Quote:But without God, there would be no such thing as moral choices. 

Does that make more sense?

No, it doesn't.  Not a lick.  It is, in fact, completely non-sensical.  

(June 21, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Really?  Where does it prohibit slavery in the Bible?  Didn't the Catholic church actually own slaves in North and South America?

The America abolitionist movement pitted church against church with many churches declaring slavery to be the will of god.  The earliest anti-slavery proponents were free-thinkers. http://www.freethought-trail.org/profile...use&Page=1  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought  Funny it should take atheists to get the ball rolling.

As for the prohibition of slavery in the Bible, my response would be that general principles espoused in the Bible led to the elimination of slavery as it was practiced in times much closer to our own. It was the TRAJECTORY of Christianity that made this eventually possible.

You might want to learn a bit about William Wilberforce.

Sorry but no, far from being trajectory of change for the better, the Christian era saw a new form of slavery in serfdom during the middle ages.  The church did ransom Christian slaves and prohibit the holding of Christian slaves.  But  Papal Bulls such as ]Dum Diversas, sanctioned slavery of non Christians and were used to justify enslavement of natives and the appropriation of their lands during the 14 and 15 hundreds.  By 17th and 18th centuries a less personal and much more brutal form of slavery than that which was mostly practiced during the Roman empire.  That more brutal form of slavery was instituted by Christian imperialists, and sanctioned by and engaged in by the Catholic church.  It was supported by protestant pastors citing scripture in Southern states of the U.S.

It's still a Christian era and slavery has mostly ended.  Christians argued on both sides of the issue.  Freethinkers almost entirely on the side of abolition.  Sure doesn't look like a general Christian trajectory towards abolition to me.

(June 21, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 11:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There is no greater love than to die for somebody.

Absolutely wrong!!!
It takes nothing more than a moment's quick decision to sacrifice your life for some cause.

The greatest sacrifice is to labor daily for the betterment of the undeserving.
This is something jesus did NOT do.

I respect your opinion, but still believe I am right on this.

Really? You think it is more of a sacrifice to kill yourself than to enslave yourself?  When you kill yourself, your loss is the ability to participate in life. With Sacrificial enslavement, you have the same loss of ability to participate in life, but you have the pain and struggle of a torturous existence to be followed by death.
If someone had a choice to take the place of a condemned man at the gallows or a man condemned to the gallows after completion of 20 years torture, the choice would be easy.
Why would you think otherwise? Besides, jesus didn't sacrifice his life, ask any christian, they'll swear that he's still alive.
With todays understanding of physiology, we know that the crucified either died of asphyxiation or a cardiac arrest, very mild ways to die compared to the pain of, say lockjaw, or pancreatic cancer, so the "bad weekend" at the hands of the romans was a picnic for an immortal.

(June 21, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: So are you saying that humans can make moral choices without god?

You mean without believing in God? Yes. :-)

I have said this all along.

Ok so god is not needed for morality nor is he the one creating morality, so he would be governed by the same objective morality we are. Now I have to ask if you believe in an objective morality where slavery, killing, rape and genocide are wrong, why does god order these actions in the bible? Is god immoral or are we immoral?

(June 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You mean without believing in God? Yes. :-)

I have said this all along.

Ok so god is not needed for morality nor is he the one creating morality, so he would be governed by the same objective morality we are. Now I have to ask if you believe in an objective morality where slavery, killing, rape and genocide are wrong, why does god order these actions in the bible? Is god immoral or are we immoral?

I believe He created morality, and if it weren't for Him, there would be no such thing. But a person does not need to believe in God to make moral choices. Does that make my position more clear to you?

The second part I have address numerous times all throughout this very thread. Even as recently as just a few pages back, if you want to look.

Whether or not you believe that god created morality is irrelevant with regards to the possibility of moral choices.  Lets put it this way.  You and I can both make paper airplanes -because it is possible to make paper airplanes-.  The idea that a paper airplane wouldn't be possible -unless I, specifically, created it-...ignores that you are also capable of creating them. Just as claiming that there could not be moral choices unless god created morality ignores that I am also capable of manufacturing moral systems, opportunities for moral choice (and then making those choices as well).

Yes, yes, you think my manufactured morality is wrong and gods manufactured morality is right.....but that doesn't actually matter.

(June 21, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Whether or not god "created" morality is irrelevant with regards to the possibility of moral choices.  Lets put it this way.  You and I can both make paper airplanes -because it is possible to make paper airplanes-.  The idea that paper airplanes wouldn't be possible -unless I, specifically, created them...ignores that you are also capable of creating them.

In making this statement regarding your god and moral choices, you are ignoring that which you conceded many times.  Human beings are capable of making moral choices, and of creating moral systems.  You, conveniently, think that those moral systems are "wrong"....but it doesn't matter, because they exist.

Exactly, if we can create our own moral systems without god then morality as whole is not objective.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:05 am)Won2blv Wrote: So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide?

That depends ... are they all-powerful soldiers who have seen the future, know their death awaits, and choose to pursue it instead of securing the mission by another, nonfatal means which is within their grasp?

Or are those soldiers, like most dogfaces, following orders come Hell or high water?

This is a shitty analogy that only holds if your god is not a god. Try again, this time with a little effort.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:05 am)Won2blv Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:24 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Since you want to call m e out for twisting a definition:
Suicide
noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects:
   Buying that house was financial suicide.
3.a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
verb (used without object), suicided, suiciding.
4.to commit suicide.
verb (used with object), suicided, suiciding.
5.to kill (oneself).
Source
I see nothing there about your claim that suicide is "an unjustified self murder."


Taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up.

So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide? No? Because it wasn't intentional? What if a soldier was surrounded by the enemy and had no way out but to take down as many of them with him and just stormed out with guns blazing? There are instances where you could say that the soldier was committing "suicide" but no one would even think to imply that to his grieving family. And even if you could parse and find a way to say that the soldiers death by definition was a suicide it would not change the fact that his death had a justified cause. Jesus did not kill himself and he never would have. Saying it was a suicide is like saying every soldier that has died in combat committed suicide since they knew of the possible outcome

That's a mighty nice straw man you've built here. Not only are you not addressing any actual argument I've made, you're not even coming close. Hell, I wasn't even the one to claim the jeebus took his own life. That was C_L and if you're reading comprehension weren't so utterly lacking you'd already know that. You tried to change the definition of the word suicide to prop up you argument. I pointed out where you were wrong. I have said nothing on my beliefs about suicide, only that taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up. Quit trying to tell me what my arguments are.

You are giving me great example of subjective morality. As I have pointed out, suicide is the taking of one's own life. The kathy-lick church has defined suicide as a sin. Being that cathy-lick morality is objective, as stated by C_L, then suicide cannot be acceptable in any form, because it is a sin. This is the trouble with objective morals, far more so than other people holding different morals. They can (theoretically) be taught the "correct" morality. By taking any morality as objective, there is no room whatsoever for taking in the context. Suicide is a sin, plain and simple. No exceptions. So, if jeebus did choose of his own free will to die... Only subjective morality can get you out of that.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure why we're bickering over the status of the crucifixion as suicide, murder, or any other sillyness.  It is -sickness-, and that's the problem, not that it's "sinful".
(try not to disrespect soldiers and soldiering by likening them and their profession to vicarious redemption, btw...lol)

I'm just trying to make a point about objective morality. I have no fucks to give about whether it was suicide, murder or just a sick joke played by the Romans.