Are you a utilitarian and if so what sort? Just curious..

See we could put the debate on the foundations of morality in a thread, the debate of semantics, the debate on what is atheist vs theist. Then we could connect them as a fabric and then this thread could be left to discuss the actual topic!

Or should everything thread just boil down to re occuring debates?

LOL

I like to think of it as a demonstration of the benefits of debate.

is that like ending war with war?

Detonating a bomb to put out a fire.

Isn't that just because we were bred to believe in conflict?

LOL

Well, if you mean to say conflict is in our genes - then no ... I don't think that.

However, if you mean we are conditioned for conflict, then I think that is probably more in line with my world view.

I also find it LOL that OP is long gone....

My post was not hyperbole. I am not held back by God's wrath, but He has shown me a different way to live. God has shown me there is a better way to live than just being selfish. It is better to forgive people than take revenge on them. I don't think Jesus' teaching was just pithy sayings. I think they actually have shown me a better way to live life.

Re your first point: I guess I need to hear from atheists on that. For Christians God does offer an objective moral standard. I don't see what moral standards exist outside of God that are consistent/unchanging.

Re your question about adultery: Matthew 15:18 is taken out of context. Old testament law does not still apply. The reason Jesus came was to fulfill the law and free people from having to live up to that law. Many of the specifics set out in the OT were for a specific people group at a specific time in history. We can get into OT vs. NT doctrine but it is a pretty huge topic

Without looking it up I guess trying to feel what others feel. Or actually feeling what other people feel.

I see where you are coming from here. But my point is why would one act in a way to respect humanity? Just because you find it expedient to act respectfully toward humanity what if your neighbour does not want to respect humanity? Do you have any leverage morally? What higher authority can you refer to? Who defines right or wrong if not God or some final adjudicator? My point is there is no right or wrong without God. And if they do exist they are so relative it barely matters. Right and wrong would be purely matters of personal preference and convenience.

If god was thrown out the window there would still be the law for society to function?

I doubt all cops would turn to the life of crime

Unless you know every objective moral truth to every possible moral question...you already know how it works with atheists.


You seem really dogmatic on having threads stay the course.

I think its dogma that brings them off course.

Restricting a conversation within certain thought lines is not dogmatic but letting a conversation go where it will is? Id disagree.

Either way i can see the benefits of both types of conversations. And if you want, or any OP wants, they an ask for no derails of their OP's. Seems like a fair compromise.

Its not a restriction, both conversations still continue, its just a way of being able to sort through things better.

Does an OP really have to say, ok guys this discussion is about topic A but please don't go about talking about random things not to do with my subject?

And its not about derails as much as catching reoccurring themes and streamlining them.

And instead of opening old debates you can cross link and duke it out in the old debate with all the past references.

This is how you actually get somewhere and don't just continue fighting.
This will be real learning!

Yes, but posts can't easily be edited so you will either have links spread throughout the thread that are difficult to find, or you have to keep asking a mod to edit the thread's OP to add a "fabric" link.

Aside from that, these are general discussion forums for non-experts primarily for entertainment purposes, and no-one expects to solve major problems here. In some forums going off on a tangent leads to some interesting / unexpected discussion.

Having said that, the topics that keep getting recycled should be redirected back to an existing thread (e.g. "You're not an atheist, you're agnostic!", and to be fair, the discussion on same sex marriage from the Chick-fil A thread should have just bumped the "Anti gay marriage?" thread)

see this is something the community can solve naturally, its not a defeating point its just another block to work with or around.

Yes but a lot of brilliant minds cross this bath and some discussions involve well trained people in their field. And if it became a useful system it would help all forums across the web. Maybe it exists?


This is what I'm saying right!?

Change...and not the Obama kind!

Its a restriction. If what you want happened, i would not be able to go on tangents in the thread i want to go off on a tangent in. And i would not be allowed to have threads where people can go off topic.

Better is an opinion.

Its not implied with me.

A lot of themes reoccur because subjects interconnect and flow from one another. I like the flow mostly. And when the derail (flow) is something im not interested i have a full proof way of not letting it derail the thread. I dont read the derail.

I like to duke it out (like we are doing here) in the thread im doing it in. Sometimes subjects interconnect and i like to go back and forth in the same thread.

Besides most subjects are old subjects i rgt, eventually all it would have is containment threads.
Ive gotten places most of my life without strict restrictions and compartmentalizations on conversations. You can get places without this.
I think Bruce would agree with me and you are trying to control something you should give up control of.

Is it fair to say that you think morality is objective because God will judge/punish wickedness? Because otherwise "obey god" is just as much of an unjustified axiom as "respect humanity" and both of these axioms could be ignored by a psychopath.

Seems like God has already changed his laws once. Bit of a relativist isn't He?

Anyway, there are 613 laws in the Old Testament, so do they all not apply or only some of them? What is the method by which you choose?

Man can evolve but God can't recognize it and act accordingly?

Sure, though it will depend on your interpretation of God and morality. I'm trying to work out what Lemonzest's interpretations are. The trouble with these discussions is that there are many interpretations of Christianity as there as Christians, so I need to get each poster to lay out his/her beliefs before getting into the meat of the argument.

So, if Lemonzest says that Christianity means throwing out all the Old Testament laws, then he should let us know which New Testament 'laws' he's following. If, on the other hand, he's just throwing out the slavery, shellfish and Sabbath laws while keeping the stuff he likes, then he needs to state what method he is using to decide what to keep and what to discard.

He has to have a method?

Why can't he just ask himself the question and examine the NT with a keen eye?

That's been the typical method of Christians for a good long while.

When you overuse a method I think you run the error of not considering the exceptions to the rules and sometimes you make the exception the rule.

If you study civil laws then you'd see there's usually a general rule followed by the specific application exceptions.

People can overgeneralize leading to the miscarriage of justice.

There's always exceptions to the rules.

In fact mercy itself is an exception.