No Shit Sherlock

[Guest end3]

 

We're all immoral lady....even you.

The "we're all immoral" thing is very bad.  If it's a translation of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," then I deny that "immoral" and "sinning" (or the equivalent) have the same meaning.  If there are no theological connotations in what you said, end, then it still makes a huge difference what a person does.  To divide the human race into the set of the "moral" - which you claim is a null set - and the set of the "immoral" is a bifurcation fallacy.  It occludes the huge and completely relevant distinctions among behavior, which are what matters.

 

It doesn't matter F. The point of a fallen world basically nullifies your commentary here. There are NONE of us that done have bad thoughts. Granted this all hinges on this particular religion, but observation of believers and non believers striving for the same end result leaves little room for other conclusions imo. Regardless, there is the whole discussion of faith without works that goes along with your explanation. To my knowledge, the conclusion is works alone will not save.

 

The question is, was even Eden a place of perfect nature and nurture...and why not.

[♦ ficino ♦]

OK, end, i see that you are rely on theological categories throughout in what you say.  "The point of a fallen world" etc. relies on theological assumptions.

 

But the terms "moral" and "immoral", unlike "sinning" and "righteous," are not particularly theological or religious terms.  They are used by everyone.  So if you're going to use a neutral word like "immoral" to describe nz, though, you need to show examples of her behavior that anyone, religious or not, would consider immoral.  

 

Only in religious traditions, as far as I know, do thoughts of themselves count as moral or immoral.  Those terms have to do with a person's pattern of behavior, from which observers get an overall sense of that person's character (mores in Latin can mean "customs" and "character").

[Guest end3]

OK, end, i see that you are rely on theological categories throughout in what you say.  "The point of a fallen world" etc. relies on theological assumptions.

 

But the terms "moral" and "immoral", unlike "sinning" and "righteous," are not particularly theological or religious terms.  They are used by everyone.  So if you're going to use a neutral word like "immoral" to describe nz, though, you need to show examples of her behavior that anyone, religious or not, would consider immoral.  

 

Only in religious traditions, as far as I know, do thoughts of themselves count as moral or immoral.  Those terms have to do with a person's pattern of behavior, from which observers get an overall sense of that person's character (mores in Latin can mean "customs" and "character").

Thanks, I see your point, but I don't know how thoughts don't ultimately effect the outcome. Also, unless we CAN predict what another needs, I don't see our behavior as anything but faithful as well.

 

I guess my mind is so used to framing in a particular view, I don't see often see outside the frame.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I know what you mean about frames.

 

As to thoughts, I would acknowledge that some patterns of thought are bad for the person thinking.  And I agree that it seems a pattern of thought can precede behavior.  But it need not.  Don't you restrain yourself from acting on some of your thoughts or impulses?  We all do if we've succeeded in becoming kindergarteners.

 

And I reject the statements attributed to Jesus, that he who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart, etc.  Maybe Jesus was using some special sense of "lust" known only to theologians and biblical scholars (heh heh).  If the word is supposed to mean simply "sexual desire," then I can agree that a religion may say that any instance of sexual desire constitutes "sin" - though I add that such a doctrine is just dumb.  But I don't think there is a way that feelings of sexual desire can be called "immoral" acc. to generally accepted meanings of "immoral."  

 

Same with pairs like justice/righteousness, belief/faith, etc.  It would be an equivocation fallacy to use theologically charged terms as though they are neutral, non-religious terms and then use them as theological terms in another part of the same argument. And conversely, it would at least misuse language to use religiously neutral terms as they are used in theological discourse without signalling to the listener their special sense.

[Roz]

OK, end, i see that you are rely on theological categories throughout in what you say.  "The point of a fallen world" etc. relies on theological assumptions.

 

But the terms "moral" and "immoral", unlike "sinning" and "righteous," are not particularly theological or religious terms.  They are used by everyone.  So if you're going to use a neutral word like "immoral" to describe nz, though, you need to show examples of her behavior that anyone, religious or not, would consider immoral.  

 

Only in religious traditions, as far as I know, do thoughts of themselves count as moral or immoral.  Those terms have to do with a person's pattern of behavior, from which observers get an overall sense of that person's character (mores in Latin can mean "customs" and "character").

 

Can christians really take off their jesus goggles?  Can they really see how secular morality works?  From FTNZ's and the christian's words, we see that one will actually participate in whatever is commanded to them by the religious authority of their choosing.  The other said that if she had known this, she wouldn't have gone through with it.  

 

"Roz,

 

  Let me attempt an answer.  If the God of the OT were in front of me, I might surely do what he told me to do."

 

vs:

 

" I wasn't like that.  I didn't know enough about xianity to think like that."

 

Why did one say they'll go through with the executions and the other said no?  Jesus glasses.  God-is-good-god-is-good-my-god-is-the-true-god keeps going on and on in their head because it's been drilled into them, so because they think he's good, they'll obey because those commands have to be good commands.

[Neverlandrut]

Seems like you're going to have to dismiss many definitions as unreal Roz. I don't know the mechanism God uses to communicate Spirit. To your question about why it all doesn't match is everyone is in a different circumstance and place in their walk with Christ. If it's a perfect plan by God, you would never know at this point Roz.

 

Answered your questions. We can talk epigenetics now?

Sounds like a bunch of "I don't knows" plus a lot of undefined terms: god, spirit, walk with Christ.

 

I don't know much about epigenetics, but are you insinuating that it is some how morally good to kill entire people groups based on science? Or at least excuse god for doing it in the bible? Surely an all powerful god could find a better way to deal with people than a violent way that violates our moral conscience.

[thereisnoperfect]

No, Eden was not perfect in nature and nurture. If they were perfect, they could not have chosen falsely. And since perfection is static, if they were perfect they could not change. And if they were perfect, there would be no evolution, but there is.

 

You might want to stop to think--if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths to try to come up with a defense for genocide (and note that the lengths you have to go to is saying that some people are predisposed to be more evil than others, when your stated position is that we are all evil)--if you have to go to those lengths, maybe there's no justification for genocide after all.

[Guest end3]

No, Eden was not perfect in nature and nurture. If they were perfect, they could not have chosen falsely. And since perfection is static, if they were perfect they could not change. And if they were perfect, there would be no evolution, but there is.

 

You might want to stop to think--if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths to try to come up with a defense for genocide (and note that the lengths you have to go to is saying that some people are predisposed to be more evil than others, when your stated position is that we are all evil)--if you have to go to those lengths, maybe there's no justification for genocide after all.

I'm sorry but we don't have complete perspective. What is justified to us may be completely unjust. The original message is no different than is the final....judgment. Immediate judgment in His presence or judgment at a later date. Based on what I can make of the story, we are either in or out. We just don't like that scenario.....which is also a theme in the Book.

[Guest end3]

 

Seems like you're going to have to dismiss many definitions as unreal Roz. I don't know the mechanism God uses to communicate Spirit. To your question about why it all doesn't match is everyone is in a different circumstance and place in their walk with Christ. If it's a perfect plan by God, you would never know at this point Roz.

 

Answered your questions. We can talk epigenetics now?

Sounds like a bunch of "I don't knows" plus a lot of undefined terms: god, spirit, walk with Christ.

 

I don't know much about epigenetics, but are you insinuating that it is some how morally good to kill entire people groups based on science? Or at least excuse god for doing it in the bible? Surely an all powerful god could find a better way to deal with people than a violent way that violates our moral conscience.

 

I somewhat agree. It goes back to the free will argument and what is the motivation of God there. I don't know that we WILL know until later.....IF there is a later. I have faith there is.

[Roz]

1 Sam 15

³ Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

-Koran 9:29

 

"Surrendered people obey God's word; even if it doesn't make sense."

-Rick Warren, the purpose driven life

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 Based on what I can make of the story, we are either in or out. We just don't like that scenario.....which is also a theme in the Book.

 

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

 

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

 

We are either in or out?  According to what?  The arbitrary judgment of an arbitrary god whose morality is so far beneath us as to cause the bile to rise in our throats?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Why are these xians we meet here so immoral?  I wasn't like that.  I didn't know enough about xianity to think like that.

 

They are so unpleasant to be around.

We're all immoral lady....even you.

 

Actually almost all humans have an inner moral compass that makes them far more moral than your god.  My own morality is not clouded by belief in that god.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Why are these xians we meet here so immoral?  I wasn't like that.  I didn't know enough about xianity to think like that.

 

They are so unpleasant to be around.

We're all immoral lady....even you.

 

Actually almost all humans have an inner moral compass that makes them far more moral than your god.  My own morality is not clouded by belief in that god.

 

Unclouded equals what, relative?

[Guest end3]

 

Based on what I can make of the story, we are either in or out. We just don't like that scenario.....which is also a theme in the Book.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13[/size]

 

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21[/size]

 

We are either in or out?  According to what?  The arbitrary judgment of an arbitrary god whose morality is so far beneath us as to cause the bile to rise in our throats?[/size]

 

What are you confused about? He that does is he that believes to the point of action. And you are presumptive regarding what "shall" be. Do you actually know the steps of God to execute shall? Do we spend an age in hell to change our mind about salvation, about every knee shall bend?

[mymistake]

 

 

Based on what I can make of the story, we are either in or out. We just don't like that scenario.....which is also a theme in the Book.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13[/size]

 

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21[/size]

 

We are either in or out?  According to what?  The arbitrary judgment of an arbitrary god whose morality is so far beneath us as to cause the bile to rise in our throats?[/size]

 

What are you confused about? He that does is he that believes to the point of action. And you are presumptive regarding what "shall" be. Do you actually know the steps of God to execute shall? Do we spend an age in hell to change our mind about salvation, about every knee shall bend?

 

 

 

It's sad to watch the long term affect of theology on the human mind.

 

Romans 10:13 contradicts Matthew 7:21.  At least one of them has to be wrong. 

 

There are no real steps for an imaginary being "to execute shall".

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Based on what I can make of the story, we are either in or out. We just don't like that scenario.....which is also a theme in the Book.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13[/size]

 

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21[/size]

 

We are either in or out?  According to what?  The arbitrary judgment of an arbitrary god whose morality is so far beneath us as to cause the bile to rise in our throats?[/size]

 

What are you confused about? He that does is he that believes to the point of action. And you are presumptive regarding what "shall" be. Do you actually know the steps of God to execute shall? Do we spend an age in hell to change our mind about salvation, about every knee shall bend?

 

 

 

It's sad to watch the long term affect of theology on the human mind.

 

Romans 10:13 contradicts Matthew 7:21.  At least one of them has to be wrong. 

 

There are no real steps for an imaginary being "to execute shall".

 

What's sad MM is to watch perseverance turn into quitting and subsequent rationalization.

[Guest end3]

And thinking about it MM.....not too bright a statement. You are more than willing for science to revise itself, but you won't allow for your own Spiritual revision?

[RipVanWinkle]

End3. Crawl back on that limb you got yourself on. You have now placed yourself in alliance with those who carried out the holocaust. Hitler, who claimed he would always be a Catholic, manipulated his

christian followers to gladly commit genocide on 6 million Jews. It doesn't matter whether Hitler

really was a Xtian or not. The Holocaust never could have happened without the German's and other

European Xtians' insane belief that all Jews then living were responsible for the death of christ 2

thousand years before they were born.

 

These Xtians thought they were doing the will of god by the mass killing of Jews of all ages.You have

alligned yourself with that kind of thinking.If you are not able to see that god would not order order

or condone such horrible conduct without your recognizing how utterly distorted that thinking is and

what it can lead to by any faith-based religion, you are indeed depraved. Can't you see that yours is a formula for disaster? It justifies mass murder by all faith-based religions.

 

You have engaged in wild, fantastic and distorted reasoning in order to arrived at a conclusion devoid of human kindness and empathy just to save your own neck from the myth of hell. It is cowardly beyond

comprehension. Come back to the world of sanity. Please. From another "stupid" exchristian. bill

[thereisnoperfect]

And then Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Treat others as you would have them be treated. Except the Amelikites, because fuck them."

 

And Thomas asked, "Um, Lord? That sounds kind of...evil."

 

And Jesus said, "Well, see, when I created humans I made genetics, and they've got bad genetics. It makes them prone to violence."

 

And John said, "Then why don't you fix them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Nah, didn't want to waste a miracle on foreigners."

 

And Phillip said, "Well, couldn't you change their genetics by an interbreeding program, or by showing the Israelites how to educate them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Takes too long. I decided the best way to deal with their threat of violence was by ordering the Israelites to slaughter every last one of them."

 

And Bartholomew said, "So the end justifies the means, even if the means is the exact thing you're trying to fix?"

 

And Jesus says, "You just don't see the complete picture."

 

 

We don't see the complete picture. We never will. The question is what we do with our incomplete and imperfect knowledge. Because "you don't understand because you don't see the complete picture" can be used to justify anything:

• God says that we need to fly planes into buildings.
• God says that we should enslave everyone of African descent.
• God says that women are inferior and only good for child-bearing.
• God says we should let AIDS run unchecked because it's his punishment on certain people.
• God says we should kill the Amelikites except for the ones we rape.

 

And now End might say, "But god didn't really say all of those things."

 

To which I say, "People said that god said them--in every single case." That's all we ever have, is people saying god said this. 

 

Those of us here look at that list and we say, "my reason and moral judgment tells me those things are wrong. Either god never said them or god should not be followed. They are obviously unjust and harmful things to do."

 

End says, "I don't have the complete picture, so I do whatever god tells me to do."

 

Which of those positions is more rational? Which position has done more demonstrable good in the world? Which position is less likely to be misled by someone who is evil or themselves misled?

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

Why are these xians we meet here so immoral? I wasn't like that. I didn't know enough about xianity to think like that.

 

They are so unpleasant to be around.

We're all immoral lady....even you.

Actually almost all humans have an inner moral compass that makes them far more moral than your god. My own morality is not clouded by belief in that god.

Unclouded equals what, relative?

Perhaps. But neither moral relativism nor objective morality are in god's favor. If morality is relative, then we cannot trust our moral sense to know that god is moral. There is no objective basis to recognize god's goodness. If morality is objective, then god commanded things which are against good morals. Therefore god is not good.

[Guest end3]

And then Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Treat others as you would have them be treated. Except the Amelikites, because fuck them."

 

And Thomas asked, "Um, Lord? That sounds kind of...evil."

 

And Jesus said, "Well, see, when I created humans I made genetics, and they've got bad genetics. It makes them prone to violence."

 

And John said, "Then why don't you fix them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Nah, didn't want to waste a miracle on foreigners."

 

And Phillip said, "Well, couldn't you change their genetics by an interbreeding program, or by showing the Israelites how to educate them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Takes too long. I decided the best way to deal with their threat of violence was by ordering the Israelites to slaughter every last one of them."

 

And Bartholomew said, "So the end justifies the means, even if the means is the exact thing you're trying to fix?"

 

And Jesus says, "You just don't see the complete picture."

 

 

We don't see the complete picture. We never will. The question is what we do with our incomplete and imperfect knowledge. Because "you don't understand because you don't see the complete picture" can be used to justify anything:

• God says that we need to fly planes into buildings.
• God says that we should enslave everyone of African descent.
• God says that women are inferior and only good for child-bearing.
• God says we should let AIDS run unchecked because it's his punishment on certain people.
• God says we should kill the Amelikites except for the ones we rape.

And now End might say, "But god didn't really say all of those things."

 

To which I say, "People said that god said them--in every single case." That's all we ever have, is people saying god said this. 

 

Those of us here look at that list and we say, "my reason and moral judgment tells me those things are wrong. Either god never said them or god should not be followed. They are obviously unjust and harmful things to do."

 

End says, "I don't have the complete picture, so I do whatever god tells me to do."

 

Which of those positions is more rational? Which position has done more demonstrable good in the world? Which position is less likely to be misled by someone who is evil or themselves misled?

 

Sometimes y'all are incredibly stupid, much like this response. Please go re-read what I have posted and TRY, to the best of your limited ability, to garner the concept.

 

Let me help. ALLLLLLLLLLL people are worthy of death per the same genetic dysfunction. Grace is in place at this time. The Standard is absolute.

 

You people act like you wrote the standard.

 

Temporary good does not come close to making things good throughout. And, there is no way for you to predict this nor enact this other than to have FAITH that you are acting in that behalf.

 

Quit, I implore you, being so fucking retarded.

 

Thanks

[Neverlandrut]

Let me get this straight... If I'm understanding right, end3, you would do anything god commanded you, even if it goes against your moral conscience? If you answer yes, then you do not trust your moral judgment because you relieve god's moral judgment is superior. If you do not trust your moral judgment, how did you come to the determination that god is moral? There would be absolutely no way to do so! You absolutely must use your moral judgment to decide that god is good/trustworthy. If you don't trust your moral judgment, then you have absolutely no basis on which to know that god is good/trustworthy/worth obeying. If you agree that you don't know god is good, then why the hell would you obey him?? If you obey him anyway, not knowing if he is good, just because he's more powerful or something, then you are completely giving up your reasoning abilities as a moral agent in order to be some cosmic dictator's pawn!

 

There is no way around this. You can either trust your moral judgment, or you can't. If you can, then the god of the bible is evil. If you can't trust your moral judgment, then you have no idea what this god is really like, and you are forcing yourself to obey something that commands things which go against your own moral conscience.

[Neverlandrut]

 

And then Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Treat others as you would have them be treated. Except the Amelikites, because fuck them."

 

And Thomas asked, "Um, Lord? That sounds kind of...evil."

 

And Jesus said, "Well, see, when I created humans I made genetics, and they've got bad genetics. It makes them prone to violence."

 

And John said, "Then why don't you fix them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Nah, didn't want to waste a miracle on foreigners."

 

And Phillip said, "Well, couldn't you change their genetics by an interbreeding program, or by showing the Israelites how to educate them?"

 

And Jesus said, "Takes too long. I decided the best way to deal with their threat of violence was by ordering the Israelites to slaughter every last one of them."

 

And Bartholomew said, "So the end justifies the means, even if the means is the exact thing you're trying to fix?"

 

And Jesus says, "You just don't see the complete picture."

 

 

We don't see the complete picture. We never will. The question is what we do with our incomplete and imperfect knowledge. Because "you don't understand because you don't see the complete picture" can be used to justify anything:

• God says that we need to fly planes into buildings.
• God says that we should enslave everyone of African descent.
• God says that women are inferior and only good for child-bearing.
• God says we should let AIDS run unchecked because it's his punishment on certain people.
• God says we should kill the Amelikites except for the ones we rape.

And now End might say, "But god didn't really say all of those things."

 

To which I say, "People said that god said them--in every single case." That's all we ever have, is people saying god said this.

 

Those of us here look at that list and we say, "my reason and moral judgment tells me those things are wrong. Either god never said them or god should not be followed. They are obviously unjust and harmful things to do."

 

End says, "I don't have the complete picture, so I do whatever god tells me to do."

 

Which of those positions is more rational? Which position has done more demonstrable good in the world? Which position is less likely to be misled by someone who is evil or themselves misled?

Sometimes y'all are incredibly stupid, much like this response. Please go re-read what I have posted and TRY, to the best of your limited ability, to garner the concept.

 

Let me help. ALLLLLLLLLLL people are worthy of death per the same genetic dysfunction. Grace is in place at this time. The Standard is absolute.

 

You people act like you wrote the standard.

 

Temporary good does not come close to making things good throughout. And, there is no way for you to predict this nor enact this other than to have FAITH that you are acting in that behalf.

 

Quit, I implore you, being so fucking retarded.

 

Thanks

So you think the nursing babies that god commanded be killed actually deserved to die because they were born in a time before Jesus (dispensation of grace)?

[Guest end3]

So you think the nursing babies that god commanded be killed actually deserved to die because they were born in a time before Jesus (dispensation of grace)?

No, personally I don't, BUT, it appears via science that the "sins" of the fathers can genetically alter the outcome of the child. So ultimately, if one were trying to undo what has been done, I could see wiping out a population....in THEORY. So there are Scriptures that support this science as well as admonitions of Christ saying let me be the judge. But hell, it's all a coincidence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm beginning to understand what is meant by the phrase "The End3 justifies the means."