Evidence for Christianity

[theVOID]

Dqualk - Championing paedophilia since ages ago.

[dqualk]

Sure void, set up your straw man. I could do the same thing you know, take what you say out of context and extend it further then you mean to take it, for example I could say man you don't believe in objective value, theVoid championing suicide since blah blah. I do not believe this, as I understand that one can have subjective value, and so on, but this is in essence what you are doing to me. And I understand there is a rule against doing such a thing, its to bad rules do not protect me. Do you even believe in the golden rule? Or is that one of those morals you see as subjectively useless, or at least when it applies to particular people?

[Captain Scarlet]

Sure void, set up your straw man. I could do the same thing you know, take what you say out of context and extend it further then you mean to take it, for example I could say man you don't believe in objective value, theVoid championing suicide since blah blah. I do not believe this, as I understand that one can have subjective value, and so on, but this is in essence what you are doing to me. And I understand there is a rule against doing such a thing, its to bad rules do not protect me. Do you even believe in the golden rule? Or is that one of those morals you see as subjectively useless, or at least when it applies to particular people?

OK so try logically proving that morality is objective and then standby for the shitstorm set of refutations you will get back. If morality was decided or transmitted into the universe or whatever by an all powerful being, it is not only objective but also absolute. So why is it so hard to prove either of those things?

The golden rule is an excellent guide to morality and I congratulate Confucius on teaching it. It was much copied over the succeeding years including by those who wrote the NT and later attributed it to their demi god Jesus.

[dqualk]

I did not try to logically prove that morality was objective. I made an appeal that objective morality can be held rationally to be properly basic. The statement "there is an objective right and wrong" is similar to the statement "there is truth" or "I exist." You cannot prove any of these "logically" however who is ultimately the insane person, the one who claims that child rape IS always and everyhwere wrong, that I exist and that there is truth, or the person in the loony ben who raped a child becasue he claims there is no objective right and wrong, and it was sujectively right to hm, and that truth doesnt exist, and he doesnt even exist. Who is insane?

[Thor]

The golden rule is an excellent guide to morality and I congratulate Confucius on teaching it. It was much copied over the succeeding years including by those who wrote the NT and later attributed it to their demi god Jesus.

The Golden Rule generally works well, but it does have some problems. What if someone is a masochist who enjoys having pain inflicted on him? According to the Golden Rule, he should inflict pain on others. What if someone wishes they were dead and wants someone to kill them? According to the Golden Rule, this person should run around killing people.

I like the rule proposed by Dan Barker. He says we should always do our best to "minimize harm". I think this covers pretty much any moral dilemma.

[Captain Scarlet]

I did not try to logically prove that morality was objective. I made an appeal that objective morality can be held rationally to be properly basic. The statement "there is an objective right and wrong" is similar to the statement "there is truth" or "I exist." You cannot prove any of these "logically" however who is ultimately the insane person, the one who claims that child rape IS always and everyhwere wrong, that I exist and that there is truth, or the person in the loony ben who raped a child becasue he claims there is no objective right and wrong, and it was sujectively right to hm, and that truth doesnt exist, and he doesnt even exist. Who is insane?

Then I can't have made my point well enough. If a god is the source of morality why is it not possible to prove these things?

[dqualk]

Then I can't have made my point well enough. If a god is the source of morality why is it not possible to prove these things?

This is a good and difficult question. I would say it is because God thought faith was necessary to the best possible of all worlds; maybe it is a necessary property of a temporal thing. Maybe it is becasue we are not and can never be omniscient, so faith must be a principle part of our being.

But I can understand why that would make it more difficult ot believe in God.

---

The Golden Rule generally works well, but it does have some problems. What if someone is a masochist who enjoys having pain inflicted on him? According to the Golden Rule, he should inflict pain on others. What if someone wishes they were dead and wants someone to kill them? According to the Golden Rule, this person should run around killing people.

I like the rule proposed by Dan Barker. He says we should always do our best to "minimize harm". I think this covers pretty much any moral dilemma.

I think the golden rule covers all moral dilemna because doing unto others as you would have them do unto you does not mean killing if one is suicidal, although one could take the rule out of context and make it mean that, it means in the same way that you want people to respect your desires and wishes, you should respect theirs.

And I could take Dan Barker's rule out of context and say what if someone likes harm, you are denying them what is pleasing to them, which is causing them more harm. Either way I think the golden rule and Dan Barker's rule are for the most part saying the same thing, or trying to hit the same principle at least.

[Captain Scarlet]

Then I can't have made my point well enough. If a god is the source of morality why is it not possible to prove these things?

This is a good and difficult question. I would say it is because God thought faith was necessary to the best possible of all worlds; maybe it is a necessary property of a temporal thing. Maybe it is becasue we are not and can never be omniscient, so faith must be a principle part of our being.

But I can understand why that would make it more difficult ot believe in God.

---

I'm not sure I understand your response, but I would say maybe it is because god doesn't exist. However I am not sure what this has to do with faith. If an omni god really is responsible for morality, then morality should be immutable, absolute and objective whether we follow it or not. However evidentially morality appears subjective, although some ethicists would not agree on some points of morality. But the point is we cannot agree and if a god left us not only unable to aprehend his morality, but also argue on whether morality truly exists objectively at all, then he is not only testing faith, but also acting capriciously. Becuase whilst he plays celestial hide and seek with himself and issues such as morality, he also is marking our cards as to if we are good enough or not to 'meet him'.

[Thor]

I think the golden rule covers all moral dilemna because doing unto others as you would have them do unto you does not mean killing if one is suicidal, although one could take the rule out of context and make it mean that, it means in the same way that you want people to respect your desires and wishes, you should respect theirs.

I stand by my assessment. If you enjoy pain and live by "do unto others" you could interpret that to mean you should inflict pain onto others. There is no such problem with Barker's rule.

And I could take Dan Barker's rule out of context and say what if someone likes harm, you are denying them what is pleasing to them, which is causing them more harm.

What kind of "harm" could you be referring to here? A masochist who wants you to whip them? This would not be causing harm because the masochist finds the pain to be pleasurable.

Either way I think the golden rule and Dan Barker's rule are for the most part saying the same thing, or trying to hit the same principle at least.

I'd agree. I just think Barker's rule expresses it better.

[dqualk]

I think the spirit of morality is discoverable. I think it is that morals always serve the good in relation to man and God. However, morals are not always black and white, some moral situations are subjective and some are not; and sometimes they are a mix of the two. And God and the Church offer indulgenes which free men from the law, and the result of trangressing the law is dead in Christ, so that man is no longer subject to the law but freed from it.

The practically of all this means that whenever we say something is wrong we must demonstrate how it hurts man and that condemning the wrong is only helpful in so far as it helps the person afflicted and those around him. So I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I must deal with the issue in such a way that I am consciously recognizing that its harmful in and of itself, it is not just arbitrarily harmful, and I must approach the issue is such a way as what is best for the individual and the people around him.