(September 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No never. Killing isn't immoral. Murder is immoral, because morality produces law.

I didn't say that killing was immoral-ergo your comments are irrelevant. Law and morality are separate issues (but we could have that discussion if you'd like, how one can inform the other - it's a different discussion).

So, morality isn't concerned with harm, morality doesn't have to do with harm? I can harm anyone I like, as much as I like...and morality says nothing? Is this christian morality we're speaking of...because I was taught something else entirely?

What is your rundown even supposed to mean Frodo? Looks like trollspeak to me- it doesn't even fucking follow...it's a non-statement. Is that all you wanted to comment upon? Are you engaging with me in dialogue, are you interested in actually getting what you requested?

Why are my examples unjust (are they not immoral)? Care to explain? -Why- wouldn't you accept the sacrifice of another's life to clear your parking tickets?

(September 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 27, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Would you agree that much of morality is concerned with harm? As in, the reason that murder, for example, is "immoral" has to do with harming another person.

No never. Killing isn't immoral. Murder is immoral, because morality produces law. Injustice = imbalance. That's where my thoughts on degree come in. All of your objections seem to be based upon an imbalance between sacrifice and debt. You cite unjust examples which results in you missing the point, and concluding what you do. Incorrectly.

---

(September 27, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: But to be simply human, with all of our frailties and such, why do I need someone to save me ...from that?

''Not deserving of something'' implies that I've done something wrong, and I need a savior to excuse me. That is the main problem I have with Christianity...this notion that being human is somehow...''sinful'' in and of itself.

You have the option of accepting 2nd best. Living with your flawed nature and making the best of it. Nobody said that you didn't deserve salvation. We're all offered it freely, so that would mean you must deserve it right? You're given the freedom to either accept it or reject it.

Christianity takes the populist view that humanity is flawed, yes. We're not perfect. Are you happy with your lot and live your life to the best of your ability? Then you're living with your flaws.

But, why am I being offered it (grace/salvation) at all? If God made mankind 'perfect,' why did he need to send a savior to redeem us? What am I being saved from, and what am I rejecting? I'm a former Christian, but my reason for departing it had to do with the fallacy of believing that I deserve basically a place called hell, if I choose to 'reject' God's 'free gift' of salvation. Why would God create such a puzzling format for mankind to follow?

When you break it down, it would seem that Christianity is built on one giant puzzle, and God holds the piece that you'll never find.

(September 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You have the option of accepting 2nd best. Living with your flawed nature and making the best of it. Nobody said that you didn't deserve salvation. We're all offered it freely, so that would mean you must deserve it right? You're given the freedom to either accept it or reject it.

This smacks of the "Emperor's New Cloths". We, by rejecting the invisible suit must have to make do with 2nd best as you tell it. But from our perspective your cloths are invisible or non-existent. We see no elevated nature, we just see the foolish emperor strolling down the street naked.

(September 27, 2014 at 5:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: It's currently sunny, weather in the 70s, some clouds in the sky. Is this usually the direction Christians take the conversation when it becomes evident how fruitless their attempts at rationalizing a patently absurd and inhumane faith is?

Towel accepted

---

(September 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, morality isn't concerned with harm, morality doesn't have to do with harm? I can harm anyone I like, as much as I like...and morality says nothing? Is this christian morality we're speaking of...because I was taught something else entirely?

I said the opposite

I think you stopped reading what I wrote 2 posts ago. If you'd like to continue I'll wait for you to address my points. Enjoy urinating into the wind in the meantime.

---

(September 27, 2014 at 5:34 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: But, why am I being offered it (grace/salvation) at all? If God made mankind 'perfect,' why did he need to send a savior to redeem us? What am I being saved from, and what am I rejecting? I'm a former Christian, but my reason for departing it had to do with the fallacy of believing that I deserve basically a place called hell, if I choose to 'reject' God's 'free gift' of salvation. Why would God create such a puzzling format for mankind to follow?

When you break it down, it would seem that Christianity is built on one giant puzzle, and God holds the piece that you'll never find.

You are being offered salvation because you're not perfect and to have it would let you live like you were. Forgiven for your flaws.
You are being saved from your life draining actions. You're rejecting a better life.
Yes, if you reject the gift then you choose to suffer. God doesn't make you suffer. You do. By choice. You make the most of your limitations.

I don't think it's puzzling. I think it's very simple. It is what you make of it. In opposition you're looking to criticise it.

---

(September 28, 2014 at 1:51 am)whateverist Wrote: This smacks of the "Emperor's New Cloths". We, by rejecting the invisible suit must have to make do with 2nd best as you tell it. But from our perspective your cloths are invisible or non-existent. We see no elevated nature, we just see the foolish emperor strolling down the street naked.

I agree that the result makes Christians no better than any one else. But that's the point don't you see... that we're accepted, warts and all. The difference is that we should be forgiven and be accepted for our flawed selves. There's the breaker between living with our flawed reality or living as if we weren't flawed, and able to live more fully <--- that's the sole purpose of our faith.

A perfect Carpenter, by definition, doesn't build a crooked cabinet. The fact that God allegedly made imperfect man is evidence of this putative god's iperfection at the very least.

(September 28, 2014 at 2:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I said the opposite

I think you stopped reading what I wrote 2 posts ago. If you'd like to continue I'll wait for you to address my points. Enjoy urinating into the wind in the meantime.

No, Frodo, you didn't say the opposite. I quoted you then, I'll quote you again. If you meant to say the opposite, fine.

I didn't ask you about justice, I asked you about morality, so your points were (and remain) irrelevant. Nevertheless, I gave you the opportunity to develop them further - because I doubt that you'll be able to argue for vicarious redemption along those lines either. I doubt that you be able to argue for it along -any- lines, frankly.

My objections have nothing to do with an imbalance, balance is not a criteria that I find to be salient either for morality or justice. If balance were a factor....it would have nothing to do with my objection. I wouldn't be interested in balancing out the scales of my failings with another's life - even if it were possible to do so. This has been my position for the entirety of the thread. As I've said many times, if this is how the cosmos is arranged, then so be it - I'm uninterested, because it is immoral.

Is there such a point for you, whereby the life of another is both capable of "balancing" some weight created by your own inequity - and acceptable to you as payment for the same? Perhaps, if you had -a great many- parking tickets you would accept someone else's life as suitable payment? Is there some point at which such a trade becomes just or moral - in balance? Care to do a little math on that count, for the benefit of those who don't get it?

(I'm content to attack your positions day in and day out, if you insist upon redirecting the conversation that way, clearly - as I stated long ago, I think that christians have compartmentalized this jesus business. I'm going to insist that you apply a consistent standard to vicarious redemption and parking tickets)

(September 28, 2014 at 2:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Towel accepted

Then you should follow his advice.

(September 28, 2014 at 8:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: A perfect Carpenter, by definition, doesn't build a crooked cabinet. The fact that God allegedly made imperfect man is evidence of this putative god's iperfection at the very least.

What if perfection is in the imperfection? What if imperfection was the deliberate design?

Reality is, it's what we have to deal with.

Then a payment for such seems a bit of a charade. If that's reality, so be it. It's immoral, I'm uninterested.

-I deliberately designed this toy to be broken, and a payment is owed to "fix it"- No dice.

Rhythm, you might add, according to Frodo's logic, "A payment is owed to myself, and I myself am the payment."