MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"

(02-05-2012 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's your mistake right there. God is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to His own standards.



But here's the thing, KC. When you say a word like "moral" means something different when applied to God, you're playing with language in a non-legitimate way. It's rather like claiming that the sky is green, and when sometimes responds, "No, it's not!" you answer, "Well, no, not if you use 'green' in the usual way. But 'green' means something different when applied to the sky." If words don't have stable meanings, communication breaks down.

John Stuart Mill said it best:

"I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go." [Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamilton]

You can't redefine words at will . . . unless you're Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice in Wonderland:



Lewis Carroll Wrote:"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."



Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
02-05-2012, 01:52 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(02-05-2012 01:13 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But here's the thing, KC. When you say a word like "moral" means something different when applied to God, you're playing with language in a non-legitimate way. It's rather like claiming that the sky is green, and when sometimes responds, "No, it's not!" you answer, "Well, no, not if you use 'green' in the usual way. But 'green' means something different when applied to the sky." If words don't have stable meanings, communication breaks down.


No, that's only true if the standard is accepted as truth.

"Green" has no meaning to a blind person, so the color of the sky would be indeterminable. For a colorblind person, a shade of gray is the color of the sky. Does this make their claim untrue? No, because they are not living according to our standard and our understanding.

Their truth is as much truth as ours but their standard of understanding is different.

Likewise, God's morality is not standard to a human's.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
I'm not going to argue the point of God being moral or not, KC, but I do agree with John Stuart Mill's quote - he may be moral by his own standards, but I cannot rationally worship a being that acts immorally to my own.

(Granted, I don't believe God exists anyway, but even if I did believe he was real, I wouldn't choose to worship him because I cannot call him "moral".)

What I will argue, though, is that while he may have had less controversy if he didn't say things so harshly, Dan Savage makes an excellent point. From our point of view, right now in the present, we condone slavery as wrong, even though the bible does not. Why, then, must we also condone homosexuality as wrong, based on the same criteria? Even if you believe that the bible's morality on some things goes against what we hold as moral, why do you pick gay marriage as one thing that the bible must be correct about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sethala's post
02-05-2012, 03:35 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
I support gays and gay marriage. I believe God created people gay.

If He didn't, He's not God.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 07:14 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(02-05-2012 03:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I support gays and gay marriage. I believe God created people gay.

If He didn't, He's not God.
Option B: God didn't do anything or create anything and the general musings of evolution gave some early apes the sexual attraction for other same sex apes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 01:51 AM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(02-05-2012 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 01:13 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But here's the thing, KC. When you say a word like "moral" means something different when applied to God, you're playing with language in a non-legitimate way. It's rather like claiming that the sky is green, and when sometimes responds, "No, it's not!" you answer, "Well, no, not if you use 'green' in the usual way. But 'green' means something different when applied to the sky." If words don't have stable meanings, communication breaks down.


No, that's only true if the standard is accepted as truth.

"Green" has no meaning to a blind person, so the color of the sky would be indeterminable. For a colorblind person, a shade of gray is the color of the sky. Does this make their claim untrue? No, because they are not living according to our standard and our understanding.

Their truth is as much truth as ours but their standard of understanding is different.

Likewise, God's morality is not standard to a human's.


I'm not following your argument. Neither a blind nor a colorblind person (if he or she only experienced the world in shades of gray) would make a statement like "The sky is green," not because they have different standards for green but because they have no conception of green.

But let me take a different tack.

You've said:

"God is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to His own standards."

Take that statement and substitute "the Devil" for "God":

"The Devil is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to his own standards."

If your statement about God is valid, why is the corresponding statement about the Devil any less valid? But if both statements are valid--that is, God and the Devil are both moral, but according to their own standards--then does the concept of morality retain any meaning?

I've gotta stick with Mill here: words like "good" and "moral" when applied to a supposed deity only make sense if they mean the same things they do when applied to people. (Mill said it a helluva lot better, though.)

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
03-05-2012, 02:01 AM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(03-05-2012 01:51 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No, that's only true if the standard is accepted as truth.

"Green" has no meaning to a blind person, so the color of the sky would be indeterminable. For a colorblind person, a shade of gray is the color of the sky. Does this make their claim untrue? No, because they are not living according to our standard and our understanding.

Their truth is as much truth as ours but their standard of understanding is different.

Likewise, God's morality is not standard to a human's.


I'm not following your argument. Neither a blind nor a colorblind person (if he or she only experienced the world in shades of gray) would make a statement like "The sky is green," not because they have different standards for green but because they have no conception of green.

But let me take a different tack.

You've said:

"God is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to His own standards."

Take that statement and substitute "the Devil" for "God":

"The Devil is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to his own standards."

If your statement about God is valid, why is the corresponding statement about the Devil any less valid? But if both statements are valid--that is, God and the Devil are both moral, but according to their own standards--then does the concept of morality retain any meaning?

I've gotta stick with Mill here: words like "good" and "moral" when applied to a supposed deity only make sense if they mean the same things they do when applied to people. (Mill said it a helluva lot better, though.)
Idk, you owned him pretty good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 08:32 AM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(03-05-2012 01:51 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No, that's only true if the standard is accepted as truth.

"Green" has no meaning to a blind person, so the color of the sky would be indeterminable. For a colorblind person, a shade of gray is the color of the sky. Does this make their claim untrue? No, because they are not living according to our standard and our understanding.

Their truth is as much truth as ours but their standard of understanding is different.

Likewise, God's morality is not standard to a human's.


I'm not following your argument. Neither a blind nor a colorblind person (if he or she only experienced the world in shades of gray) would make a statement like "The sky is green," not because they have different standards for green but because they have no conception of green.

But let me take a different tack.

You've said:

"God is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to His own standards."

Take that statement and substitute "the Devil" for "God":

"The Devil is not moral in accordance to any type of human morality. He is only moral to his own standards."

If your statement about God is valid, why is the corresponding statement about the Devil any less valid? But if both statements are valid--that is, God and the Devil are both moral, but according to their own standards--then does the concept of morality retain any meaning?

I've gotta stick with Mill here: words like "good" and "moral" when applied to a supposed deity only make sense if they mean the same things they do when applied to people. (Mill said it a helluva lot better, though.)
Okay, let's skip the color analogy and move on.

The Devil is not a perfect being. That is why that standard cannot be applied to him. God is infinite in all aspects. Everything He does is without a flaw. The Devil may be a supernatural being; however, he is finite in certain aspects.

God cannot be held to any standard that is finite. Since God is the only infinite being, His standards are autonomous.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
03-05-2012, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 08:53 AM by Erxomai.)
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
(29-04-2012 09:03 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I like that guy. A little in yo face, but he slayed Colbert when he was on the show. Good times.

My only issue. HE INVOKED SAM HARRIS! You wouldn't like me when someone invokes Sam Harris!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Sam Harris would say your neurotransmitters were going haywire there, Ghost. Tongue


(02-05-2012 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Likewise, God's morality is not standard to a human's.
Silly theist. When will you learn this simple truth? You would know absolutely nothing about morality if it were not for your fellow humans.

You've said elsewhere (to paraphrase but you know what I mean), that you were a dirty, rotten, filthy sinner before you had some sort of brain activity that you attributed to God. I would propose to you that in spite of your feelings about how you were BC (Before Christ) you were not an evil man. In fact, you were probably very much like you are now...thoughtful, insightful, funny, lover of family, hard worker. So maybe you shop lifted or broke a few car windows or blew up a high school toilet with a cherry bomb...plenty of "Christians" do these things in their youth. Maybe you slept around. I'd submit that QC made you lose that desire, not God. In fact, everything about your personality is there because of your genetics and the people around you. The Bible didn't teach you not to kill, you know in your heart it's wrong. The Bible didn't teach you to hate people of a different color. You see the injustice around you and know it's wrong. In fact, you're willing to ignore the Bible's prohibition towards homosexuality. KC, you're a moral person because of the social contracts you have with the people around you.

Now, you take your morality, which is assumed to be a good way of living with people and you throw it out the window when it comes to talking about God's morality. If God is indeed perfect, then why is our morality better than his? Answer...because morality has evolved over time and in the last 2000 years our morality has improved to the point that now we can look back at ancient cultures and judge them as having a simpler morality...the same that is attributed in writing to the Deity. How is it humanity's morality has improved but no one ever updated the Book to suggest God's morality has also evolved for the better? Humanity has realized that slavery and hating gays is wrong. Somehow God never got the memo. So much for God being Love.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
03-05-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: MSM says "Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room"
Very well said, Erx.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: