How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian?

[FallentoReason]

If the only justification for the Bible you have is simply that of "tradition", then maybe that works for you. But I don't think it's grounded enough to grant the NT as being true.

To satisfy my curiosity, if the NT could be proven historically accurate would you then choose to follow christianity?

Well, that was the reason for being a Christian before, as well as my subjective experiences that led me to go from a non practising Catholic to a born again believer. 

I think it would definitely serve as a proper foundation by which to build upon. It would allow me to examine doctrine knowing that whichever interpretation I believe will be grounded on historical facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Law comes from morality, at least philosophically speaking.

-still wasting our time.

When push comes to shove, I actually identify as a contractualist (as opposed to Kantian ethics). In a nutshell, something is a moral rule only if no one has a legitimate objection to it, with objections needing to address why/why not someone's wellbeing is being violated. This mode of thinking captures the essence of debate, in which a conclusion is assumed once no one has a reasonable objection left to say. And if there's no objections, then to my mind it seems like that particular rule makes for a good law - something to be upheld globally.

-which has nothing to do with divine moral authority, and in fact if this were the moral setting schema it would prevent there from -being- a divine moral authority even if there were some example of divinity floating around...which there isn't.

[FallentoReason]

Law comes from morality, at least philosophically speaking.

-still wasting our time.

Moving the goalposts.

When push comes to shove, I actually identify as a contractualist (as opposed to Kantian ethics). In a nutshell, something is a moral rule only if no one has a legitimate objection to it, with objections needing to address why/why not someone's wellbeing is being violated. This mode of thinking captures the essence of debate, in which a conclusion is assumed once no one has a reasonable objection left to say. And if there's no objections, then to my mind it seems like that particular rule makes for a good law - something to be upheld globally.

-which has nothing to do with divine moral authority, and in fact if this were the moral setting schema it would prevent there from -being-  a divine moral authority even if there were some example of divinity floating around...which there isn't.

Err... why? If something has no valid objection to it, then it must be perfectly logical. If something abstract is perfectly logical, then it's akin to physical laws etc, ergo it could be a moral law set in place by a god.

[The Grand Nudger]

-still wasting our time.

Moving the goalposts.

You've correctly identified why you're wasting our time, by discussing law when we were trying to arrive at some conclusion regarding morality, yes.  Congratulations?

Err... why? If something has no valid objection to it, then it must be perfectly logical. If something abstract is perfectly logical, then it's akin to physical laws etc, ergo it could be a moral law set in place by a god.

Oh, is that what makes something logical?  Gee, and here I was thinking that to be logical something had to adhere to a certain set of rules.  Good to get that out of the way, helps to explain your posting habits somewhat.  You think that as long as a turd floats, it's perfectly logical, and that being perfectly logical is somehow akin to a physical law, and further, that said something could then be a moral law......further still, set in place by a god.  

All of that follows......perfectly logical, at least insomuch as your own personal standards of logic are applied, one assumes.  

The reason that such a moral setting schema rules out a divine moral authority, is that there -is- no authority if the metrics are simply what turds a person can float (or, more likely, pretend to have floated).  Any person.  It's anathema to the very meaning of the term authority, divine or otherwise.

[FallentoReason]

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='1429376' dateline='1477724812']

Moving the goalposts.

You've correctly identified why you're wasting our time, by discussing law when we were trying to arrive at some conclusion regarding morality, yes.  Congratulations?

[quote]
Err... why? If something has no valid objection to it, then it must be perfectly logical. If something abstract is perfectly logical, then it's akin to physical laws etc, ergo it could be a moral law set in place by a god.

Oh, is that what makes something logical?  Gee, and here I was thinking that to be logical something had to adhere to a certain set of rules.
[/quote]

It's the same thing. Something not having a valid objection to it must be damn close to *being* the actual abstract rule that the universe goes by. Science, remember?

 Good to get that out of the way, helps to explain your posting habits somewhat.  You think that as long as a turd floats, it's perfectly logical, and that being perfectly logical is somehow akin to a physical law, and further, that said something could then be a moral law......further still, set in place by a god.  

It's a little harsh to describe science as a turd, but sure, the turds that Newton was able to float seem to be how the universe works. 

As for the link to god, well, if everything exists as a result of it, then 'it' must be akin to abstract truth, since 'it' decided what scientific turds would float.

The reason that such a moral setting schema rules out a divine moral authority, is that there -is- no authority if the metrics are simply what turds a person can float (or, more likely, pretend to have floated).  Any person.  It's anathema to the very meaning of the term authority, divine or otherwise.

This god in some ways set the density of the water in which we float our turds. If that turd of a theory is actually just pure shit such that it doesn't float scientifically or otherwise, then there will always be falsifiable ways to show that, and such is how density works to float certain turds and ground shit theories.


EDIT: I've made a mess of quotes yet again. Apologies.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't worry about the mess of quotes so much as the mess you made of the contents.  

I'm uninterested in playing apologist whack-a-mole with you. Your posts have become tedious and boring, congratulations.

[FallentoReason]

I wouldn't worry about the mess of quotes so much as the mess you made of the contents.  

I'm uninterested in playing apologist whack-a-mole with you.  Your posts have become tedious and boring, congratulations.

It's perfectly valid until proven otherwise.

I can see where you would think I'm saying one thing but is actually something else. I can't be bothered pointing it out though until you actually respond.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's perfectly valid until proven otherwise.

The "prove me wrong" theory of logical discourse.  Legit.  

I can see where you would think I'm saying one thing but is actually something else. I can't be bothered pointing it out though until you actually respond.

-and that, is why you fail.  It's not up to me to tease meaning out of you any more than it;s my responsibility to prove whatever happens to drop out of your head wrong, it's your responsibility to accurately and adequately communicate it.  

Do work.

[FallentoReason]

Do work.

I have, and you dismissed it, not through argumentation though. Can I still get my lunchbreak?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's pretty well established that you don't know how argumentation works, and therefore it's unlikely that you would recognize it if I hit you over the head with it. 

When -you- can explain why god is a moral authority, not prattle on about law and legality, morality, not request that someone prove you wrong, when you can demonstrate, somehow, that you are right....then we can have that discussion. Thusfar, you have failed to present a proper means of inference. As such, there;s no need to discuss the soundness of any proposition you plugged in. I'll be more than willing to discuss whether or not any propositions you have are sound, once you can manufacture a valid inference to plug them into....because honestly, it wouldn't matter if you were right about any given claim, if you don't have the means....your conclusion still wouldn't be credible.