Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Response to Astreja

If you get cut off in traffic and get mad at the other driver and yet you do not give him the finger or ram him with your car you can claim a moral victory. The Christian has only met the standard by not feeling any ill-will towards the other driver.

I say good for you for not ramming the guy but your morals are carnal - at the sensory level. The Christian is at a higher level, spiritual - how do I feel about the person who wronged me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 02:19 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Yes, I am aware.
Then you should be aware that it doesn't matter who he was talking to when he said we need to keep the commandments. It applies to everyone, including Christians.

(16-12-2016 02:19 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  That does not mean He did not espouse Christian doctrine.
As Jesus himself stated, keeping the commandments IS Christian doctrine. Why do you not believe your own God? Consider

Nope. That is a misunderstanding. The Law was never to be followed as a way earn your way into Heaven or to earn righteousness. The Law was given to highlight and give strength to sin.

Jesus said to the rich young ruler that he had to keep the commandments. The rich young ruler thought he was keeping the commandments. Jesus showed him that he was failing on the very first one by having the god of money before Him.

Good discussion!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 01:35 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 10:28 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  James 4:17New International Version (NIV)
17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

I missed this earlier. How does this one verse become "the Christian basis for morality"? First, I'm not sure it's correct to interpret this verse as meaning "the Christian basis for morality is that if you know to do good and you do not it is sin". The rest of what you said here is "Think about raping and you have broken it. Think about doing your neighbor harm and you have broken it." I think "good" in the verse is intended far more generally than that. But even if I overlook that for the sake of discussion, how does this somehow become the basis for Christian morality?

Tangent: I thought you used the KJV? Consider

I am not locked into KJV or any other version. Some have errors in translation. I know the Bible well enough to usually spot them.

The verse I posted is succinct and to the point. The idea is throughout the writings of the NT authors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:44 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Nope. That is a misunderstanding. The Law was never to be followed as a way earn your way into Heaven or to earn righteousness. The Law was given to highlight and give strength to sin.
Do you have something better to support this claim than "because I said so"?

(16-12-2016 02:44 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Jesus said to the rich young ruler that he had to keep the commandments. The rich young ruler thought he was keeping the commandments. Jesus showed him that he was failing on the very first one by having the god of money before Him.
How can he possibly be failing even the first one if the commandments don't have to be followed?

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:47 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I am not locked into KJV or any other version. Some have errors in translation. I know the Bible well enough to usually spot them. [/url]
Sounds like cherry-picking.

(16-12-2016 02:47 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The verse I posted is succinct and to the point. The idea is throughout the writings of the NT authors.
So these authors know more than Jesus himself? Consider

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:38 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The Christian is at a higher level, spiritual - how do I feel about the person who wronged me.

Can you go back in time and tell Moore before he roasts more xians who believe slightly differently to him?

Christians have no morals. Only orders to follow.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
16-12-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 01:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a side note... when the Creationists claim that guys like Behe and Dembski are suppressed because evolution is akin to a religious dogma (Bz has not said this; it's just a common refrain), they ignore that I know about Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein BECAUSE they disproved the prevailing scientific concepts of their day.

He hasn't said that, but he has stated that biologists that believe evolution to be true are doing it because they reject god. Your wife will love that.

(16-12-2016 11:02 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Of course not all. What you are implying that his research is tainted due to his religion. That is not a valid argument.

All the biologist that believe in evolution believe it because they do not want to accept that God did it. Is my argument valid???????

“The reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Julien Huxley

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:56 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 02:44 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Nope. That is a misunderstanding. The Law was never to be followed as a way earn your way into Heaven or to earn righteousness. The Law was given to highlight and give strength to sin.
Do you have something better to support this claim than "because I said so"?

(16-12-2016 02:44 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Jesus said to the rich young ruler that he had to keep the commandments. The rich young ruler thought he was keeping the commandments. Jesus showed him that he was failing on the very first one by having the god of money before Him.
How can he possibly be failing even the first one if the commandments don't have to be followed?

The Ruler was a Jew and thought he had earned his way in by following the commandments. Jesus was highlighting that by the ruler's own beliefs he had failed to keep the first commandment. Jesus was speaking with the ruler in a language the ruler could understand.

Sure, the writings of Paul, James, John etc. It is all in there. It is the message.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 02:57 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 02:47 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I am not locked into KJV or any other version. Some have errors in translation. I know the Bible well enough to usually spot them. [/url]
Sounds like cherry-picking.

(16-12-2016 02:47 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The verse I posted is succinct and to the point. The idea is throughout the writings of the NT authors.
So these authors know more than Jesus himself? Consider

Weak response - I am not cherry picking the difference between the version is minor.

Another weak response - Jesus brought the message to the Jew first in the Jew's language - understanding - the NT writers after the Gospels were to new Christians and explaining what happened when Jesus died on the Cross.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2016 03:42 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 03:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 01:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a side note... when the Creationists claim that guys like Behe and Dembski are suppressed because evolution is akin to a religious dogma (Bz has not said this; it's just a common refrain), they ignore that I know about Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein BECAUSE they disproved the prevailing scientific concepts of their day.

He hasn't said that, but he has stated that biologists that believe evolution to be true are doing it because they reject god. Your wife will love that.

(16-12-2016 11:02 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Of course not all. What you are implying that his research is tainted due to his religion. That is not a valid argument.

All the biologist that believe in evolution believe it because they do not want to accept that God did it. Is my argument valid???????

“The reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Julien Huxley

I thought so at first, too. But on rereading it, I concluded that he was being facetious, the first line in the second paragraph referencing the paragraph above it. He was trying to say, "It is as silly for me to claim evolutionary biologists push Darwin because they want to reject God as it is for you to claim a religious researcher's work is automatically tainted because he wants to believe."

Unfortunately, the way he phrased his joke made it hard to tell he was tongue-in-cheek because the joke is so close to a real accusation leveled at us too ofen, by Creationists, on this forum. That's why I took it the wrong way at first, as well.

Edit to Add: it certainly wasn't helped by the reference to eugenics proponent (as many were, back in the 1920s-30s) Julian Huxley, whose mention is usually a prelude to creationist bullshit attempting to link evolution to fascism.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: