New religion

[Epimethean]

Fuck the utter rubbish you continue to spout. Wherever it is convenient, you play ignorant, and wherever you like, you wax pious. THIS is what I fucking hate about theists, this combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Here is an example where you just ducked out of a proper dialogue:

"Given this belief, how could a little torture be a bad thing. If torturing someone in this life leads them to salvation for eternity, isn't that a good thing? If burning an unrepentant heretic at the stake can silence criticism of holy doctrine and therefore save more souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing?"

"I do not know who suggests that. I know that in Islam people are tortured etc to renounce their faith in Christ, but there is no indication that it would be an action sanctioned in the Bible. Again, this would be accepting that you could make somebody a Christian by merely accepting a certain doctrine– whether it be voluntary or under compulsion."

The fact is, proselytizing using the fear of hell on people-especially on impressionable children IS a torture. The fact that you don't see it as such but, rather, a duty you are obliged to perform, only makes you a good hangman. I would hazard that as many people come to xtianity out of coercion and fear-based reasoning as do for the "love fest" it purports to be.

[Carnavon]

Fuck the utter rubbish you continue to spout. Wherever it is convenient, you play ignorant, and wherever you like, you wax pious. THIS is what I fucking hate about theists, this combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Here is an example where you just ducked out of a proper dialogue:

"Given this belief, how could a little torture be a bad thing. If torturing someone in this life leads them to salvation for eternity, isn't that a good thing? If burning an unrepentant heretic at the stake can silence criticism of holy doctrine and therefore save more souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing?"

"I do not know who suggests that. I know that in Islam people are tortured etc to renounce their faith in Christ, but there is no indication that it would be an action sanctioned in the Bible. Again, this would be accepting that you could make somebody a Christian by merely accepting a certain doctrine– whether it be voluntary or under compulsion."

The fact is, proselytizing using the fear of hell on people-especially on impressionable children IS a torture. The fact that you don't see it as such but, rather, a duty you are obliged to perform, only makes you a good hangman. I would hazard that as many people come to xtianity out of coercion and fear-based reasoning as do for the "love fest" it purports to be.

I do not agree with you that teaching that hell is the end of those that reject Christ makes me a "hangman" or that is "torture". As I understand it, torture is not the same as telling the truth although it may hurt. A definition could be Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty.The absence of all of these does not support your argument. Refer my example on live electricity.
The truth is that there is both hell and the love of Christ.
Nowadays the love of Christ is emphasized to sometimes the total exclusion of the wrath of God and hell. The reason ? - that is a much easier way to preach and get people to "accept" Christ/Christianity. It falls soft on the ear. The truth is both the love of Christ (and the fact that He laid down his life for you) and hell. One without the other is not truth. Hence I would rather affront you than lie to you.

[Epimethean]

You give me the ammunition to refute you right in your counter-assertion:

"Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological)."

Done.

[Carnavon]

You give me the ammunition to refute you right in your counter-assertion:

"Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological)."

Done.

So you would regard a painful operation to save a life or confront a person with information on the death of a loved one as torture? I did not dispute the "discomfort/pain" of the fact of hell, but I suppose for me the purpose is the criterium, and I think you will agree with that?

[Epimethean]

If you want to dance around this in circles, by all means, continue to do so. Move your goalpost all you like. Your religion tortures people for an unknown goal and unknowable purpose. Comparing that to surgery shows how out of touch you are with reality.

[DeistPaladin]

Carnavon, you've posted a lot here and I'm at work right now so it's going to take me some time to respond fully.

For now, let me just post briefly on the topic of what each of us mean by the term "morality". We need to first nail down what we're talking about before we can have a rational discussion about it.

When I say, "morality", I refer to our treatment of other sentient beings. Where our behavior impacts other sentients, questions of morality apply. Deception of other beings, disregard for their rights, irresponsibility for your own actions or wantonly causing harm to others is what I mean by "immoral".

I outline this for you because your definition of morality seems muddled and confused. You rightly are appalled by child pornography and sexual predators. These industries and people victimize others and are therefore immoral. Having an affair is immoral because it involves deception of the spouse. Are these problems really getting worse or are we just talking about the problems and paying attention now?

Let me cite one example of sexual problems our society is dealing with better now than before: In previous generations, sexual harassment at work was part of life. A woman had little or no recourse if her boss came on to her. Now our society has turned against the practice and punishes men who stalk and harass. The system isn't perfect but it's getting better.

You are rightly worried about teen pregnancy. Sex needs to be done with responsibility. Conservative attempts to cut sex education and instead fund "abstinence only" have been a disaster, causing increases in teen pregnancy and STDs. Conservative attempts to "legislate morality" have wound up causing much harm.

Mixed in with all your concerns is a lot of railing against pornography and other victimless crimes. If no one is harmed, deceived, forced or intimidated, if their rights are not violated, if activities are engaged with responsibility and integrity, it is not immoral.

I'll get back to the rest later.

[DeistPaladin]

I would assume that if something is true , alternatives would not be true.
Is evolution true? It has been stated on this forum that it is a fact and you did not disagree.

Yes, evolution has been proven the best way to understand the diversity of life. What does that have to do with our conversation again?

Forgive my ignorance, but it still escapes me how this can be a threat.

You literally demonize those outside your faith. All non-believers or those who follow another religion are either in league with the devil or being duped by him. The first step to atrocity is to dehumanize outsiders.

As I have indicated above, tolerance should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

Yes, and Islam is the religion of peace, yatta yatta. I know Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Muhammad said "do not attack first because Allah doesn't like aggressors." Both religions can preach love, peace and goodwill all they like but all that is quickly forgotten when it comes to saving souls from eternal torment. This is why both religions turn out to be violent when they are not restrained.

Why is it a danger if this is put forward as the end result of our lives on earth? I would hold an opposite view that not sharing this information will make me irresponsible and not caring about others as “I am OK Jack” and hence more “dangerous” – not to me, but to others. Why is a middle ground important? How many alternatives would you like to have and why? What is your middle ground in the present discussion?

I think I explained that already. Saving souls for all eternity can be used to justify anything.

If murdering an unrepentant atheist to prevent him from corrupting a community of innocent souls can save those souls for all eternity at the cost only of sending one soul to Hell a little early, isn't that a good thing?

I do not know who suggests that.

Christians have been persecuting pagans, atheists, Jews and other outsiders ever since the days following Constantine. They've only recently stopped because they've been restrained by civilization.

If I told you that to touch an open and live electric wire will kill you, and advise you that you may safely touch it by disconnecting it from the electricity supply point, how is that terrifying? If the Bible is true, and hell exists, you would want God to warn you?

You keep missing the point. The reason Islamo-Christianity have acted out so violently throughout their history is because of their cause to fight the devil and save souls from Hell.

Regardless of what the Bible says, those who think their neighbors are in league with the devil are capable of doing anything to them. Efforts through Islamo-Christian history to save souls from Hell have repeatedly brought Hell to earth.

[Carnavon]

For now, let me just post briefly on the topic of what each of us mean by the term "morality". We need to first nail down what we're talking about before we can have a rational discussion about it.

When I say, "morality", I refer to our treatment of other sentient beings. Where our behavior impacts other sentients, questions of morality apply. Deception of other beings, disregard for their rights, irresponsibility for your own actions or wantonly causing harm to others is what I mean by "immoral".

You rightly are appalled by child pornography and sexual predators. These industries and people victimize others and are therefore immoral. Having an affair is immoral because it involves deception of the spouse. Are these problems really getting worse or are we just talking about the problems and paying attention now?

Let me cite one example of sexual problems our society is dealing with better now than before: In previous generations, sexual harassment at work was part of life. A woman had little or no recourse if her boss came on to her. Now our society has turned against the practice and punishes men who stalk and harass. The system isn't perfect but it's getting better.

You are rightly worried about teen pregnancy. Sex needs to be done with responsibility. Conservative attempts to cut sex education and instead fund "abstinence only" have been a disaster, causing increases in teen pregnancy and STDs. Conservative attempts to "legislate morality" have wound up causing much harm.

Mixed in with all your concerns is a lot of railing against pornography and other victimless crimes. If no one is harmed, deceived, forced or intimidated, if their rights are not violated, if activities are engaged with responsibility and integrity, it is not immoral.

Yes, I have made a number of posts to address the various issues raised and make it easier (hopefully) to respond.

It seems to me that by your definition you limit what can be described as “moral” issues. “Music, for Plato, was not a neutral amusement. It could express and encourage virtue— nobility, dignity, temperance, chastity. But it could also express and encourage vice—sensuality, belligerence, indiscipline” and hence have a moral character
In your view the criteria is whether it negatively affect others and so in itself it cannot be moral/immoral? Thus if your wife does not find out about you gallivanting with another woman, it is not immoral – it only becomes immoral when she finds out or the lady's husband finds out? You are quite happy with it as long as it does not become known?
The case of sexual harassment being “part of life” is somewhat removed from reality. That the unwanted approaches etc. from others have been a reality, is not disputed. To suggest that it was regarded as “proper” because it was not legislated against, does not reflect the truth. The only change is that there is now legislation dealing specifically with it. (although previously there was always redress possible). Your own argument that legislation had a negative effect proves the point that legislation does not introduce morality.

Long before this legislation was introduced into our country, a really funny character that I worked with once acted inappropriately towards a female employee. He was severely reprimanded (and could have been taken to court under old legislation under “”crimen injuria”). Legislation being effected does in any case not improve “morality” but just legislate against it. I agree 100% that you cannot legislate morality.

Thank you for your open discussion. Take your time, there is no rush as I suppose both of us are a bit stressed for time.

[DeistPaladin]

I've had a similar exchange with Statler on the subject of morality where he also got the impression that my ideas of morality let people off the hook if they don't get caught. I'm not sure how that follows. Attempting to harm or recklessly running the risk of causing harm is also wrongdoing, even if by good fortune harm is not done.

If I were to attempt to shoot someone with a gun and I miss, the courts would NOT let me walk simply because I failed to do any harm. I'd still be rightly prosecuted for the attempted crime. While morality and legality don't always agree, we still should be able to understand that attempted wrongdoing is still wrongdoing.

In the case you mention of a hypothetical affair that isn't caught, I'd still be violating my wife's trust and our agreement when we were married. I did mention "integrity" as one of the criteria of moral behavior. Wronging someone is still wronging them even if you're not caught.

I live by three commandments that apply in the bedroom as well as outside of it:

1. Act with integrity
2. Respect the rights of others
3. Take responsibility for your actions

Now, let's suppose the existence of a married couple that had an "open" marriage. This is not my cup of tea, since I'm very monogamous and haven't ever felt the need for more than one relationship at a time, but for someone else, if that's what they both agree to, it would not be immoral.

Another example of what you may as a Christian regard as "immoral" that I don't is love when the body parts are similar. Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that the power of God were to one day transform my wife into a man. My feelings for her (him) would be no different and we'd stay married. As one who's bisexual, I don't think body parts are a serious concern and love feels the same regardless.

Now on to the topic of whether we're becoming more moral or less...
As a business owner and one educated in business school, I can tell you that the culture has indeed changed. Having a relationship with someone who works for you is now seen as unethical where it wasn't before. There is more awareness now of sexually predatory behavior where there wasn't before. What society once tolerated is now viewed with disgust.

This is also true in other areas. Yes, slavery still exists in the world but not openly. Just a few hundred years ago, it was openly defended as if it were a proper institution. Abolition was a political controversy. Now we know better.

During that same time period, wars of aggression were part of political life. Britain, France, Germany and other powers of Europe colonized parts of the world. America also indulged in empire building. War was a political tool to take territory and resources. Today, wars of aggression are seen rightly as a crime. The kind of empire building of times even as recent as the 19th century would be unacceptable today. Now, wars of aggression still happen (see our recent invasion of Iraq) but they're prosecuted as crimes against the world when we are able to.

Studying ancient history reveals the kinds of crimes against humanity that would horrify us today were common practice. It wasn't just barbarian hoards let by such infamous characters like Attila that massacred and enslaved conquered towns. Even lauded conquerors of so-called "civilization", like "Alexander the Great", massacred entire towns for daring to resist his invasion. The Iliad alleges the Greeks leveled Troy, put all the men to the sword, took women as sex slaves and children as slaves. When Carthage fell to Rome, a similar fate awaited her citizens. Rome did the same to Jerusalem as a grim "lesson" for the Jews in an attempt to break their spirit. Such tactics now horrify us today and would be prosecuted in a world court.

So yes, I think the world is getting more moral, not less.

[Epimethean]

I'm inclined, however, to suggest that the real reason Rome sacked Jerusalem was for capital, as, unlike Carthage, it posed no direct threat and, given the massive building programme going on at the time in Rome, a nice infusion of wealth and slaves came in more than handy.