What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

This is simply wrong, Jenny.

We're not speaking of temptation here. Temptation is the opportunity to sin, and temptations are everywhere.

For example, for men who are more visually oriented than women when it comes to the opposite sex, pretty girls are everywhere; thus, temptation is everywhere. But we don't have to give into the temptation by acting on that opportunity.

What Jesus spoke of was NOT temptation but embracing the temptation and committing the sin mentally. The man who sees a naked woman and thinks, "Wow, she's cute" has NOT had sex with her in his mind. The man who sees the same woman (or one who is fully clothed) and starts to imagine "doing" her has committed a sin even though it was not committed physically.

And, I'm not the least bothered by the man who does her in his head.  What he does in the space of his own mind is fine by me.  Seriously.  In the case of imagining sex I'm really, really not bothered.  In the case of imaging murder, I'm only bothered if he's working himself up to the actual crime by thinking it out rather than just fantasizing.  It's acts in the real world that concern me.

Now, there are circumstances in which if someone obsesses about sex with a woman he can't have, or murder that he might hurt himself mentally.  That is a good reason for not obsessing, but the victim would be himself not others.

That's fine, Jenny, but this is just your personal opinion. God has called us to a higher standard.

The irony of this is that you know this is true because everyone goes absolutely ballistic when a Catholic priest commits a sin. Why? Because it is understood even by atheists that Christians are supposed to live by a higher standard. When they fail to do so, the hypocrisy is seen by all.

Well, sure. An angry, hate-filled man with a gun IS more dangerous. But they are BOTH angry, hate-filled men. Jesus would object to the hatred of both equally.

And I would object to hateful actions.   The idea of condemning a man for being hate-filled is abhorrent to me.

So, it's perfectly okay to be consumed by hatred as long as....what? I don't say or do anything to anyone else?

Of course. But would you agree that IF God exists, then He would know the inner thoughts of man? And if God judges according to a higher standard, then not only the actions of men but the thoughts of men must be considered by God?

So, it is consistent to believe that IF a holy and righteous God exists, then He calls us to a higher standard than we might otherwise aspire to if left to our own devices.

Actually not necessarily, you would have to define the attributes about the god we are talking about, before I'd agree he would know our inner thoughts.

God is omniscient. That is an attribute of God that feel certain you have heard before.

And if such a god existed and he did know them, then I would appreciate very much if he didn't spy and left people's inner thoughts to themselves.   You proposed standard is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and replacing Big Brother with god makes it no better.

That is exactly the point I have made again and again concerning the "evidence" of God that you and others keep demanding.

If God were to intrude into our individual lives in visible ways, then you and others would resent Him.

[Randy Carson]

If that were the norm, it would be Court TV I'd want to watch!

Then why are you complaining about my language here? Your incoherence grows with every post.

Because it ISN'T okay to speak in certain ways before the Supreme Court Justices, and it does NOT strengthen the arguments of the attorneys who do argue before them.

Yours either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it is understood even by atheists that Christians are supposed to live by a higher standard. When they fail to do so, the hypocrisy is seen by all.

No, moron, we hold them to the -same- standards that we hold any human being.  They fail at being human beings, plain and simple......it has nothing to do with them "sinning", a"calling", or any of the other fairy tale shit you believe in.  

You, ever eager to excuse them, fail at this yourself, though, granted....not as fantastically. You're a second stringer in this arena, as you are in so many others.

[Won2blv]

I didn't read all of the posts but I am assuming its been acknowledged that you're hot?

[Randy Carson]

Another atheist posed this question here.

Did you even read that article? There was no question regarding the necessity of introducing deity into the notion of abstract goods, nor did WLC even attempt to justify such a lofty and unneeded assumption.

I did.

[Randy Carson]

I didn't read all of the posts but I am assuming its been acknowledged that you're hot?

No, but thank you.

[Catholic_Lady]

So you think an animal who kills her babies should spend time in prison in the same way that a human who killed her own babies should? (assuming she was not insane)

My point is, we shouldn't feel superior as long as we don't understand what makes other species tick and what they are thinking. I certainly hope, the thinking part isn't up for debate, since they all have brains. We always had a tendency to look down at seemingly inferior beings. In the past even at fellow humans.

As I said before. As long as there are endless wars and predatory behavior among humans, there's really no reason to feel that special.

Fair enough.

My point in all of this, from the biggining, was to address Cato's post with the response that animals are not to be held to the same moral standards as we are. If you agree with that, then we are in agreement. :-)

[Mr.wizard]

We kill millions of animals for mass consumption regularly and do not consider it immoral, why would we consider one animal killing another an immoral act?

[Catholic_Lady]

Right, so there it is! You just made a judgment about someone's character based purely on something that is going on inside his head.

Since we can make judgements about someone's character based on what is in their head, don't you think it is perfectly reasonable for us God believers to assume God can too?

A person with a heart filled with hate for others will not enter heaven even if he never acted on that hate outside his own head. You may call that "thought crime" but I find it perfectly reasonable, and you just did the same thing above.  

You may not agree that having a lustful heart is wrong, but can you see now what we mean about how it matters what is in a person's heart?

The only thing the heart does is pump blood. Jesus effing christ.

When I say "heart" I mean a person's inner thoughts and character. Just speaking metaphorically.

[Won2blv]

I didn't read all of the posts but I am assuming its been acknowledged that you're hot?

No, but thank you.

I was speaking to the lady, thank you very much