Moral Foundations - the universal and the arbitrary

[eider]

as Paul said, Romans seven:

¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ¹⁷ So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

²¹ So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²² For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ²³ but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Jesus said that he upheld all the laws of Moses (back then), save from the sacrificial ceremonial ones.
Did Paul's opinions match those of Jesus.?

[eider]

So, what part of scripture would be used to justify you constantly changing Starlight's username to an insult when you respond to him?

Wow! .......

[Diogenes]

Wow! .......

Since Mountain Man feels obligated to call out behaviour that's contrary to Scripture, I feel I should help him get the beam out of his eyes.

[eider]

Since Mountain Man feels obligated to call out behaviour that's contrary to Scripture, I feel I should help him get the beam out of his eyes.

Fair enough....
i was just surprised to read about name manipulations by any that's all.

[Mountain Man]

So, what part of scripture would be used to justify you constantly changing Starlight's username to an insult when you respond to him?

Satire, sarcasm, and mocking one's opponent is well exemplified throughout scripture. Even Jesus openly insulted the pharisees in his public debates.

[EvoUK]

So, what part of scripture would be used to justify you constantly changing Starlight's username to an insult when you respond to him?

Being objectionable makes him feel like a big boy, and he takes pleasure out of trolling others. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

[Diogenes]

Satire, sarcasm, and mocking one's opponent is well exemplified throughout scripture. Even Jesus openly insulted the pharisees in his public debates.

Jesus' use of satire, sarcasm, and mocking the Pharisees were more regarding a point than mere petty insults. Such petty insults, are more in line with the fruit of eris than any of the fruits of the Spirit. You're by no means not the first doxastically sincere Christian whose fruit leads me to question the effectiveness of the indwelling of Christ; you certainly won't be the last. If you don't think that petty insults damage your witness for Christ, that's your business. I doubt me raising the issue will stop you as you've been insulting Star since at least June 29th of 2015. If anything, your constant insults allow Starlight to show the fruit of makrothymia.

[Starlight]

TWeb's pretty much always been a place where the 'Christians' outdo themselves to be the worst possible people. The atheists tend to be reasonably nice and easygoing (they ones who aren't patient enough to take the insults just leave).

It gives a pretty clear testimony, in and of itself, as you note.

It's also a pretty unsurprising outworking of people's moral values if you think about them. I describe my morality as "value others" or love others, or the golden rule, depending on how you want to phrase it. Seer might critique it as 'subjective', but the upshot of following it is that while I might be occasionally a little snarky or a little pissed off, I do fundamentally try to care about other people and take them and their contributions seriously. I don't generally go beyond wanting to slap them in the face with a wet fish until they see sense.

Whereas many of the 'Christian' posters often make it reasonably clear they see nothing of value in us or in anything we say, and sometimes make it clear they hate us or want us dead. You'll occasionally see them refer in a very hopeful way to seeing us burn in hell.

It's actually way better than it used to be here tone-wise - it used to be extremely common to get half a dozen posts in a row in a thread that were nothing but one-line insult posts toward me, though I think the improvement mostly comes from the fact that there are now too many atheists here for them all to gang up on, rather than any improvement in the character or morality of the 'Christian' posters here. I grew up Christian, so I know what real Christian behavior is like and so know from the behavior of the 'Christians' on this site that they are not real Christians since they have none of the fruits of the spirit at all.

[EvoUK]

TWeb's pretty much always been a place where the 'Christians' outdo themselves to be the worst possible people. The atheists tend to be reasonably nice and easygoing (they ones who aren't patient enough to take the insults just leave).

I think it's more that there's some loud obnoxious types which tend to stand out more, though some of the ostensibly 'nicer' ones are passive-aggressive. I mostly hang out in the politics forum, and I notice that two atheists get along fine with everyone else because they toe the libertarian/right wing line.

Whereas many of the 'Christian' posters often make it reasonably clear they see nothing of value in us or in anything we say

This is very clear - often you'll see a certain Christian poster on here get a lot of stick from his buddies because he's 'on the same side' as some non-Christians on some political issues, as though being Christian or not is of any relevance when it comes to opinions on the reality of systematic racism or what have you. I'm not sure how an argument that boils down to 'certain relatively left-wing posters who happen to be non-Christians agree with you, therefore your argument is invalid' is in any way useful.

[Mountain Man]

Jesus' use of satire, sarcasm, and mocking the Pharisees were more regarding a point than mere petty insults. Such petty insults, are more in line with the fruit of eris than any of the fruits of the Spirit. You're by no means not the first doxastically sincere Christian whose fruit leads me to question the effectiveness of the indwelling of Christ; you certainly won't be the last. If you don't think that petty insults damage your witness for Christ, that's your business. I doubt me raising the issue will stop you as you've been insulting Star since at least June 29th of 2015. If anything, your constant insults allow Starlight to show the fruit of makrothymia.

I could picture the Pharisees making the same accusation against Jesus. "You're just hurling petty insults! You're not exhibiting the fruits of the spirit!"

[Mountain Man]

Whereas many of the 'Christian' posters often make it reasonably clear they see nothing of value in us or in anything we say...

You obviously have inherent value imbued by your Creator, but when you go out of your way to expose your abject ignorance of Christianity and the Bible, of course we're not going to see anything of value in what you say. Why should we?

[Diogenes]

I could picture the Pharisees making the same accusation against Jesus. "You're just hurling petty insults! You're not exhibiting the fruits of the spirit!"

Starlight is not abusing his position as a politico-religious authority to burden others nor are you using the term "Dimbulb" as critique that would be consistent of a rhetorical device such as satire or sarcasm. It's just petty insults. We'll see what the mods have to say.

[Mountain Man]

Starlight is not abusing his position as a politico-religious authority to burden others nor are you using the term "Dimbulb" as critique that would be consistent of a rhetorical device such as satire or sarcasm. It's just petty insults. We'll see what the mods have to say.

He is actively leading people away from the truth of Christianity and deserves derision for that alone. I'm sure you won't agree, but no matter. Based on scripture, I am in good company.

[Diogenes]

He is actively leading people away from the truth of Christianity and deserves derision for that alone. I'm sure you won't agree, but no matter. Based on scripture, I am in good company.

So the Gospel is not sufficient in it's own defence that you have to resort to insults throughout Tweb? The Apologetics 301 itself allows for more leeway for challenging Christianity. It even has a disclaimer to such an effect. Guests are welcome to the General Theistics 101 forum should they prefer a more gentle approach.

[Bill the Cat]

Starlight is not abusing his position as a politico-religious authority to burden others nor are you using the term "Dimbulb" as critique that would be consistent of a rhetorical device such as satire or sarcasm. It's just petty insults. We'll see what the mods have to say.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

We allow petty and not-so-petty insults. If you have any questions, please read the decorum

https://theologyweb.com/campus/help#...logywebdecorum

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.