Zone1 Morality is natural phenomenon.

[ding]

Go back and read my previous posts in this thread. I could name lots but I don't see the value in spending hours watching, rewatching, and rewatching the video just to tell you things that are blaringly obvious. You know which parts were inaccurate as do I. What is there to argue about?

Yeah, I saw your claim that you could name lot's. This is actually your second post stating that without actually being able to name any. So, no. I don't know which parts were inaccurate. And I sure can't tell which ones you thought were inaccurate from your glaring lack of naming any. But hey, maybe make a third post without naming any and claiming there are lots. There a good chance you saying it a third time will convince me.

But hey if you like I'd be happy to catalog his points for you and you can go down the list one by one to expose the idiocy of your position.

 

[ding]

It is an unaccredited seminary in Slidell Lousiana. The organization is fanatically KJV onlyist. All of the professors are KJV onlyist. There is no timeline as to how fast you complete the coursework. It isn't an intense course. Each course contains about 6 hours ish of lectures on various topics and one test. You pick out the courses that you want to take. You listen to the lectures, take the test, mail them in, and wait to be graded. It is just for learning. Like I said it is unaccredited. It is not really all that impressive. I have never even brought it up on here to my recollection. I applied and was accepted over ten years ago and I still haven't finished the associate degree level. I still have all the courses and the tests. It is something I keep putting on the back burner. To get an associate's I have to complete 20 courses. I have probably finished 4.

It isn't really as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.

I have turds that have better theology than you.

 

[ding]

What do you dislike about it?

Your undeserved arrogance.

 

[ding]

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 1 Peter 2:9

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Hebrews 11:13

Were you insulting me by saying that common sense is a good thing?

I was explaining to you that understanding God's ways isn't complicated. Anyone can do it. It requires nothing special at all to do it other than a desire for truth and COMMON SENSE.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a different question. Sure it is. It is both a natural phenomenon that is independent of man and proceeds from God as God is every extant attribute of reality.

Arguing that morals increase cooperation and success, doesn't mean morals don't come from God. Yes, virtue does lead to cooperation and success. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success just as failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. All regions teach this. It's kind of their main theme.

The real deciding factor is are morals and virtues absolute or are they relative. Atheists - at least most of them - will argue virtues and morals are relative. That they can be anything man wants them to be. Religious persons - at least most of them - will argue that virtues and morals are absolute.

Which way are you going to argue?

I agree that morals and virtues are absolute in principle. The trick is how to apply them.

For example Sgt Alvin York was one of the most decorated veterans of WWI. He was a crack shot with a rifle, but he was a conscientious objector when he was drafted into the military. His commanding officer was aware of that but chose to take a chance on him. York himself was determined not to kill anybody, but when he saw men on both sides dying in battle, he decided killing a few to save many was the moral choice. He used his sharp shooting ability to take out a number of German soldiers until they surrendered and he took 132 prisoners that day.

This is a case of the principle in the virtue that had to be applied differently. A Christian may believe it immoral to lie but an exception can be made to protect the innocent from someone who intends harm.

The thief rationalizes that stealing is good because it is good for him. The Christian knows that stealing is bad because it deprives somebody else of something that is rightfully his/hers. Science is worthless in these kinds of value judgments and even rational thought can result in malicious or evil intent.

 

[ding]

I agree that morals and virtues are absolute in principle. The trick is how to apply them.

For example Sgt Alvin York was one of the most decorated veterans of WWI. He was a crack shot with a rifle, but he was a conscientious objector when he was drafted into the military. His commanding officer was aware of that but chose to take a chance on him. York himself was determined not to kill anybody, but when he saw men on both sides dying in battle, he decided killing a few to save many was the moral choice. He used his sharp shooting ability to take out a number of German soldiers until they surrendered and he took 132 prisoners that day.

This is a case of the principle in the virtue that had to be applied differently. A Christian may believe it immoral to lie but an exception can be made to protect the innocent from someone who intends harm.

The thief rationalizes that stealing is good because it is good for him. The Christian knows that stealing is bad because it deprives somebody else of something that is rightfully his/hers. Science is worthless in these kinds of value judgments and even rational thought can result in malicious or evil intent.

There certainly are moral dilemmas. I like to characterize them as the lesser of two evils.

 

[presonorek]

Your undeserved arrogance.

In order to have a productive discussion with anybody you have to agree to a common premise.

I think Christianity is awesome. You think Christianity is stupid. We can't use that.

You think a god exists. I don't. We can't do that.

You think the Bible is stupid. I think the Bible is the greatest and most influential work of literature ever published. We can't go there.

You believe the concept of common sense is a slam dunk. I think the term "common sense" is manipulative and nonsensical. We can't do that.

You think the god of the Bible doesn't exist. I agree that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. Can we start from there?

 

[presonorek]

Your undeserved arrogance.

One does not earn arrogance. It is given not earned.

 

[presonorek]

I'd be happy to catalog his points for you and you can go down the list one by one to expose the idiocy of your position.

I'd enjoy that but why would you go through all of that work? What exactly are you trying to learn from me?

 

[Foxfyre]

There certainly are moral dilemmas. I like to characterize them as the lesser of two evils.

I think moral dilemmas are pretty rare actually. There is only right and wrong. And sometimes the rules have to be applied differently to do what is right.

 

[ding]

In order to have a productive discussion with anybody you have to agree to a common premise.

I think Christianity is awesome. You think Christianity is stupid. We can't use that.

You think a god exists. I don't. We can't do that.

You think the Bible is stupid. I think the Bible is the greatest and most influential work of literature ever published. We can't go there.

You believe the concept of common sense is a slam dunk. I think the term "common sense" is manipulative and nonsensical. We can't do that.

You think the god of the Bible doesn't exist. I agree that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. Can we start from there?

You aren't here to have productive conversations. As evidenced by your Donald H impersonation of misstating my beliefs.

 

[ding]

One does not earn arrogance. It is given not earned.

Some people have achievements and are arrogant because of those achievements. That's not you.

 

[ding]

I'd enjoy that but why would you go through all of that work? What exactly are you trying to learn from me?

Not a damn thing. I already know your true colors. I'd only do it to embarrass you. Call it deserved arrogance.

 

[ding]

I think moral dilemmas are pretty rare actually. There is only right and wrong. And sometimes the rules have to be applied differently to do what is right.

I agree.

 

[dblack]

For the umpteempth time, religion and God are not the same thing. I feel like I have to say that to you at least 50 times a day, yet you still repeat the same misleading pablum.

Secondly, you're using the word "objective" in a different way... you're going by a different definition.

We have been talking about objective truths, in other words truths that are universally true, whether one believes them or not. Truths that are not a matter of opinion.

Mankind is not the source of objective truth.

There's nothing more "subjective" than one's personal conception of god.

 

[Blues Man]

Have you changed your mind on that?

Being objective is not discovering truth it is recognizing facts. It is divorcing emotion from reason

And You know I was speaking human sensory and nervous systems in that post. I think you'll find I also mentioned that when two people look at a tree they do not see the same thing

We know it is not beneficial for a child to be raped repeatedly because of the effect it has on that child's mind and body.

That is objectivity

 

[Blues Man]

You clearly don't understand the Bible, or Christianity. Or God.

As someone else already told you earlier, you keep pointing to temporal laws that only applied to a certain group of people, for a certain time period.

The Bible is a collection of books that contains a number of different types of writing. One of those is historical. That means that some parts of the Bible speak about things that only applied for a particular period of time, for a specific group of people. And even then you're misinterpreting those passages, but we don't have time for a Bible study right now.

So whether you're doing that intentionally or innocently, you're just presenting a strawman.

So instead of pointing to the Old Testament temporal laws, you need to understand that what Christians look to is the unchanging nature and character of God.

Which is LOVE. Truth. Wisdom. Justice. Holiness. Goodness....etc.

That's what true morality is based on. Not temporal Old Testament covenants specifically for this fallen world, but God's unchanging nature.

Here's another list of qualities that are from the Spirit:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23


And a little video for you:

The apologetics never end.

Oh you stupid people don't understand that the slavery in the Iron Age was a kinder gentler slavery than in later times.

You cannot get around the fact that your god did not condemn slavery because it was OK but he sure as hell made sure to say faggots should be killed.

The moral decrees of your god listed in the bible are in many cases reprehensible to people today, even to religious zealots.

And even you cherry pick what morals listed in your holy divinely created books demand.

 

[Blues Man]

Please reread my post. How do you know what is moral and what is not unless you have some kind of ethical structure via culture or religion to evaluate something? What is it that prompts people to care about people or creatures they have never seen, probably will never see? We are the only species on Planet Earth with that capability. Why is that? And I am not speaking of climate change or any phenomenon related to events or circumstances. I mean caring about somebody you have never met. I can assure you the American Indians of previous centuries did not. I can assure you most of those in the Roman Empire did not. I can assure you that those hunting endangered species do not.

Who decides and how do they decide what is moral or not moral and how is that determined unless conscience is part of that equation? If you confer and make up a set of rules to go by. How is it determined whether the death penalty--for example only please and not to prompt a discussion on the death penalty--is moral or not unless conscience is part of the equation? And where do conscience come from? It sure doesn't come from science or what passes for rational thought these days.

How can we figure out that repeatedly raping a child is reprehensible behavior?

Do you need a god to tell you that? I sure as hell don't

Behaviors that do not result in the harm of other people are desirable, behaviors that harm other people are not. That is the crux of morality. Humans know this and can rationally examine human behavior and rank all behaviors in the continuum of beneficent to harmful


What were humans doing before Moses had his hallucination in front of a burning bush? They were making laws regarding the behavior of people in society.

Let me ask you this if there was a religion and their divinely given holy book said every third person would walk in darkness, would you have no opinion on this culture's blinding of every third child born because their morality was divine in origin?

 

[Blues Man]

Your undeserved arrogance.

Pot kettle Donkey

 

[Blues Man]

For the umpteempth time, religion and God are not the same thing. I feel like I have to say that to you at least 50 times a day, yet you still repeat the same misleading pablum.

Secondly, you're using the word "objective" in a different way... you're going by a different definition.

We have been talking about objective truths, in other words truths that are universally true, whether one believes them or not. Truths that are not a matter of opinion.

Mankind is not the source of objective truth.

This is the definition I use.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

If you ever want to know the definition of a word I use all you have to do is look it up in a dictionary.

There is no objective standard for art

But we can analyze the results of human experiences as they relate to the well being of a person and objectively evaluate them on a continuum of beneficial to detrimental without any gods

For example we know that despite what the bible says that beating a child with a stick will not ensure good behavior but is more likely to result in that child beating his own child with a stick