Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[fm93]

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.

I'm no fan of Peter Singer myself, but you realize he's written intriguing arguments about philosophical issues besides abortion? Issues that don't conflict with Christian values? While I believe he's wrong about those too, there's no contradiction in being a Christian and admiring his philosophical prowess in those other issues, even if one still disagrees with him.

And now I feel dirty for somewhat standing up for Singer on this one minor point. Don't make me do this again.

[Sam]

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

Read "Paradise Lost" and tell me you're not impressed with Lucifer. Give the devil his due.

[Sam]

What "imagined extrapolation?"

"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."

Implying that A) these other folks don't and B) you haven't paid any attention to my participation in numerous discussions on the topic.

If you don't know, don't snark.

[Zymologist]

"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."

Implying that A) these other folks don't and B) you haven't paid any attention to my participation in numerous discussions on the topic.

If you don't know, don't snark.

I've paid attention. I'm just wondering how far your morality has really gone.

If they think that it's morally acceptable to kill a human infant, then it seems quite obvious that they don't actually find value in human life at that stage. They're, you know, advocating killing babies. I think that's wrong. Do you?

Feel free not to be condescending when you respond.

Edit: I'm sorry, but this conversation is not a good thing for me to participate in. Feel free to respond, but I don't think I'll be replying any more.

[Joel]

The the euthyphro dilemma shows that theism has no objective basis for morality, it exists independently of god.

After I showed the opposite (and you haven't shown me wrong), you are still claiming that?

The standard response to the euthyphro dilemma that god isis 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.

I already refuted this back in post #234. Your post here would seem to indicate that you didn't see my post at all.

But you can't claim that either, because you replied to some of my post in post #250 (and I followed up in post #257). You are blatantly here ignoring distinctions that I carefully explained.

Unnecessary: not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

Unneccessary for what? You are begging the question, because "unnecessary" implies reference to (assumes the existence of) some objective standard for what is necessary/essential/needed.

(Or it could refer to: unnecessary for a particular person's subjective purposes. But then we would no longer be talking about objective morality.)

[Joel]

Who came up with the idea of 'personhood' and how does 'personhood' define your right to be able to live?

I'm pretty sure that the term "personhood" became part of the debate because of the U.S. Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments, which say, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Person" was brought into the debate by discussion of whether those amendments protect pre-born human beings, when they refer to "person".

[Sam]

I've paid attention. I'm just wondering how far your morality has really gone.

See the bottom of this post.

If they think that it's morally acceptable to kill a human infant, then it seems quite obvious that they don't actually find value in human life at that stage. They're, you know, advocating killing babies. I think that's wrong. Do you?

It's precisely because Singer finds value in human life that his ethic allows for the killing of infants. There has to be a higher ethical value in Singer's utilitarianism that allows for such a loss and that higher value is another person's (or a person's, if one doesn't ascribe personhood to infants) well-being.

Your above depiction of Singer and others holding this rather radical (and I still contend very wrong) ethic just showcases my complaint: people criticize without understanding, let alone addressing, the arguments they oppose.

There's nothing to gain from such an ignorant approach to debate topics.

Feel free not to be condescending when you respond.

Don't criticize or question the character of others capriciously! If you don't know (or can't relate) Singer's argument, don't attack Singer's character for holding that argument. If you can't mentally allow that someone else might accept the strength of an argument without agreeing with the argument's conclusion, don't question their morality. In short, don't pigeonhole people.

Edit: I'm sorry, but this conversation is not a good thing for me to participate in. Feel free to respond, but I don't think I'll be replying any more.

If you keep ducking out of these conversations after lobbing uncharitable remarks, please don't question my morality or make comments on its supposed decline. If you have to ask whether and why I think killing infants is wrong, you have not paid attention to my past arguments on the subject. And if you're not willing to approach the issue with past knowledge or charity each time it comes up, you don't have a secure platform from which to judge.

[Adrift]

Read "Paradise Lost" and tell me you're not impressed with Lucifer. Give the devil his due.

[Sam]

This has always been one of my fascinations. Why do people make Lucifer out to be unimpressive? A being without any interesting let alone excellent qualities? Morning Star, highest angel ... you'd be impressed with him if you met him and you'd almost certainly like the cut of his jib against your better judgement.

It might even be beneficial to view Lucifer as the most "righteous" being created; a being of such piety that the prospect of sinful and material beings entering into communion with the Heavenly Host was unacceptable ... and the prevention of such a communion worthy of self-deprecation, even damnation. Lucifer as the anti-Paul.

If nothing else, such a depiction reminds us that the highest-order sins are sins of religious pride and that the strongest angels make the fiercest devils.

[Jedidiah]

It's precisely because Singer finds value in human life that his ethic allows for the killing of infants. There has to be a higher ethical value in Singer's utilitarianism that allows for such a loss and that higher value is another person's (or a person's, if one doesn't ascribe personhood to infants) well-being.

No matter how intelligent Singer may be there is no valid justification for this sort of murdering one human being (of any age) to improve the well-being of another.

[JonathanL]

Read "Paradise Lost" and tell me you're not impressed with Lucifer. Give the devil his due.

Does Paradise Lost come before or after Judges in the Bible?

[Cow Poke]

Does Paradise Lost come before or after Judges in the Bible?

It's back there with the books of Maps and Concordance.

[Sam]

Does Paradise Lost come before or after Judges in the Bible?

Chronology by writing or by plot?

[JonathanL]

Chronology by writing or by plot?

The point I was trying to make (in an admittedly roundabout fashion) was that since Paradise Lost isn't actually a part of the Bible there's no reason why we should let a book like that color our impression of who the devil is.

[Adrift]

This has always been one of my fascinations. Why do people make Lucifer out to be unimpressive? A being without any interesting let alone excellent qualities? Morning Star, highest angel ... you'd be impressed with him if you met him and you'd almost certainly like the cut of his jib against your better judgement.

It might even be beneficial to view Lucifer as the most "righteous" being created; a being of such piety that the prospect of sinful and material beings entering into communion with the Heavenly Host was unacceptable ... and the prevention of such a communion worthy of self-deprecation, even damnation. Lucifer as the anti-Paul.

If nothing else, such a depiction reminds us that the highest-order sins are sins of religious pride and that the strongest angels make the fiercest devils.

No. I wouldn't be impressed with him. The guy is a grade-A loser. He got beat down by Michael, and kicked out of the very grace of God for pride of all things. Tried to kill the Messiah, and failed. Thought he was being clever by offering the kingdoms of the world to that same Messiah, and failed. And finally got the rug pulled out from under him by crucifying the Lord of Glory. He's defeated, and doesn't even know it.