Buttered on both sides

[quinntar]

Are you the kind of person who just accepts what other people think is moral or immoral? Have you weighed your moral judgments on the scales of evidence, or do you say "This is good or that is bad" based on what you believe?

 

Basically this is what Christianity asks, to believe that what it says about morality is correct. No you don't need an explanation or evidence for upholding a moral code, you just have to believe you know what's right & wrong. 

 

So the next time a Christian says something is immoral, ask them "Do you know it's wrong, or do you believe it's wrong" If they say they know, then ask them for the evidence.

 

So, what evidence do you actually have that can prove what God says is immoral is in fact immoral.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

A recent example I saw of this was a relative who posted a meme that said "if you have to sneak around to do it, you probably shouldn't be doing it". Another relative countered, "what about the underground railroad, and those who hid Jews from the Nazis?" The first relative said that "well of course those were good, if you have a higher standard, then you will always know". I countered with "but many in the church published sermons defending slavery back in the 1800s, and yet they had what you call a higher standard. She countered with "well people will always twist scriptures to fit their goals". The point of what I had said was that the Bible never forbids slavery, and gives instructions for how to treat slaves, and to not worry about it if one dies after beating because the slave is property. But she missed that. I guess she was twisting scriptures to fit her goals...

[quinntar]

7 minutes ago, Fuego said:

A recent example I saw of this was a relative who posted a meme that said "if you have to sneak around to do it, you probably shouldn't be doing it". Another relative countered, "what about the underground railroad, and those who hid Jews from the Nazis?" The first relative said that "well of course those were good, if you have a higher standard, then you will always know". I countered with "but many in the church published sermons defending slavery back in the 1800s, and yet they had what you call a higher standard. She countered with "well people will always twist scriptures to fit their goals". The point of what I had said was that the Bible never forbids slavery, and gives instructions for how to treat slaves, and to not worry about it if one dies after beating because the slave is property. But she missed that. I guess she was twisting scriptures to fit her goals...

This is a perfect example as how many hoop's a person needs to jump through if their moral standards are based on belief alone.

[MamaCaz]

18 minutes ago, Fuego said:

A recent example I saw of this was a relative who posted a meme that said "if you have to sneak around to do it, you probably shouldn't be doing it". Another relative countered, "what about the underground railroad, and those who hid Jews from the Nazis?" The first relative said that "well of course those were good, if you have a higher standard, then you will always know". I countered with "but many in the church published sermons defending slavery back in the 1800s, and yet they had what you call a higher standard. She countered with "well people will always twist scriptures to fit their goals". The point of what I had said was that the Bible never forbids slavery, and gives instructions for how to treat slaves, and to not worry about it if one dies after beating because the slave is property. But she missed that. I guess she was twisting scriptures to fit her goals...

 

This is exactly why there are 1000s of denominations/sects based off of one book.  Why can't they all see how subjective their "sure faith" is?  If everyone is right, how is anyone right?

[quinntar]

3 minutes ago, MamaCaz said:

 

This is exactly why there are 1000s of denominations/sects based off of one book.  Why can't they all see how subjective their "sure faith" is?  If everyone is right, how is anyone right?

Something about humans not wanting to share their  "Rightness" among each other. It's as if only one can possess the "truth" when they think they have it.

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, quinntar said:

Are you the kind of person who just accepts what other people think is moral or immoral? Have you weighed your moral judgments on the scales of evidence, or do you say "This is good or that is bad" based on what you believe?

 

Basically this is what Christianity asks, to believe that what it says about morality is correct. No you don't need an explanation or evidence for upholding a moral code, you just have to believe you know what's right & wrong. 

 

So the next time a Christian says something is immoral, ask them "Do you know it's wrong, or do you believe it's wrong" If they say they know, then ask them for the evidence.

 

So, what evidence do you actually have that can prove what God says is immoral is in fact immoral.

Lol, how do YOU know what is right or wrong before you start throwing stones at us poor Christians...

[quinntar]

4 minutes ago, end3 said:

Lol, how do YOU know what is right or wrong before you start throwing stones at us poor Christians...

Some thing's I know are right & wrong based on the evidence, but that's not the same as claiming those right & wrong thing's as good or evil. I'm not throwing stone's here, it's just that Christian's hold to a set of moral's that they have to believe in. They are not concerned with understanding why they believe certain thing's are right or wrong, and finding evidence to support their moral codes. No, they just accept that "God said it, and that settles it" 

[Geezer]

If there is no chance that you're going to be arrested or sent to prison for doing it, then it's more than likely okay to do it. 

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, quinntar said:

Some thing's I know are right & wrong based on the evidence, but that's not the same as claiming those right & wrong thing's as good or evil. I'm not throwing stone's here, it's just that Christian's hold to a set of moral's that they have to believe in. They are not concerned with understanding why they believe certain thing's are right or wrong, and finding evidence to support their moral codes. No, they just accept that "God said it, and that settles it" 

There are some on both sides of the toast...per your title.  There are those that go to church once a week for years asking those questions.  There are also those Christians as you note.  There are those non-believers that live their lives thinking about morality and those that don't. 

 

The point is there is no provable standard on either side.  You are right, Christians believe in a set Standard, faith, and an abridged list, the 10 commandments.  Non-believers go with cultural morality, and science as it changes.  I'll stay with the first choice given our culture and science's mantra, "we don't know"...

[florduh]

1 hour ago, end3 said:

"we don't know"...

That's the only honest answer. Science recognizes this but religion generally provides pat answers to everything anyway. Very clearly, to all but the most hopelessly indoctrinated minds, from the very beginning of the Bible with its creation story there are demonstrably no factual answers coming down from the firmament.

[quinntar]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

There are some on both sides of the toast...per your title.  There are those that go to church once a week for years asking those questions.  There are also those Christians as you note.  There are those non-believers that live their lives thinking about morality and those that don't. 

 

The point is there is no provable standard on either side.  You are right, Christians believe in a set Standard, faith, and an abridged list, the 10 commandments.  Non-believers go with cultural morality, and science as it changes.  I'll stay with the first choice given our culture and science's mantra, "we don't know"...

As we learn about ourselves & our universe the nature of our moral thinking will change with us. It is said "Accurate knowledge is the wealth of the world"

 

It is true that people on both side's of the loaf can do the opposite when it comes to moral thinking, but by far and large Bible God does not tell us why he made the rules the way he did, you just have to shut up and except it. 

 

"Do not go beyond what is written"

 

Yeah.

 

[quinntar]

3 hours ago, Geezer said:

If there is no chance that you're going to be arrested or sent to prison for doing it, then it's more than likely okay to do it. 

Sound reasoning, in a way. I'm thinking of the weakest link on that one.

[Aries256]

I take the logical way for judging what is moral. Not the religious way. One is based on reason, the other based on a hive mind mentality that has harmed millions since it’s wretched inception. 

[duderonomy]

On 10/2/2018 at 11:53 AM, quinntar said:

Some thing's I know are right & wrong based on the evidence, but that's not the same as claiming those right & wrong thing's as good or evil. I'm not throwing stone's here, it's just that Christian's hold to a set of moral's that they have to believe in. They are not concerned with understanding why they believe certain thing's are right or wrong, and finding evidence to support their moral codes. No, they just accept that "God said it, and that settles it" 

 

Evidence? You base your ideas of right or wrong on evidence? 

 

No offense meant, but your OP is really whack. What evidence do you have about what is right and what is wrong?

Do you have a 'set of morals' that you have to believe in, or do they change according to which way the wind is blowing? If they are set in stone, then I have to ask 'on what authority?' and if not, then how do you know that yours won't someday be the same as those whom you now disparage if they aren't set in stone by some authority and thus are subject to change?
 

Morals. Who says what they are, and what settles it? I'm just looking for some evidence from you quinntar, that's all. 

 

You said:   "Have you weighed your moral judgments on the scales of evidence, or do you say "This is good or that is bad" based on what you believe?"

 

Don't we all base our moral judgments on what we believe? How are yours different, and what makes yours better than anyone else's?

 

[quinntar]

56 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Evidence? You base your ideas of right or wrong on evidence? 

 

No offense meant, but your OP is really whack. What evidence do you have about what is right and what is wrong?

Do you have a 'set of morals' that you have to believe in, or do they change according to which way the wind is blowing? If they are set in stone, then I have to ask 'on what authority?' and if not, then how do you know that yours won't someday be the same as those whom you now disparage if they aren't set in stone by some authority and thus are subject to change?
 

Morals. Who says what they are, and what settles it? I'm just looking for some evidence from you quinntar, that's all. 

 

You said:   "Have you weighed your moral judgments on the scales of evidence, or do you say "This is good or that is bad" based on what you believe?"

 

Don't we all base our moral judgments on what we believe? How are yours different, and what makes yours better than anyone else's?

 

Don't discourage my learning process.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There is a difference between a law and a principle.  A law is set in stone by some higher authority, be it a god or a society, and may be based on a principle, such as, "you will not kill."  

 

Principles are more fluid.  Again, "You will not kill" is a good principle; but there are times when killing might be necessary to prevent worse.  Objectivity and emotion (or belief) could both play a role in the breaking of this principle, as well as any laws associated with it.

 

This is why there can be no "objective morality".  Life, such as it is, affords us too many situations in which our principles need to be sacrificed, revisited, changed, or called into question.  There are a few scenarios that can be seen in black and white; everything else is grey.

[duderonomy]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:49 AM, quinntar said:

Don't discourage my learning process.

 

I wouldn't do that quinntar, not on purpose.  Didn't you learn anything from the barrage of stuff I said? I meant no harm.