Contradiction of greatest

[Ryft]

I find this abhorrent ...

By the standards of your morality, the Christian standard is abhorrent. And by the standards of Christian morality, your standard is abhorrent. What else could be expected from an antithesis?

If you can't see that this dogma is obviously invented ...

It is only obvious if given your view. However, your view is not a given.

[amw79]

If you can't see that this dogma is obviously invented ...

It is only obvious if given your view. However, your view is not a given.

I agree that my view is not a given, but entirely disagree that that it's not obvious to all.

If you cast a critical eye over the notion that even your actions are pure, well-intended, compassionate to others and so on, they are still not moral unless they are taken in the context of Christianity; I think most could see that it's an extremely self-serving (to Christianity) idea, that is best seen as a marketing tool, to place it's 'product' as indispensable.

Given the context of the Christian writings, in that they're vying amongst other religious writings and beliefs; it is no surprise that a dogma emerges which tells us that action and consequence are irrelevant, unless taken via its own doctrines.

[Ryft]

I agree that my view is not a given, but entirely disagree that that it's not obvious to all.

Something is obvious to all only when it is self-evident. And your view ("this dogma is obviously invented with the sole aim of making Christianity the only game in town") is not self-evident; i.e., the evidence for that proposition comes from somewhere other than that proposition itself. It is obvious to those who share your view. For those who do not share your view, it is not obvious.

If morality is defined by the nature and will of God, then that which is contrary to the nature and will of God is by definition wicked or bad. You can disagree that morality is so defined, but P is not somehow magically refuted by the power of you rejecting P, nor by the power of you asserting ¬P. Sorry.

[amw79]

I agree that my view is not a given, but entirely disagree that that it's not obvious to all.

Something is obvious to all only when it is self-evident. And your view ("this dogma is obviously invented with the sole aim of making Christianity the only game in town") is not self-evident; i.e., the evidence for that proposition comes from somewhere other than that proposition itself. It is obvious to those who share your view. For those who do not share your view, it is not obvious.

If morality is defined by the nature and will of God, then that which is contrary to the nature and will of God is by definition wicked or bad. You can disagree that morality is so defined, but P is not somehow magically refuted by the power of you rejecting P, nor by the power of you asserting ¬P. Sorry.

Once again, you've partially quoted me without addressing the main point about the self-made set-up of the Christian moral view as indispensible. I'll take it this is an oversight as opposed to an example of your Christian 'blind-spot'. Once again, regardless of the validity of the Christian view of morality, would you even consider that this view could be seen as self-serving?

And simply because you state "morality is defined by the nature and will of God", does not make it so.
Because you assert P (where P = pretentiousness), does not make P so.

[Ryft]

I'll take it this is an oversight as opposed to an example of your Christian 'blind-spot'. Once again, regardless of the validity of the Christian view of morality, would you even consider that this view could be seen as self-serving?

I suppose you could call it an oversight because, since every view is self-serving in that sense, it did not function as any sort of criticism; ergo, I didn't presume it to be your central criticism. It is true that the Christian views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" Christianity. However, it is also true that the consequentialist views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" consequentialism, and the moral relativist views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" moral relativism, and so forth.

And simply because you state "morality is defined by the nature and will of God," [that] does not make it so.

I stated that it is the Christian moral theory because... well, it is. If you require an in-depth Bible study to demonstrate the truth that this is the Christian moral theory, I can certainly do that. I've explored this at length so I'm quite prepared. Atheists are not usually interested in extensive Bible studies, but I guess exceptions are possible. (Note: I should hope you realize that my statement did not posit the Christian moral theory as the only TRUE account of morality, which is a very different sort of argument and which you should realize I would never pretend to support with a mere blanket assertion.)

[Xyster]

LOL Christian God morals.... If you mean studied the bible then used CONTEXT to twist the story to make it palitable then it would be acceptable... But there is no way inhell you could justify genocide,killing of children (by god himself) or sacrifice. Such as 2 kings 2:23 god not only kills but TERRORIZES 42 CHILDREN... in NIV they are "Youths" and in KJV it actually calls them "little children"... This verse and many like it always showing god to follow the path of Jelousy / Violence. Those of little Intelegence often resort to violence first..just like bronze aged men... just so happens thats who wrote the book ..bronze age men with bronz aged Ideas..... and through the years they have taken stuff out of the bible no doubt to cover up crap that noone would belive. And the rest of it they twist it and call it context.....

my def. of Context: The act of putting a candy coating on scripture, to make the scripture palatable.

You can candy coat a turd sandwich....It may taste better, but your still being fed a load of SH!T.

[amw79]

I'll take it this is an oversight as opposed to an example of your Christian 'blind-spot'. Once again, regardless of the validity of the Christian view of morality, would you even consider that this view could be seen as self-serving?

I suppose you could call it an oversight because, since every view is self-serving in that sense, it did not function as any sort of criticism; ergo, I didn't presume it to be your central criticism. It is true that the Christian views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" Christianity. However, it is also true that the consequentialist views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" consequentialism, and the moral relativist views actions as moral only when "they are taken in the context of" moral relativism, and so forth.

But you can't realistically call a consequentialism view of moraility "self serving", as its implicit meaning is derived from the consequence of the moral act, not the context or belief system responsible for the act.

Therefore someone can believe what they like, it is their action and consequence that is of note; whether that person is a moral consequentialist does not invalidate or belittle their moral actions. So I don't see how it could be considered self-serving.

If you don't think it is a valid criticism that a core belief of christianity has (what could be considered) a built-in defense mechanism which invalidates people's moral actions unless they're taken on behalf and in the name of Christianity; and if you can't see how this (could be seen) as uniquely self serving (not to serve morality, or mankind or even god - but to serve christianity itself), then you're not looking at the concept critically.

EDIT

If you require an in-depth Bible study to demonstrate............

No thanks, I'm watching some paint dry this evening. Thanks for the offer though.

[Eilonnwy]

Atheists are not usually interested in extensive Bible studies, but I guess exceptions are possible.

Depends on the atheist. I've been endeavoring a Bible study myself with the NIV Bible.

Anyway, I appreciate you answering my questions, as I am asking not to mock but to better understand your viewpoint.

I have another question. By what right do you believe God has to put those he deems wicked into "Gehenna"?

[Meatball]

Hell isn't a universal belief among Christians. My girlfriend is part of the Seventh Day Adventist church and they don't believe in hell. Those who are saved will live with Jesus in His Kingdom and those who don't are annihilated, much like the common atheist interpretation of death.

That said, when Corinthians 13:4 said love does not envy, why do the 10 commandments specifically identify God as a jealous god?

[fr0d0]

The SDA church is considered outside mainstream Christianity so I'd take that with a pinch of salt. (Their beliefs are often un/extra-biblical)