Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    Murdering children is NEVER justifiable.
    Says who?? From what i see you like to make pronouncements not back them up. One child or 6 million Jews and multiple children and adults in gas chambers? Your own morality is skewed if you think that platitudes substitutes for ethics

    Comment


    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
      So Gary is declaring things evil, but also calling himself a naturalist... the contradiction is comical.
      Theists are of the misconception that non-theists have no right to have a set of morals. Says who?

      Societies define morality. Societies are like herds. Herds make rules that are in the best interest of the herd. In an elephant herd, a lone male who attacks and kills the infant elephants will either be killed himself by the herd or kicked out of the herd. Setting rules for appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the herd is part of our evolutionary development. We don't need a god to do this. Gorillas, chimps, elephants, wolves, and many other species of animals have rules (morals) for the group.

      Our current "herd" (the U.S, and the larger herd, western civilization) believes that the targeted killing of infants is immoral now and in the past. We don't need the permission of a god or of theists to make this rule (moral standard).

      Comment


      • And what is murder?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          I guess moral dilemmas don't exist in fundy atheist land. God should have just taken the children to heaven instead of having them die. Wait, if the little kids die, they do go to heaven, which is a better place than ancient times were to grow up in. The reason a mother shouldn't murder her baby is that the kid could have grown up to be a great christian. Murdering her baby would just ensure that she and the baby don't get any rewards in heaven. And denying the child the right to make their own choice.
          Very sick, sadistic logic.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
            Says who?? From what i see you like to make pronouncements not back them up. One child or 6 million Jews and multiple children and adults in gas chambers? Your own morality is skewed if you think that platitudes substitutes for ethics
            Your "herd" says it is immoral and wrong.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Our current "herd" (the U.S, and the larger herd, western civilization) believes that the targeted killing of infants is immoral now and in the past. We don't need the permission of a god or of theists to make this rule (moral standard).
              Circular. There have been "herds" that have considered the killing of children as justifiable therefore by your own rationale it can be moral (part of the rules) of a herd. So your problem is not that morality cannot be justified in killing in children but the idea of God making the determination rather than herds of men

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                And what is murder?
                Murder is defined by the society (herd) in question.

                What is my definition of murder? Murder to me is the premeditated, targeted killing of any human being, committed in any circumstance other than self-defense (when one perceives the he is in immediate danger of grave bodily harm/death).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Very sick, sadistic logic.
                  Please explain. Physical death is just an inconvenience in the Christian worldview. Sure it stinks, but everyone will be brought back to life in immortal bodies in the last days.
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    Your "herd" says it is immoral and wrong.
                    Unfortunately (for your argument) you don't get to choose my herd and in the past the herd was pretty universal on whatever God says is right. hence by the rule of the herd the Amakelites received a moral judgement ( don't complain - its your definition of morality that has hung itself).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                      Circular. There have been "herds" that have considered the killing of children as justifiable therefore by your own rationale it can be moral (part of the rules) of a herd. So your problem is not that morality cannot be justified in killing in children but the idea of God making the determination rather than herds of men
                      Another "herd" may now or in the past consider killing children as justifiable. That does not change the fact that my herd (and I) considers it unjustifiable and immoral. Objective morality, moral standards that never change, do not exist. Even the moral standards in the Bible have changed.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Please explain. Physical death is just an inconvenience in the Christian worldview. Sure it stinks, but everyone will be brought back to life in immortal bodies in the last days.
                        "If I blow up myself and all the people in this market, I will go to heaven and receive 70 virgins as a reward, and all these "wicked, sinners" will get their just reward in Hell."

                        I see the logic in this statement and that of your statement as very similar and equally repugnant.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Another "herd" may now or in the past consider killing children as justifiable. That does not change the fact that my herd (and I) considers it unjustifiable and immoral. Objective morality, moral standards that never change, do not exist. Even the moral standards in the Bible have changed.
                          How old are you? Because you are showing signs of strict black and white thinking typical of young teens. I suppose you've never heard of a moral hierarchy or of having to choose between two evils. Real life is complicated. You won't always have a happy thrid option.
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            "If I blow up myself and all the people in this market, I will go to heaven and receive 70 virgins as a reward, and all these "wicked, sinners" will get their just reward in Hell."

                            I see the logic in this statement and that of your statement as very similar and equally repugnant.
                            Suicide bombing has nothing to do with tough moral dilemmas, you naive idealist.
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                              Unfortunately (for your argument) you don't get to choose my herd and in the past the herd was pretty universal on whatever God says is right. hence by the rule of the herd the Amakelites received a moral judgement ( don't complain - its your definition of morality that has hung itself).
                              Neither you nor I get to choose our herd. We were born into it. If you choose to start killing the children of the "wicked" your ass is going to be thrown in jail, whether you perceive your act to be immoral or not. The rules of the herd rule. Individuals may not agree with the rules, but they must obey them or face the consequences.

                              Yes, by the moral standards of the Israelites, it was not immoral to slaughter the little children of other nations. But in my herd (and yours) it is, and I would say that the majority of people in our herd today would condemn as immoral the behavior of the ancient Israelites, regardless of the claim that they had received orders from a deity to commit this horrific crime.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Another "herd" may now or in the past consider killing children as justifiable. That does not change the fact that my herd (and I) considers it unjustifiable and immoral. Objective morality, moral standards that never change, do not exist. Even the moral standards in the Bible have changed.
                                Most of the world (your herd) is theistic and would consider an action truly and verifiably coming from God a moral action so you lose again. Further your evolutionary argument equally makes no sense. At various stages animal DO kill infants for food. Unless you are claiming a moral directedness of evolution humans can go that way again or evolve into a species that does. So your whole argument fails on so many levels it laghable not to mention that one species "herd" is not another species "herd" so God being not a part of any human herd is then by your own logic free to have his own morality for his own "herd" species and therefore his actions are entirely justifiable

                                Maybe you should go think about your arguments and come back when you are ready

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X