Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 154 of 154
  1. #141
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By the Divine Command theory, it IS intrinsically evil...
    I've abbreviated your quote because your response carries a consistent theme throughout (God's power of fiat), and I think it's fairly straightforward to address. Also, you should note going forward that literally everything about something BEING so after God SAYING so is something you don't been to elaborate on anymore since - again - I pointed all this out here. I lost sight of that when you suggested we could resolve the problem by placing "can not" with "will not", and I elaborated on why it's not quite that simple a solution, but, having identified that oversight, it's plainly in view again.

    Also, I prefer to stick to my own example of "child rape" over "murder" to avoid the confusion between 'killing' and 'murder', and it provides less room for useless, unproductive, semantic quibbling. You can use whatever examples you want going forward, of course. But I intend to stick with mine when it serves my purposes, because I chose specifically it for the reasons I've described above.

    Last, I'm completely fine with abandoning terms like "objective" and "intrinsic" going forward. I used them mostly for the sake of brevity, but it's obviously just making everything foggy.

    Another thing I've failed to made explicit, and likely isn't obvious to you (being someone who doesn't appear, typically, to delve in the specifics of religions when engaging in theistic topics) is that Christians often rely on non-theistic, philosophical concepts (such as the Harm Principle, for example) when defending their version of morality. For example, they might refer to the harm same-sex marriage will do to society when describing why gay marriage is wrong. But the problem is that they can't rely on such principles because, as you rightly point out, if God can change the moral status of anything, what was a moral principle today could very well be an immoral principle tomorrow. And, when you look at some of the acts in the Bible where God has had direct influence, there seems to be a complete disregard for those principles on God's part, which strongly suggests that whatever practical reasons WE may have for behaving in some way, those reasons ultimately mean nothing.

    Consider earlier when talking about acts at 1) harm the victim 2) do not help in any way and therefore is 3) are instances of unnecessary suffering. These are practical reasons that virtually any critically-thinking person will invoke when describing what makes something like rape, theft, or murder actually immoral. And, they are practical reasons that would be unreasonable to disregard. The problem with someone who holds to Divine Command Theory (or ANY theory that holds that there is an ultimate moral arbiter who can change the rules however they want, whenever they want), is that those practical reasons aren't actually available to them in argumentation because they hold that God - and ONLY God - has the ultimate say-so, no matter what.

    Let's refer to someone to hold to Divine Command Theory as "DCT".

    Suppose that DCT #1 holds that gay marriage is immoral - They hold that it is immoral because God said so (The Old Testament forbids homosexuality)
    Suppose that DCT #2 holds that gay marriage is moral - They hold that it is moral because God said so (Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" and was known to dine with adulterers and the like)

    On what basis can they resolve their differences? Can they rely on any practical reasons (that their opponent would be irrational to disregard) in making their case? Nope. The only principle they can rely on is the supposedly "objective" idea that God agrees with them. And if DCT #1 disagrees with DCT #2 (or anyone, for that matter), then there's an intellectual stalemate.

    So the problem with DCT theory is that, if you are an advocate, it severely stifles critical thinking in the realm of moral philosophy, while at the same time being touted as the ultimate standard for morality.

  2. #142
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Suppose that DCT #1 holds that gay marriage is immoral - They hold that it is immoral because God said so (The Old Testament forbids homosexuality)
    Suppose that DCT #2 holds that gay marriage is moral - They hold that it is moral because God said so (Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" and was known to dine with adulterers and the like)

    On what basis can they resolve their differences
    On the basis that DCT #2, is not correct and doesn't mean what is forwarded. IE #2 is a strawman and Jesus is not saying Homosexuality (or in the sense being used here... EVERYTHING) is moral. Also Jesus called them "the sick", so it wasn't condoning.

    Now that a side, your argument struggles for relevance without an example of God actually changing his mind, in such a way as to show a change in character.
    So far it is only hypothetically possible, but again the usefullness of it is escaping me.

    The way you seem to be approaching this would be like.
    Gravity is a value set by God, so we have no way of knowing if tomorrow God will crush us all in a black whole because he tinkers with the value, or maybe even what the actual value of gravity is at any given moment. (Here all values God sets have the sme problem).


    ----
    Just out of curiousity.
    Should we choose uncertainty of what they are or the certainty of nonexistance of objective moral values?

    I mean, certainly there is a differance between saying "I think child rape is objectivly wrong"
    and
    "God has decreed child rape to be objectively wrong".

    The former is an invalid source for any objective value.
    While the later being the creator, as mican has said ... it is so makes it so.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #143
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    I would like you to respond to my posts point-by-point. I feel that I've had to repeat myself a little bit and that probably would not have happened if you responded point-by-point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Also, I prefer to stick to my own example of "child rape" over "murder" to avoid the confusion between 'killing' and 'murder', and it provides less room for useless, unproductive, semantic quibbling.
    Then how about just rape? I see no reason to discuss harming children when harm by itself will do just fine for our purposes. What is added by bringing children into it? To me it's just making the debate icky for no useful reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Another thing I've failed to made explicit, and likely isn't obvious to you (being someone who doesn't appear, typically, to delve in the specifics of religions when engaging in theistic topics) is that Christians often rely on non-theistic, philosophical concepts (such as the Harm Principle, for example) when defending their version of morality. For example, they might refer to the harm same-sex marriage will do to society when describing why gay marriage is wrong. But the problem is that they can't rely on such principles because, as you rightly point out, if God can change the moral status of anything, what was a moral principle today could very well be an immoral principle tomorrow.
    Just as there is a difference between "can not" and "will not", there is a difference between "can" and "will" and so these Christians can certainly say that the morals regarding gay marriage WILL never change so if they believe that, then they can hold that the principle WILL NOT change even if they acknowledge that they can change.

    And I can (and have in prior posts) make an argument that God conceivably cannot change moral laws within our universe without causing a paradox. In a nutshell, if this universe is based on God's laws then a change in laws means a change in universe and then this universe is no longer this universe. So for this universe to remain this universe, God's laws cannot change without causing a paradox (the paradox being that this universe stays this universe and becomes a different universe at the same time).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    And, when you look at some of the acts in the Bible where God has had direct influence, there seems to be a complete disregard for those principles on God's part, which strongly suggests that whatever practical reasons WE may have for behaving in some way, those reasons ultimately mean nothing.
    If we behave in the way that God wants us to, then our behavior means everything.

    As I said in my last post, you need to approach the Divine Command Theory as if it is true in order to criticize it. IF God actually demands a certain behavior from us, then there is nothing really more important than us conforming to that behavior. If God holds that the rules that apply to us don't apply to him, there is no inherent problem for that is the law and going by the DCT, the law is always right. To question it is as useless as questioning gravity. You can engage in a thought experiment on whether gravity really exists but if you jump off of a cliff, you will fall.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Consider earlier when talking about acts at 1) harm the victim 2) do not help in any way and therefore is 3) are instances of unnecessary suffering. These are practical reasons that virtually any critically-thinking person will invoke when describing what makes something like rape, theft, or murder actually immoral. And, they are practical reasons that would be unreasonable to disregard. The problem with someone who holds to Divine Command Theory (or ANY theory that holds that there is an ultimate moral arbiter who can change the rules however they want, whenever they want), is that those practical reasons aren't actually available to them in argumentation because they hold that God - and ONLY God - has the ultimate say-so, no matter what.
    But if DCT is true, that's not a problem. If the DCT is correct, then all alternative theories are wrong. Again, if someone wants to play around with alternative but incorrect theories, that's fine. But it's not necessary nor particularly productive to play around with incorrect answers when you have the correct one. And if you think it's fun and interesting to play around with the wrong answers, you can still do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Suppose that DCT #1 holds that gay marriage is immoral - They hold that it is immoral because God said so (The Old Testament forbids homosexuality)
    Suppose that DCT #2 holds that gay marriage is moral - They hold that it is moral because God said so (Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" and was known to dine with adulterers and the like)

    On what basis can they resolve their differences? Can they rely on any practical reasons (that their opponent would be irrational to disregard) in making their case? Nope. The only principle they can rely on is the supposedly "objective" idea that God agrees with them. And if DCT #1 disagrees with DCT #2 (or anyone, for that matter), then there's an intellectual stalemate.

    So the problem with DCT theory is that, if you are an advocate, it severely stifles critical thinking in the realm of moral philosophy, while at the same time being touted as the ultimate standard for morality.
    As I said, to point out flaws in the DCT, you must approach it as if it's true. And if it's true, then you haven't really pointed out any flaws for if the accurate answers are known, there isn't much need for a critical discussion. Do we need to have a critical discussion regarding whether the Earth is round or flat?

    And the reason I say we need to approach DCT as if it's true is that if it's not true or even unsupported, then I reject it for those reason and all other alleged flaws are kind of irrelevant. If there is a flaw in the theory itself, then the flaw must be present even if the theory is true.

    So again, I don't see much problem if there isn't a lot of critical analysis of accepted fact. Or if the DCT is true but many don't believe it is, then of course debate can be had. And if the debate stalls because the pro-DCT side cannot provide support for their side (even though they are right), it hampers critical debate but since the opposing side is wrong, the debate will not lead to any truth so lack of productive debate isn't really a problem. I mean if productive debate doesn't happen because it's impossible, then there's not really a problem. It's just reality.

    -------------

    All of the above being said, I say the major flaw in DCT is that there's no way (that I know of) to confirm that it's true and on that basis, many of your criticisms are very valid. If someone says that murder is objectively immoral because God says so and has no way to support that any of what he says is true, there isn't much reason to put any stock in it. I mean there's not much point is saying that it's an objective fact that gay marriage is immoral if one cannot provide any evidence that it is so.
    Last edited by mican333; December 23rd, 2016 at 09:16 AM.

  4. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  5. #144
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Meh, never mind. If I can't convince anyone that having a moral philosophy that's ultimately devoid of ontological content (if you assume that it's true, as I've been doing) presents a problem for that moral philosophy, then the conversation really can't go anywhere.

    I appreciate the feedback.

  6. #145
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    If I can't convince anyone that having a moral philosophy that's ultimately devoid of ontological content (if you assume that it's true, as I've been doing) presents a problem for that moral philosophy, then the conversation really can't go anywhere.
    I think you aren't focusing on the issue of "if it's true" well enough. If a belief is indeed true, the truth kind of removes all of the problems with it. Even if there is something unpleasant within it, if it's true the unpleasantness is just part of reality and you can't fault a theory for presenting unpleasant truths - it's not the theory's fault that there is an unpleasant aspect to reality; it's reality's fault. To fault the philosophy for revealing a problem that actually exists is basically shooting the messenger.

    So from my perspective, a moral theory being true pretty much removes any problem from the theory for again, it's not a flaw in the theory that allows us to learn an unpleasant truth.
    Last edited by mican333; December 28th, 2016 at 08:29 AM.

  7. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    First off, my apologies for the very late response - it has been quite a busy month at work for me, and I haven't had time to reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    The punishment was enacted and as such justice was served.
    You already confirmed that the system you're talking about is not fair (Post #90). Since the quality of fairness is required for the current definition of justice, you are talking about something else which is not justice, what is that?
    Also, punishment was not enacted in the Scenario A, so no justice was served in any sense of the word.
    You still haven't justified the difference in the punishment of Scenarios A & B, or explained how it is just. Jesus has already died, so the only/net change/difference is that A gets saved and B doesn't. You're saying that the impossibly vast difference in punishment is just, but it is based on nothing more than being saved. Just means that is morally good, proper, rational. You have not explained how that vast difference is in any way good or rational.
    In our justice system if we had two trials for the same crime, and Person A pleaded guilty and B innocent, and the judge decided to grant A a full pardon but B got death, nobody would accept this as just or fair or try to call it justice. So how do you justify it with Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Is it rational to hate a religion based upon the actions of one of its followers, especially when the follower was acting of his own accord and in violation of his religion's doctrines?The answer to that is no. His reaction is understandable in light of the circumstances, but it isn't rational.
    So what? I've already supported why the victim is entirely justified in their attitude. All you've done is switched from justifying sending the victim to hell for their attitude by saying they shouldn't judge the church, to justifying sending them to hell by saying that it's irrational for them to judge the church. So now being rational is so important? So much so that failing to be rational means one deserves to go to hell, even if the irrationality is entirely justified? Nice. In any case, continuing to hate the church which led to the victim being raped as a child is justified and punishing them for eternity in hell is not, even if you think their attitude is irrational. Also, I would say their attitude could be considered rational in light of how many rapist priests are treated when their misdeeds are discovered. It is perfectly understandable that the victim would want nothing to do with a religion in which the illegal protection of child rapists is so institutionalized, and such a reaction could be considered perfectly rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    What expectations? Reason? Logic? Mercy? The victim's position, while understandable in light of the emotional impact of rape, is not logical. He blames and hates Christianity for the actions of one of its followers, which is a hasty generalization and an attribution error.
    Blaming someone whose life was ruined as a child for not being able to get over what happened to them and just start thinking logically and mercifully about it and sending them to hell as punishment for not being able to do so is wholly unfair and unjust. Please explain how what the victim is doing is bad enough for them to get sent to hell, and support why it should be called justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    If you modified the scenario such that the rapist was LGBT or another minority, would it be reasonable for the victim to hate the LGBT community or the minority group? Of course not.
    If a child got raped by a leader in a minority group organization, nobody would think the victim should go to hell for hating the organization. I don't see your point, and you still haven't justified why the rape victim deserves hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Justice is defined by God's nature as a perfect being. You (and others) have objected to this because it means that it is a "divine edict". Of course, you don't explain why that is wrong or bad, merely that it is arbitrary.
    I'm not necessarily saying that it's wrong - if what you believe is true, then there's no point in assigning a right or wrong value to it, since we're all screwed anyway. What I'm saying is that it isn't justice because it's not fair. If you're talking about "whatever the perfect and unfair deity wants", then I guess Christianity has tons of that! But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals", which Christianity lacks.

    Also, I'm not sure how you're used to using those words, but "perfect" and "unfair" don't usually play well together - in fact they never do. You've already agreed that God is unfair, so how do you reconcile that with your claim that God is a perfect being? Something doesn't make sense here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Question: Where does our sense of justice originate?
    From a rational consideration of what is fair and moral. We evaluate actions and their consequences to determine what punishments/rewards would be fair in each situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Why is it unjust and unfair?
    Well, we already agree that it is unfair, and it is unjust for largely the same reasons. Justice as commonly defined includes fairness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    ...is not an adequate response because apart from the dictionary definition of justice, we have not agreed upon what is "commonly considered justice" in this context.
    I provided the definitions in post #89, and you said thanks. In the beginning of this post you claimed you were using the same definition I provided, and here you are saying that we have not agreed upon a definition. The definition was provided. If you disagree with it, then you are talking about something which is not justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    I didn't merely claim it was a tenet, I preceded that with "It does not logically follow that just because God knows in advance who will choose not to follow him, that these non-believers never had the ability to make that choice." This is a non sequitur. P3 does not necessarily follow from P1 and P2, as there could plausibly be a scenario in which God knows what choice we will make in advance, yet chooses to create the conditions by which the persons have free will and can not choose him.
    First of all, the premises don't actually need to follow logically from or lead to one another.
    Second, your objection is addressing only the part that God knows who will believe and who won't, and is conveniently ignoring the fact that God chose to create the specific reality in which they don't. P3 is making the point that, since God chose to create the specific reality in which they would not ultimately believe, they don't have the ability to ultimately believe, since that would contradict the reality which God chose to create. For them to be able to ultimately believe, God would had to have chosen to create the specific reality in which they do. He didn't, so P3 stands. By accepting P1 and P2, the non-believers' fates are literally sealed the moment God chooses to create the specific reality in which he knows they would not believe. P3 is just adding the bonus unfair aspect of Gods choice of creating the rules which damn them to eternity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    You assume that it is possible for God to create a specific reality where everyone would choose him without actually supporting that assumption. As such, you need to support that it is possible for God to have created a specific reality where people would always choose him.
    Wait, are you saying that God was forced to create this specific reality, and had no choice whatsoever? How do you know that it's impossible for God to have created a reality in which everyone believes? I mean, he's God, and miracles are supposedly his thing. I find it hard to believe that if God exists and has the ability to appear to people and perform miracles, that he couldn't get everyone to believe even if he didn't have the power to create a specific reality in which people naturally came to him - especially since he supposedly wants that to happen. Sorry, except for the child rape victim - he wants nothing to do with that hate monger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Okay, can you please define the metrics of this valuation system? Who determines what constitutes a 'positive' or 'negative' valuation?
    The society which is affected by the contribution. Societies generally values contributions like working hard and raising positive members of society much greater than contributions like ruining the lives of children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    So you're saying that justice is ultimately subjective? You specifically state that you attempt to evaluate the situation objectively, but of course we all have biased viewpoints which can distort our perception of what fairness, equality and lawfulness should be.
    As a society, we determine collectively how to define justice and what is considered just. If one member of the society has a different viewpoint, they are welcome to share it and take part in the greater discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    As such, who's to say that your view of justice is better than mine?
    You still haven't clearly defined what you call justice. And since you have already admitted that it isn't fair, then it is clearly inferior. One glaring problem I might add is that what you're calling justice is wholly dependent on the existence of a specific deity, which you haven't supported, so you still have all your work ahead of you.

  8. #147
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Pretty easily, actually. The kid had parents.
    Sure, religious parents who put him in the situation in which he was raped as a child. Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Did he later in life have friends who never tried to help him?
    It's hard to imagine what kind of friends he'd have throughout his life, but it's safe to say they probably wouldn't be religious, and would most likely support him in not wanting to have anything to do with the religion. In any case, what exactly did he need help with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    His wife never tried to help him?
    Again, what exactly did he need help with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It would be pretty hard to imagine He never had insurance through his job that covered mental and emotional health or tried a hotline for help or ANYTHING that exists in this world for the sole purpose of helping people through pain and heartache? Would it be rational, logical, or reasoned to look at a person -- who has either ignored the pleas of loved ones for him to get help or make an internal decision not to seek help -- and go, "It's definitely the fault of the person who's not him for the way he feels several decades later". That. To me. Would be absolutely unrealistic.
    All the examples you provide lead to possibly helping the victim with accepting the pain of what was done to him. You have not demonstrated how such help would necessarily lead him to forgiveness or accepting the faith and getting into heaven, nor have you justified why his failure to: overcome what was done to him as a child, forgive the rapist, accept the religion under which it was done to him, means he deserves eternity in hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    I look at him and go, "It sucks. I can't imagine it. But you can feel better, live better, and enjoy life a helluva lot more than you are. And if you can't get over it and join the religion under which you were raped, then you deserve to go to hell for eternity, and I believe that to be fair and just because God."
    Fixed that for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I justify the consquences of his emotions on his life because they are HIS emotions and impact HIS life. I'm not suggesting it's easy. I'm just highlighting the fact that your scenario is absent any mention of his even attempting to find a way to remove that pain. And that speaks to someone who doesn't want to change.
    Again, even if he doesn't want to change (and I'd argue that the line between "doesn't want to" and "can't" is quite blurred, and you'll have to support why it should be "doesn't want to" instead of "can't"), you still haven't justified how he deserves eternal torture vs. the priest deserves heaven avoiding any punishment. This is not fair and it is not justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    So we have three people who endured severe assaults...and your argument here is, "Well they had faith so of course they could move forward"...while arguing against the very thing that gave two of the three the strength to move forward with life? That's a little weird.
    I'm sorry you misunderstood the idea, but it's really quite simple. You provided the examples as justification for why the rape victim deserves hell for not being able to change. You're essentially saying, "These people were able to change and do what the faith requires of them, so the fact that the rape victim isn't able to means he deserves hell". My response was to point out that the comparison is unfair because your examples are of people who are already faithful. Therefore, your examples and the comparison you make do not justify sending the rape victim to hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And mind you, that's a Christian. A woman whose spiritual obligation is to forgive. And it took her for years just to get to a point where she could TALK to them. Again, not suggesting it would be easy for the guy to get over or move past. But you've given zero indication he put forth an effort to do so.
    So what? You've again provided an example where the victim has a clear advantage in that they are already faithful. I've already showed why this doesn't justify expecting the rape victim to be able to change and punishing them for eternity for not being able to change.

    Further, two of your examples involve the crime's processing through the Gacaca court justice system. Since this is a form of justice, the examples are ultimately invalid as comparisons because it's another aspect which makes it easier for the victims to forgive. Our scenario's victim sees no justice of any kind for the child rapist.

    Again, it's clear that your "looking at the facts" goes only as far as is necessary for you to continue to rationalize what you believe is right and just. Unfortunately, it falls miserably short of providing any real and fair justification other than the divine edicts of a capricious and malevolent deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Firstly, what you're arguing here is impossible from a scriptural standpoint because if one attains salvation and continues in the same manner as before, they aren't truly saved and not only do they deserve Hell, but scripture says they actually deserve worse. So if he did his deeds post salvation, then Mr. Pedo-priest isn't going to Heaven.
    Read the scenario again. At no point did I say he got saved and then continued raping children. He continued raping children all his life, and got saved before he died - maybe even on his death-bead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If he was sincere, if his plea for Christ for genuine, then he would not have continued to do what he did which is why I placed his salvation towards the end of his life AFTER you suggest that he possibly went on to repeat offend because if he had done it before, then his continued engagement in that behavior would show that he was insincere and could not possibly get into heaven. Whether or not you agree with that being true, does it at least make sense?
    Sure, that makes sense. Again, I never said he continued raping after being saved, but that he got saved after spending his life raping.
    However, I do have one question: If he got saved, and then decided to rape again, would he not be able to get saved again before he dies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Now then, as far as him never being punished himself, you're still making an error in judgement here. It's not that punishment is nullified. It's that punishment for him is transferred to Christ via his (Jesus') willingness to and desire to accept that punishment for him (the priest, you, me, etc) because He doesn't want to see it done, but still HAS to execute justice (punishment if we're gonna be common about it) for what's been done.
    Again - from the portion of my post which you ignored - Jesus already died (supposedly, and not even permanently), so the net difference is: first he was guilty and going to hell, and afterwards he was totally internally transformed (auto-salvation-feelings, roll out!) and going to heaven. That is a complete suspension of justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If we're applying this to Christianity, then within scripture we see that the crime and criminal were judged according to God's law and punishment was dealt.
    No punishment was dealt. Jesus had already died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    The only you can really dispute here is whether or not such a thing is fair since it follows everything else. And as far as fairness goes, I'd say it's fair because that's the same reality for every one...which is kind of the definition of fair.
    Well, of course it's the same reality for everyone - nobody's suggesting differing realities. We're not talking about "fair" as in "we all exist in the same & equal reality". What we're discussing is the difference in the treatment of the child rapist and the victim and whether that is fair. How is it fair to give an infinitely greater reward (heaven instead of hell) to someone who spent their life enjoying raping children but then got saved, and an infinite punishment in hell to someone for not being able to get over being raped as a child, but still managed to live a good life, committing no crimes, contributing positively to society, and raising children who themselves become positive members of society?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I ignored everything else in your post because it was either emotive or non-argumentative.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but rebutting your points and pointing out how you contradict yourself or why your position is irrational is not emotive or non-argumentative. If you choose to ignore rebuttals to your argument, then you abandon it.

  9. #148
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    I'm only as far as Post # 19 and feel that I must comment, so if I misrepresent your argument feel free to correct me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    It's not arbitrary because I have supported that it's a good system based on the premise that it's good to be happy. - Post # 19
    If I understand your justification for what morality "should" be based on (and please correct me if I am wrong), it is that it is "good" to be happy.

    You are equating a "good system" with being happy.

    Is that it?

    If so, then please explain why a personal preference (subjective opinion/taste) regarding happiness is the standard or measure for goodness? A person who tortures innocent children for fun and pleasure could be very "happy" in what they are doing. Because he is happy, you have deemed this "good" or "right!"

    So, why does happiness make something "good" like torturing innocent babies because it makes a person happy, for instance? Or perhaps I should rephrase this; is torturing innocent babies because it makes a person happy something that is good?

    Again, your definition: "It's good to be happy."

    I think what you do is confuse likes/tastes with values.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And if you aren't seeking to show that my version of justice is inferior then I see no point in attacking it. - Post # 19
    I do believe it is inferior for it lacks a demonstrated solid foundation, one that is fixed and does not change. What makes you happy now could be something that makes you miserable in ten years from now, or tomorrow. Relative, personal preference based morality is arbitrary. For one thing, why should your own opinions govern the way others SHOULD act or look at goodness? What you define as happy could be what someone else defines as evil. Smoking marijuana could make you very happy, so can heroin, briefly.

    What makes your views BETTER than my contradictory views? Because you say so? Is that WHY it SHOULD be good?

    No fixed reference point is the problem. No fixed reference point equals anything goes; anything can be called right depending on who pushes what view (and we see this in the course of human history; even cultures flipping and flopping over morality, depending who is in power). Those who reject a necessary, objective references point then must push personal feelings and, I contend, much of the time an evil.

    If you are basing morality on YOUR likes and dislikes how does that make something "good?" It just makes it something you like or are happy doing (like torturing an ethnic group for fun, to take an extreme example).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    If you want to argue that my choice is arbitrary, then you have that burden of support that with A SUPPORTED ARGUMENT. - Post # 19
    Why is a choice the ultimate standard? It seems to me that you just want to make up "Good." It is what you believe! End of discussion! Once I disagree with your choice because I think my "choice" is better the question becomes which is the real standard if any?

    If there is no ultimate best then what do you have to compare goodness to and how do you KNOW it is what you claim it to be? Knowing truth is the problem with relativism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And again, questions are not arguments. - Post # 19
    No, correct, but they seek to find out what justification a person has for an argument, help to focus a person on an issue, or ironically push a point as to its truthfulness or absurdity.

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; June 28th, 2017 at 09:56 PM. Reason: Grammatical mistake and improper quotations

  10. #149
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm only as far as Post # 19 and feel that I must comment, so if I misrepresent your argument feel free to correct me.
    I'm not entirely sure how relevant your comments are to the argument I was making then so instead of looking over previous posts and trying to pull you on track to what the debate was, I'm going to take your comments at face value. I will clarify my argument as I feel I need to. But it looks like we are on the subjective/objective morality issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If I understand your justification for what morality "should" be based on (and please correct me if I am wrong), it is that it is "good" to be happy.

    You are equating a "good system" with being happy.

    Is that it?

    If so, then please explain why a personal preference (subjective opinion/taste) regarding happiness is the standard or measure for goodness? A person who tortures innocent children for fun and pleasure could be very "happy" in what they are doing. Because he is happy, you have deemed this "good" or "right!"

    So, why does happiness make something "good" like torturing innocent babies because it makes a person happy, for instance? Or perhaps I should rephrase this; is torturing innocent babies because it makes a person happy something that is good?

    Again, your definition: "It's good to be happy."

    I think what you do is confuse likes/tastes with values.
    First off, I am referring to a system that makes people happy so it is not based on any particular individual's happiness but everyone's happiness. So while a sicko might be happy torturing babies, his actions create more unhappiness than happiness within society. Odds are very good that the baby's unhappiness is stronger than the sicko's happiness so just between those two, allowing him to do as he is doing decreases happiness in the system. And then when we add the pain it causes those who care about the infant, either directly (like the baby's parents if the sicko is not the parent) and society at large when they hear about this deed, going by the standard of maximizing happiness within the system, we would definitely not allow baby torture.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I do believe it is inferior for it lacks a demonstrated solid foundation, one that is fixed and does not change. What makes you happy now could be something that makes you miserable in ten years from now, or tomorrow.
    If that's the case we should change the laws to correspond to what makes people happy today. What's the point of maintaining old modes if it doesn't make us happier?


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Relative, personal preference based morality is arbitrary. For one thing, why should your own opinions govern the way others SHOULD act or look at goodness?
    I don't think that my opinion, in and of itself, should govern others. But assuming we are going to have laws at all that govern behavior, what people think it appropriate is a pretty good standard. Within the US we have a system that protects individual rights and we have that system because that's what people want. It makes us happier than not having our rights protected. We are happier when murder is punishable under the law than if we decided to not impose on someone's right to kill another human being. And we don't have to do this. There is nothing stopping us from scrapping all laws against murder if that's what we want. But we have these laws because we want these laws because we are happier when we have such laws.

    And I see no better alternative than the will of the people.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What makes your views BETTER than my contradictory views? Because you say so? Is that WHY it SHOULD be good?
    Those are questions based on premises that I did not forward. I didn't say that my views are better than yours nor is that my position so this question is not valid. As far as application to laws, I think we have the same right to do that so our views are equal in that regard.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No fixed reference point is the problem. No fixed reference point equals anything goes; anything can be called right depending on who pushes what view (and we see this in the course of human history; even cultures flipping and flopping over morality, depending who is in power). Those who reject a necessary, objective references point then must push personal feelings and, I contend, much of the time an evil.
    I don't understand how a fixed point will solve this. First off, there is no way to determine what the fixed point is nor is there any way to get people to agree that it IS a fixed point. One can disagree with a fixed point that says "murder is wrong" just as easily as they can disagree with someone's personal opinion that murder is wrong.

    I mean if there was some fixed point that everyone had no choice but to agree with then that would create an unassailable moral position that murder is wrong but such a thing does not exist as in there is no provable fixed point. You can say that God (who would be an unassailable source of morality if he exists) says that murder is wrong but unless you can prove that God exists and indeed has said that murder is wrong, this has no more effect to those who don't agree with you than my personal opinion has to those who disagree with me.

    So effectively, there is no fixed point so it's not superior to people's personal views.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If you are basing morality on YOUR likes and dislikes how does that make something "good?" It just makes it something you like or are happy doing (like torturing an ethnic group for fun, to take an extreme example).
    But then I'm not advocating a system based on what one person, even if that person is me, likes. It's not a coincidence that people are against murder and the system prohibits murder.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why is a choice the ultimate standard?
    That's not relevant to my comment. I was challenging the notion that my choice is arbitrary.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, correct, but they seek to find out what justification a person has for an argument, help to focus a person on an issue, or ironically push a point as to its truthfulness or absurdity.
    Sure. But if you are going to make the argument that my position is absurd, the original burden is on you to argue this in the form of an argument.

  11. #150
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I'm not entirely sure how relevant your comments are to the argument I was making then so instead of looking over previous posts and trying to pull you on track to what the debate was, I'm going to take your comments at face value. I will clarify my argument as I feel I need to. But it looks like we are on the subjective/objective morality issue.
    True, my comments, or the tangent on objective morality, has nothing to do with the OP. The argument deviated from the OP. I followed on with the deviation and, as I mention, I have not read the full thread to be current on what has transpired.

    Peter

  12. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    It makes us happier than not having our rights protected. We are happier when murder is punishable under the law than if we decided to not impose on someone's right to kill another human being. And we don't have to do this. There is nothing stopping us from scrapping all laws against murder if that's what we want. But we have these laws because we want these laws because we are happier when we have such laws.

  13. #152
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    I'm talking about what people, in general, agree is just. People, in general, believe that the guilty should be punished and the innocent should not be punished.

  14. #153
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,312
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by bestellen View Post
    I'm talking about what people, in general, agree is just. People, in general, believe that the guilty should be punished and the innocent should not be punished.
    This might be a form of ad hom fallacy. Why would a majority opinion be the correct one? People think in certain countries that a woman should be killed for being raped. Why then, should we defer to what people, in general, agree on when it comes to individual justice?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #154
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwaters View Post
    I've been researching conspiracy theories for a few years, and recently I've been focused on the conspiracy of Christianity. Christianity is an ideal system for gaining control over a people, as it promotes traits such as submissiveness, a tendency towards blind obedience, and a reluctance to seek justice (revenge) if one is wronged. For those who are interested, I've found this site to be good for this topic http://exposingchristianity.org
    Does anyone else have any thoughts on how Christianity might be used to coerce/control people?
    I personally believe that many elements of the religion were used for control of the population, I.E. Anti-Gay and the loose biblical rules regarding slavery (Exodus: 21.20) have their roots in original versions of the bible.
    A divided minority will always beat a divided majority.

 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

Similar Threads

  1. 911 Conspiracy
    By PatrickHenry in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: June 16th, 2011, 07:52 AM
  2. The philosophy of Christianity and the religoin of Christianity
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2005, 12:01 PM
  3. Hey I got a conspiracy for you...
    By EscraymCroix in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: April 1st, 2005, 11:27 PM
  4. The Mormon Conspiracy
    By freedom man in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 21st, 2005, 02:24 PM
  5. Conspiracy or cover up?
    By CC in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 14th, 2005, 02:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •