Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Spoiler: Who will be eaten first? (click to show/hide)

[kaijyuu]

Only if there is a god,

Yeah, that's the assumed presumption. Meaningless debate if we assume the opposite so no need to point that out

and only if the morality that he follows is the same as the one he asks you to follow,

BZZZT

Assumption that misleading = bad. That's your opinion, but if objective morality determines that not to be the case, this premise is debunked.

and only if the god is also correct.

Christian interpretation assumes that's always the case. Other interpretations, sure, this will have to be proven.



If someone does something evil believing it not to be evil, then objective morality states they still have no excuse. However, since determining what objective morality actually is correct is so difficult, your own presumptions can damn you by the same token. I have no reason to believe your interpretation is superior to mine. If we throw religion into the mix, I think deism gives a pretty good reason to believe said deity has a better idea than you or I, but of course theology being itself impossible to prove, that's not a perfectly founded assumption either.

[ggamer]

@Truean:

You seem to think that there are two levels of sin. This might be due to denominational differences, but there is only one level of sin. As a famous christian put it:

You and Hitler are both sinners, he for committing genocidal atrocities, and you for stealing your co-workers pens. It doesn't matter how far over the line you crossed, it just mattered that you crossed the line.

I'd have to say that the Old Testament is rather profounding, as it mainly applies to the faith of Judaeism, before Jesus died for our sins. It's still a good moral guide, but I'm not going to pretend that I understand it, nor that anyone my age can understand it. The New Testament is our main guide, and is much easier to understand.

When I compared the sin of homosexuality to lying and stealing, I was referring to it as a condition, such as Kleptomania or pathological lying. (I'm not saying it in a negative light, though).

[scriver]

Well we all have different opinions what's evil or not. Who's going to decide which is the "correct" objective morality?

No, but you see - it just happens to be so that the objective morality corresponds exactly to what Nadaka think is wrong or right, while everybody else's so called "morality" is wrong! Isn't it great for Nadaka that it just happens to be that way, and that he isn't one of the other 6,999,999,999 people?

[Andir]

... if the morality that he follows is the same as the one he asks you to follow ...

As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually spoken to God (according to legend) in thousands of years, and even then it was third (fourth even?) party.

So your options are to follow the words of a book and/or your church.  So if your church is covering up/participating in pedophilia, how do you determine if God wants/dislikes those acts?

[Phmcw]

God's morality doesn't have to follow your morality. Or mine. Or anyone's but his own.

Not saying I agree with ggamer, but "that would be wrong" isn't something you can levy directly at God. People, sure (especially those who pretend to be speaking for God but aren't, in your opinion).

I don't believe in subjective morality. If a man does evil and says that it is ok because he does not believe it is evil for him, he still did evil. If a hypothetical god does evil and says that it is ok because he does not believe it is evil for him, he still did evil.

Yeah but for him you're evil. My takes on the matter is that you must try to reason your way out of these situation if possible, then live and let live, and in last resort, well... better him than me.

I personally find the idea of sin disgusting, one of the worse abomination mankind inflicted on himself, and an important and dangerous tool of the guilt trip that the Christian religion is. Seriously? A crime against god? If that thing fucked up his creation he'd better take upon himself rather than the sad, sorry reject of his world. Read the horrific story of "general butt naked" and try to sell me the idea of sin after that.

And seriously, get over yourself, no all powerful, all knowing entity is in love with you, you're just another boring animal among the million of billion that populate this rock, and that's awesome enough like that.

[Willfor]

The theology that ggamer is trying to describe is that by the Old Testament we are condemned without fail to the last man, and that the ceremonies that we were given in the Old Testament to give temporary atonement have given way to the New Testament's singular way to redemption. The laws that we were given in the Old Testament were therefore meant to show us that there is no way not to have sinned, and that following the actual law that God would have us abide by is impossible. However, we have been given a full pardon for our inabilities that is entirely impossible to have been given by anything inside of this world.

[Leafsnail]

Well we all have different opinions what's evil or not. Who's going to decide which is the "correct" objective morality? Seems to me the best candidate to enforce said objective morality is God. If you disagree, then by your own admission, believing that something isn't evil doesn't justify you.

Who cares about objective morality?  There's no need for it to be "objective".  We just need to define our morality clearly and apply it.

I mean, other people may have a different definition of "chair" to mine, but I can still apply my definition of "chair" universally.  I can say if something is a chair or not even if other people disagree.  In the same way, I can say if something's moral or not, even if other people disagree.

So... if humans have one definition of morality and God thinks morality is something else we can still say he's evil according to our definition of morality.  Heck, even if God claims to have an "objective" definition of morality we can still have our own.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would have to say that if a deity sets down a code of conduct that it is well aware are literally impossible for humans to follow, than that deity is being unreasonable and tyrannical by trying to inflict consequences upon us for not following the Impossible Code of Ultimate Righteousness.   

[Willfor]

I would have to say that if a deity sets down a code of conduct that it is well aware are literally impossible for humans to follow, than that deity is being unreasonable and tyrannical by trying to inflict consequences upon us for not following the Impossible Code of Ultimate Righteousness.

That's why he's not?

Did you like, not even read the last bit of what I said?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would have to say that if a deity sets down a code of conduct that it is well aware are literally impossible for humans to follow, than that deity is being unreasonable and tyrannical by trying to inflict consequences upon us for not following the Impossible Code of Ultimate Righteousness.

That's why he's not?

Did you like, not even read the last bit of what I said?

Yes, and you said "the actual code God would have us abide by is impossible". That he is willing to "forgive" us for the crime of being born to an imperfect species of being as long as we're part of His Club is not sufficient justification in my eyes.

[Nadaka]

... if the morality that he follows is the same as the one he asks you to follow ...

As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually spoken to God (according to legend) in thousands of years, and even then it was third (fourth even?) party.

So your options are to follow the words of a book and/or your church.  So if your church is covering up/participating in pedophilia, how do you determine if God wants/dislikes those acts?

You have two refuges.
Doctrine. You can go as close to the source as you can, for most Christians this is the bible.
Reason. You determine the truth as best as you can by using your logical capabilities.
I've done both and found doctrine to be broken and self contradictory, and reason to be relatively clean and effective.


MetalSlimeHunt... I believe you are mixing Willfor and ggamer up in that last post. Ggamer was the dude saying that homosexuality was sin but is willing to forgive it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I...wasn't talking about homosexuality? Willfor and I were discussing the validity of the Doctrine of Sin in general.

[kaijyuu]

Well we all have different opinions what's evil or not. Who's going to decide which is the "correct" objective morality? Seems to me the best candidate to enforce said objective morality is God. If you disagree, then by your own admission, believing that something isn't evil doesn't justify you.

Who cares about objective morality?  There's no need for it to be "objective".  We just need to define our morality clearly and apply it.

Oh I agree with you. I'm just following his premises to point out the inherent consequences of such thinking.

[Willfor]

I think I should back up a moment. ggamer and I have somewhat similar concepts of the grace doctrine, and I decided to step up and give it an actual explanation. My own position on exactly how you line yourself up with God enough to get into "His club" is a bit more liberal than his is, and my own position on Salvation is one I am still wrestling with myself on for a few different reasons. Though strangely enough, the inherent unfairness to people who actively reject it is not one of them. For the simple fact that I believe that any time you resist selfishness it is an act that is bringing you closer to God whether you like it or not.

That probably sounded more like a Buddhist thing right there, but I don't really mind.