chefranden Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think that this lettered dude, LNC, or what ever has me on ignore. But for what its worth: If you, dear reader, don't believe in the existence of clowns what would be the best way to show you that clowns exist? Wouldn't it be best to take you to the circus instead getting all philosophical about how clowns have to exist? But apparently according to LNC the only way see if clowns exist is to first agree they exist. Only then can you go to the circus. "we first have to agree that objective moral values exist before we can define what they are. God, by common definition has an unchanging nature as he is the greatest possible being."(LNC) Excitement ensues when LNC decides to "Send in the Clowns". Yey, finely! Put down your popcorn and come on out from behind that big slug of cotton candy. Listen to the band, "dah dah da da da da dee dum de dum!" Here they come!? "I argue that objective moral values are derived from God's eternal and unchanging nature (ontology) and that we know them via our consciences and via revelation. The Bible is both a revelation of God, his nature, and his moral guidance for our lives and it is also a story of man's failed attempt to live life apart from God's will. However, the culmination of the story is that Jesus came to earth in our form, lived a perfect life, and died a substitutionary death as payment for our sins and separation from God so that we could be in fellowship with him once again. I agree with you that personal experience and logic alone cannot get us to objective moral values. We can understand them using these faculties; however, we need revelation to fill in the picture and the details."(LNC) Hey what the fuck? The ring is empty? I don't see any clowns, Do clowns not exist after all? Can't we see just one clown? The one clown that makes every one laugh? Just one, please. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the absolute moral word of God is the bible? The book that produces sect after sect that can't stand each other and have even killed each other, is the absolute moral word of God? The book that calls that mercenary wife stealing neighbor fucking terrorist for hire, David a man after God's own heart? A book in which God kills David's baby for David's sin and then later has the gall to say, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son." The book in which not even God can be demonstrated to have an absolute moral code is the absolute moral code? Shades of Billy Mays, "But wait there's more..." OOO MY, I must have a different definition of objective absolute than Christians do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 On the subject of absolute morality in the bible I'd just like to ask Christians the question. Which is morally worse, a girl engaging in pre-marital sex, or a man raping a young non-engaged girl. Because the first is punishable by death so that the evil shall be put away from you, whereas the second is punishable by a 50 shekel fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 "we first have to agree that objective moral values exist before we can define what they are. God, by common definition has an unchanging nature as he is the greatest possible being." (LNC) Excitement ensues when LNC decides to "Send in the Clowns". Yey, finely! Put down your popcorn and come on out from behind that big slug of cotton candy. Listen to the band, "dah dah da da da da dee dum de dum!" Here they come!? Oh, gee thanks Chef. Now I have circus music loops in my head, and I can't stop it! "I argue that objective moral values are derived from God's eternal and unchanging nature (ontology) and that we know them via our consciences and via revelation. The Bible is both a revelation of God, his nature, and his moral guidance for our lives and it is also a story of man's failed attempt to live life apart from God's will. However, the culmination of the story is that Jesus came to earth in our form, lived a perfect life, and died a substitutionary death as payment for our sins and separation from God so that we could be in fellowship with him once again. I agree with you that personal experience and logic alone cannot get us to objective moral values. We can understand them using these faculties; however, we need revelation to fill in the picture and the details." (LNC) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the absolute moral word of God is the bible? The book that produces sect after sect that can't stand each other and have even killed each other, is the absolute moral word of God? The book that calls that mercenary wife stealing neighbor fucking terrorist for hire, David a man after God's own heart? A book in which God kills David's baby for David's sin and then later has the gall to say, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son." The book in which not even God can be demonstrated to have an absolute moral code is the absolute moral code? Shades of Billy Mays, "But wait there's more..." OOO MY, I must have a different definition of objective absolute than Christians do. I thank you for starting the thread with those quotes from the locked thread. I could'nt resist quoting them either because my jaw dropped when I read his response (in One Man's God to hans). I am sooo flabbergasted that LNC dressed his beliefs up in worldly philosophy-a sin for him to use-to cover up his true beliefs. He could have saved his fingers the trouble and just gotten to the point that the bible is his basis for morals and god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 On the subject of absolute morality in the bible I'd just like to ask Christians the question. Which is morally worse, a girl engaging in pre-marital sex, or a man raping a young non-engaged girl. Because the first is punishable by death so that the evil shall be put away from you, whereas the second is punishable by a 50 shekel fine. I ain't no christian, but the bible got it right. The men have to marry virgins, dude! Remember, women are property then and now in the middle east! Another reason to expose the immorality in the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Good post, Chef. I think LNC is using a bait-and-switch technique. He's arguing, "A first cause must exist", and it leads to "A God must exist", which leads to, "That God is my God", and is followed by, "My God is absolute", and then "Morals are Absolute", which makes him state "Absolute Morals come from God, because God is Absolute and Morals are Absolute" and then he defines absolute morals as "Revealed", but then claim that "revealed" is the same as reading a book, and of course it's no book other than the book he believes in. My problem with "absolute morals" is first of all, why can we find different morals in the world and other cultures if they're supposedly absolute? And secondly, what the heck does "absolute" even mean? Does it mean "universal" for all humans, or "universal" for all creatures in existence (past, present, future)? Does it apply to angels and demons? Does it apply to ants? Does it apply to aliens from Orion 5? Since LNC never have presented one single example of absolute moral, I can only conclude he's fishing for followers. Nothing but a cult-leader who wants disciples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 "we first have to agree that objective moral values exist before we can define what they are. God, by common definition has an unchanging nature as he is the greatest possible being."(LNC) Good post Chefranden. Indeed, send in the clowns! The above statement pretty well sums up what we are dealing with here. We can't define what it is , but it exists because LNC believes in the Bible and as we have all heard " 'cause the Bible tells me so." Surely one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever seen here on Ex-C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 obey hypnotoad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 chefranden, I believe that LNC said in the Ehrman thread about Mark and the gospels that he would be out of pocket for two weeks. we first have to agree that objective moral values exist before we can define what they are. God, by common definition has an unchanging nature as he is the greatest possible being. (LNC) First, LNC gave a poor restatement of the ontological argument. Secondly, the premise that 'an unchanging nature' is a necessary property of the greatest possible being is not established. That's a platonic or Aristotelian assumption. At least one ancient Greek philosopher and today's process philosophers would disagree with him. I argue that objective moral values are derived from God's eternal and unchanging nature (ontology) and that we know them via our consciences and via revelation. 1. What? Does he mean to say that the fact that we have a conscience is proof that we know God's eternal nature? I argue that a conscience is mostly conditioned responses, like the puppy who creeps along the wall to his bed with his tail tucked between his legs after diddling on the floor. It has been shamed and disciplined until it "feels bad" for what it did. And what about people born without consciences like sociopaths? Does that make them innocent in the eyes of god because they cannot feel remorse for what they do? No conscience = no knowledge of god's eternal nature = no accountability. 2. Does he mean to say that our consciences are imbued with knowledge of this supposed objective morality? That we all know the same right and the same wrong in similar situations? Besides sounding patently ridiculous at the onset, there is just no evidence for that. 3. Revelation. I've seen LNC's opinions in the Bart Ehrman thread. The thing is, there is so little evidence that gives merit to support the idea that any given set of texts is the official revelation of the supposed unchanging god. The standards of evidence for such a revelation would have to be so much higher than for historical or even judiciary issues. First there are the extraordinary claims about miracles ; and secondly, the extreme claim that said revelation makes on our lives - total, unreserved commitment of one's life and will, at the risk of eternal torment. This revelation is so unevenly distributed as well. There are so many people who have not read the alleged revelation (assuming that is what is meant here by revelation) that it is a poor way to hold people responsible for their relationship with god. Therefore the notion that an unchanging god has been made known through our consciences and through revelation is insufficient for informing people what moral system to follow and holding them accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think that this lettered dude, LNC, or what ever has me on ignore. But for what its worth: If you, dear reader, don't believe in the existence of clowns what would be the best way to show you that clowns exist? Wouldn't it be best to take you to the circus instead getting all philosophical about how clowns have to exist? But apparently according to LNC the only way see if clowns exist is to first agree they exist. Only then can you go to the circus. "we first have to agree that objective moral values exist before we can define what they are. God, by common definition has an unchanging nature as he is the greatest possible being."(LNC) Excitement ensues when LNC decides to "Send in the Clowns". Yey, finely! Put down your popcorn and come on out from behind that big slug of cotton candy. Listen to the band, "dah dah da da da da dee dum de dum!" Here they come!? "I argue that objective moral values are derived from God's eternal and unchanging nature (ontology) and that we know them via our consciences and via revelation. The Bible is both a revelation of God, his nature, and his moral guidance for our lives and it is also a story of man's failed attempt to live life apart from God's will. However, the culmination of the story is that Jesus came to earth in our form, lived a perfect life, and died a substitutionary death as payment for our sins and separation from God so that we could be in fellowship with him once again. I agree with you that personal experience and logic alone cannot get us to objective moral values. We can understand them using these faculties; however, we need revelation to fill in the picture and the details."(LNC) Hey what the fuck? The ring is empty? I don't see any clowns, Do clowns not exist after all? Can't we see just one clown? The one clown that makes every one laugh? Just one, please. That's the problem. I read LNC's various grand assertions and never see them actually established as truth, as facts, or binding on anyone other than believers. It's a grand game of reality by assertion, where simply asserting things makes them real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ...Snip It's a grand game of reality by assertion, where simply asserting things makes them real. Hence his moniker "I'm Right Because I say I'm Right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts