell ourselves.
Considering there is no concept of hell in Judaism, much less the OT, that would be patently false. Considering the rest is built on this, your whole argument is shattered. Baseless non-sense.
Quote:
Of course then you get upset and think that means I can do whatever I want
Actually I'm very thankful you guys can't just run around doing whatever you please if you'd give up God, apparently you lack any sort of self control. Besides, this was always your contention about nonbelievers and not something we actually accuse you of-we know better.
Quote:
but that disregards the fact that a change is made in one's heart after salvation.
For that to be a fact, the actual salvation part should be a fact first right? You've still got your work ahead of you on that one.
Quote:
but an added conscience in the form of the Holy Spirit that nags at one on the inside when you do wrong.
Yet that doesn't give Catholic priests any sort of control around children or their young naive female followers, does it? I think your 'added' conscience is imaginary as it's unnecessary to have anything nag at you for wrongdoing aside from the conscience you already have.
Quote:
but morality and religion go hand in hand.
Only to the religious and you guys are not getting a free pass on propriety of morality or a conscience and you certainly do not get to ignore when those selfsame religions and the people that represent them do immoral things.
Quote:
since the beginning of time man has looked to God...
Right. Thousands of gods were created to explain the mysteries of life to people who were afraid and had no way to answer such mysteries except with mysticism and fable. As those mysteries faded, god were overhauled, updated, and murdered as time went on just like any adult should do with their imginary friends.
Quote:
Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.
I'm gonna let this slide for now, but you let me know if you really want the lowdown on this silly story.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 21:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
|
Quote:
To try and explain morality apart from a supreme being is very difficult.
Actually, no it's not. Humans posess what is called projective empathy, meaning that no only can a person aknowledge the emotional state of another, but can imagine themselves in that state. This is something easily explained by evolution as ones ability to conceive of anothers motivations would be a useful tool for any communally living animal.
Because one can conceive of what anothers suffering is like we do seek to aleveate that suffering when the individual in question has caused us no harm personally. This generally speaking results in the release of endorphins again a usefull adaptation to cement moral behavior into a society, which in turn ensures the proliferation of that society and the species within it.
When you get into more esoteric morality (what to eat and when, who to have sex with and when), what you are discussing are systems put in place more conciously by communal fathers to ensure the better operation of society. Whether or not those communal fathers (or mothers) had first had information from a diety is unknown and unknowable to all but those people themselves, but again, the assumption of an all powerful distributor of punishments and rewards is a useful adaptation for a societal animal to have.
Now, note, that does not preclude the existence of said supreme being, merely allows for the development of such useful things as morals without it.
In the end, I don't think god signs her work, so it's all part of her nature that we can never really know if it's her will or our own we are following. In the end, I think it is better that way, since if you wouldn't do it on your own it's hard to argue your really being moral when you do it.
|
| Posted: 14 Jan 2010 03:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Tim, I saw you respond to something else but not this. Are you taking a break only or are we finally done with the notion that morality can't exist without a universal lawgiver?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Jan 2010 21:16 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I'm kind of taking a break. I don't have time to fully respond to much today. Now I got college classes and all my web work, and I might be getting some outside employment. I'll either be dead from over work or I'll survive this blasted economy one way or the other.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Jan 2010 21:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Great-let's do this yet again in a few months.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Jan 2010 04:01 Last Edited By: Steve Rogers |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
I can pick up where Tim left off, Pak. Remember me?
__________________"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
|
| Posted: 16 Jan 2010 12:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I remember you did the same thing Tim just did on this topic in the other thread. Don't bother if you're not going to see it through. Even if we do go through the paces again, me and Tim still reach no accord on this issue and we'll be back to square one yet again. Tell me why you want to bother and we'll take it from there.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Jan 2010 19:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Just for the heck of it, I guess. I have been a little busy since I started college (that's why I haven't been on here in a while) but I think I can still handle a good argument.
__________________"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
|
| Posted: 16 Jan 2010 22:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
For the heck of it then. Argue away.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 19 Jan 2010 19:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
|
Quote:
and last I checked lying is immoral
Without any religious foundation at all, how can you come to this conclusion?
Quote:
I'm no mad dog killer. Maybe you should look up some figures on such killers in prisons and find out how many of them call themselves Christian versus how many call themself atheist. You might be surprised.
If you're trying to make a point about Christians I'm not buying it. Just because you call yourself a Christian, it doesn't mean you are one.
Quote:
You don't need religion to have a conscience or values. The person who does good deeds of their own accord as opposed to the one who does good deeds because they think they're being watched- which is more moral?
If that's all you think being a good Christian is about, then you don't really understand Christianity at all.
Quote:
while the believer who thinks their victim is unaware can slink off and pray and possibly just feel better about themself instantly,
It takes more than just a simple apology, Pak. In order to repent, you have to really mean it in your heart. And the believer--if he really is a Christian--he would confess his sin to this person.
__________________"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
|
| Posted: 19 Jan 2010 22:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Without any religious foundation at all, how can you come to this conclusion?
Common sense, my own conscience, personal experience, because I was raised properly.
The same as when your religious foundation does not offer a ready answer and you have to figure out the right way to do somethng yourself.
Quote:
Just because you call yourself a Christian, it doesn't mean you are one.
Just as when some Christians look at another group or individual and say 'those are not REAL Christians' does not mean necessarily that they are not because of the proclamation. This is almost always the fallacy known as 'No True Scotsman' for a person to distance themselves from another that may be in the same group by some selected arbitrary standard.
Quote:
If that's all you think being a good Christian is about, then you don't really understand Christianity at all.
What you quoted to respond to did not say anything about Christianity specifically, much less make a blanket statement about the whole sum of any religion.
Quote:
In order to repent, you have to really mean it in your heart.
You'd figure if they REALLY meant it, they wouldn't have done it in the first place. This REALLY thing rears it's ugly face yet again.
Since you guys like to insist that you follow what's in the Book and not go 'off-script' tell me: What's the purely objective measure for a Christian to know that they 'really mean it in their heart'?
Quote:
And the believer--if he really is a Christian--he would confess his sin to this person.
Yet again with REALLY?
According to this and every other time I've heard it, Christians must seek forgiveness from God, not from the wronged party. This need to express the wrongdoing to the wronged party seems very much like one of the forementioned abitrary standards that are a part of 'No True Scotsman'.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
