Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[lilpixieofterror]

You guys are fundy Christians. In fact, the term was invented to describe you.

Do you even know what a 'fundy Christian' is?

[Christianbookworm]

Proverbs 6:16-19New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16
There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination [a]to Him:
17
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
{B}And hands that shed innocent blood{/B},
18
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who [b]spreads strife among brothers.

Get the picture? Infanticide would be shedding innocent blood.

[Christianbookworm]

You guys are fundy Christians. In fact, the term was invented to describe you.

Fundies ignore context. We look at the context and use actual scholars to support our views based on historical evidence.

[seer]

How are they objective and authoritative?

They are objective to humankind. They do not rely on the the whims of men for their existence. And they have authority because God is able to punish and reward on a universal scale. Unlike your view of objective morality which has no authority, and can be ignored without any consequences.

[seer]

Haha. I already addressed that, but in case you didn't read:

The standard response to the euthyphro dilemma that god is the good – god is the ontological foundation of goodness because he is intrinsically loving, compassionate and fair, etc. But then we can ask, is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them? In order to avoid compromising god's sovereignty and admitting that these properties are good independently of god, the theist who wants to hold to the moral argument must say that these traits are good because god has them. But how is love, compassion, fairness or any other positive attribute good only because god has them? They would be good irrespective of god's existence, as would be evident by their effects. The theist would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they wouldn't be good without god, which I haven't yet seen anyone successfully achieve. Thus I say objective moral values exist independently of god.

There is no third option.

Joel already answered this, are you pretending that you didn't read it? And BTW - these traits certainly would not have any objective existence apart from God. Also, moral questions must stop somewhere or we have infinite regression. We ground these questions in God, where do you ground them? Where exactly do your moral questions stop Thinker?

[Jedidiah]

Not a fan of Peter Singer, eh?

There are no Christians who are fans of Peter Singer.

[Sam]

There are no Christians who are fans of Peter Singer.

I disagree. I know a fair number of 'em. The man has a remarkable mind, regardless of how wrong he is.

[JonathanL]

I disagree. I know a fair number of 'em.

No you don't. You know people who call themselves Christians in spite of being fans of Peter Singer.

[Sam]

No you don't. You know people who call themselves Christians in spite of being fans of Peter Singer.

<turns around, sees the torches and pitchforks>

My, my, but TWeb is judgy today.

Being a fan of a person, or a person's thought process, does not constitute an agreement with that person or that person's thought process. Singer has compelling arguments and he's an honest advocate of those arguments. That's commendable in a world where many people lack both compelling arguments and honest apologies.

[seer]

<turns around, sees the torches and pitchforks>

My, my, but TWeb is judgy today.

Being a fan of a person, or a person's thought process, does not constitute an agreement with that person or that person's thought process. Singer has compelling arguments and he's an honest advocate of those arguments. That's commendable in a world where many people lack both compelling arguments and honest apologies.

I'm sure that same could be said of Satan.

[Zymologist]

<turns around, sees the torches and pitchforks>

My, my, but TWeb is judgy today.

Being a fan of a person, or a person's thought process, does not constitute an agreement with that person or that person's thought process. Singer has compelling arguments and he's an honest advocate of those arguments. That's commendable in a world where many people lack both compelling arguments and honest apologies.

Why yes, we're "judgy". We find value in human life and think it wrong to advocate killing babies. At this point, I'm not sure I'd be surprised if you disagreed with that statement.

[rogue06]

I disagree. I know a fair number of 'em. The man has a remarkable mind, regardless of how wrong he is.

Sounds more like a case where one can respect someone's intellect but not be a "fan."

[Sam]

Why yes, we're "judgy". We find value in human life and think it wrong to advocate killing babies. At this point, I'm not sure I'd be surprised if you disagreed with that statement.

If you're going to be judgy, make sure you're A) understanding the argument and B) criticizing the argument and not some imagined extrapolation.

Judgy and ignorant don't mix well.

[Sam]

Sounds more like a case where one can respect someone's intellect but not be a "fan."

I'm a fan of honest people of high intellect, among others.

[Zymologist]

If you're going to be judgy, make sure you're A) understanding the argument and B) criticizing the argument and not some imagined extrapolation.

Judgy and ignorant don't mix well.

What "imagined extrapolation?"