In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

[Eric Brze]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:36:54 +0000, Sergeant America
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> > I am referring to the
>> > church that was founded by Jesus Christ on pentecost.
>> >
>>
>> That chap didn't found any church - it was others who founded the many
>> Christian sects.
>
>False.
>
>"On this rock I will build my church."
>
>Isn't that how it goes?

That might be the original intent, but it may not be today's reality.

 

[Hugiboo]

> And still doesn't prove your assertion about there being a problem with
> sex outside marriage per se. Those women simply dealt with their
> unwanted/unintended pregnancies in a sensible, legal manner (given that
> presumably they did not want to have their pregnancies continue, just
> like the married women who did the same).
>
> What business is it of your whether a particular woman allows her
> pregnancy to develop sufficiently long (at least six months normally -
> and often more) to (possibly) produce a child, or ends her pregnancy
> many months before there is *any* possibility of a child?
>
> The vast majority of legal abortions terminate a pregnancy around the
> two month mark - before there is a even a foetus, let alone a viable
> foetus!
>
> What business is it of yours how a woman deals with her medical
> condition - whatever that condition is? Is that any more your business
> than it is hers to interfere in how you deal with your medical
> conditions... and if so, why, exactly, should you have the right to
> decide on your own medical treatment but a woman should (apparently,
> according to you) not have the same right?

I don't expect non-Christians to be bound by Christian morals.
However, since our culture does recognize that there is intrinsic
value in a human life, we should expect the government to protect that
human life. I believe that a foetus is a human life, therefore I
believe abortions to be killing human life. What business is it of
mine? The same business it is of mine when I see a person who needs
help. Is it my business if my neigbour kills his children? It had
better be. Does it matter if he doesn't think that his children are
human? I don't think so. Can you accept that based on my beliefs
that killing is wrong and that a foetus is a human life, that it makes
sense to conclude that abortion is wrong? And finally, I do not have
a double standard for my own medical treatment as I do for a pregnant
woman. If another person's life depends on my medical 'treatment',
then that treatment should be regulated to protect that individual. I
hope you can at least understand my position even if you do not accept
it.

 

[Hugiboo]

> > Do you have any reason to believe this
> >
>
> The reason of it being fact! ;-))

Fact based on what? Do you have sources that can back up that statement?

 

[Ray Fischer]

Hugiboo <[email protected]> wrote:

>> What business is it of yours how a woman deals with her medical
>> condition - whatever that condition is? Is that any more your business
>> than it is hers to interfere in how you deal with your medical
>> conditions... and if so, why, exactly, should you have the right to
>> decide on your own medical treatment but a woman should (apparently,
>> according to you) not have the same right?
>
>I don't expect non-Christians to be bound by Christian morals.
>However, since our culture does recognize that there is intrinsic
>value in a human life,

Heh.

> we should expect the government to protect that
>human life.

Unless she's pregnant, of course.

> I believe that a foetus is a human life, therefore I
>believe abortions to be killing human life.

And what do you believe about pregnant women that you would treat them
like slaves?

> What business is it of
>mine? The same business it is of mine when I see a person who needs
>help.

Again, unless she's pregnant.

--
Ray Fischer
[email protected]

 

[Hugiboo]

> >I am taking about objective moral authority
>
> Let's see some evidence that there is such a thing.

Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?
Because you don't think the evidence for God is compelling, it is not
possible that God exists? If so, you must think pretty highly of your
capacities. If you admit that it is a possibility, even a remote one,
then it is worth your while to investigate the possibility. The worst
that can happen is that you will still believe that God does not
exist, and you can go on with your meaningless existence in a
meaningless universe. The best that can happen is that you can find
out that there is a purpose for the universe and for yourself, and
receive eternal life. But if you are saying that it is not possible
that God exists, you are essentially claiming omniscience, and in that
case talking with you is about as useful as talking to a post.

> >> I have never seen any evidence for any "objective moral authority".
> >
> >An objective moral authority can only come from a being that the
> >concept of God describes. I am not referring to a personal view of
> >God, but the concept itself. The concept is the greatest possible
> >being conceivable (this does not mean someone actually has to conceive
> >of the greatness). Without an objective moral authority nothing is
> >inherintly wrong.
>
> None of this is any evidence of any "objective moral authority".

What's your point? This part of my post was clearly not meant to be
proof for an objective moral authority. I was explaining what an
objective moral authority means, and the ramifications of not
accepting that this authority exists. If you don't accept this
authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong. A lot of
people have a problem with this, because it would mean morals are
subjective. If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
culture it is not morally wrong. Now maybe you can accept that
genocide isn't wrong, and if so you are a truly honest atheist, but
most people can't accept that because they know deep down inside that
there is an objective moral authority, even if they don't recognize
it.

> [...]
> >> Do you have any?
> >
> >My evidence for objective moral authority is my evidence for God.
>
> Nonexistant.
>
> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
> personal moral authority.

In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
on themselves to know what to trust. So it is by my own authority
that I decide to trust in an objective moral authority.

> >There's no point in you doing that though
> >since you don't believe in God.
>
> I never stated that.

Well do you?

> >> > You're right that
> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
> >> >(not because of religious morality).
> >>
> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
> >>
> >> The punishment is death.
> >
> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
>
> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.

You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
your point? Just because someone used the Bible wrongly does not make
the Bible wrong.

> > That was
> >only for the Jewish people who had sworn to obey God, so for them to
> >have other gods was treason.
>
> So now you pick and choose from the Bible in order to make up your own
> morality.

Absolutely not. I'm saying that at the time, the Jews were
responsible to God while the Gentiles were not. I think you
misunderstood me to be saying that only Jews have to follow these
commands and not Christians.

> > The national laws such as the penalty of
> >death for having other gods only applies to the nation of Israel as it
> >was then. I don't know how the new nation of Israel works with the
> >national laws, theoretically they should still follow them all. The
> >reason that Christians don't follow those laws is because when Jesus
> >fulfilled the old covenant He established a new covenant. We still
> >follow the moral laws though, everything that was wrong then, is still
> >wrong now.
>
> So it's wrong to worship a different God but it's not wrong because it
> doesn't apply any more.
>
> You need to review what you write.

You don't understand. It's wrong to worship a different God period.
I don't expect you to understand, but what doesn't apply anymore is
the laws that were specific to the governing of the nation of Israel.
It is still wrong to worship a different God, but the nation of Israel
(as it was) doesn't exist anymore to carry out the penalty as
specified by those laws, nor does it need to because Jesus fulfilled
the old covenant and gave us the new covenant.

> >> > Do you know where hospitals come from? How about the very
> >> >fact that there are certain rights that you take for granted, like the
> >> >rights to life and liberty?
> >>
> >> Rights are in fundamental opposition to religion. Churches recognize
> >> no freedoms. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed because it allows
> >> heresy. Freedom of religion cannot be allowed. Freedom to disregard
> >> church law is forbidden.
> >
> >Freedoms are a result of religion.
>
> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
> the freedom to worship at the church demands.

Do you have evidence for that statement? What current church doctrine
or official church teaching teaches that? Is there any church that
you can name where this actually happens?

> > Without the church you would not
> >enjoy the freedom you do.
>
> The Dark Ages were when the Church was the strongest and freedoms did
> not exist.

Good point, but was that really a result of the church or the culture?
If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
not any better. Do you think that freedoms suddenly came about as
religion declined? It was Christianity that established those
freedoms that you hold so dear. Don't bother replying to that, I know
you don't agree.

> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
>
> According to the Bible it is.

Where in the Bible? Why don't you show me where the Bible is opposed
to free speech, since you know it's there?

> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
>
> All.

Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?" Why don't you name specific
church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
scripture or church teaching that proposes it?

> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
> >> >Christianity.
> >>
> >> Like?
> >
> >Like the stuff above.
>
> Those didn't start with Christianity.

Do you know where they started then? Since you disagree with my
statement, show me where they really came from.

> > Take the good things we have in society and
> >find their roots. Most of them come from Christianity.
>
> Good propaganda - bad fact. Especially now that conservative
> "Christians" are opposed to all of those things.

Good propaganda? - I think that's the first positive (sort of) thing
I've seen from you . Really, conservative Christians are opposed to
these things? What sources do you have to back that up? You must
have something or you surely wouldn't make such a strong statement.

> >> > How about science? (you're definately not going to
> >> >believe me on this one) The industrial revolution was largely
> >> >propelled by the protestant reformation. Many great scientists of the
> >> >past were motivated by their desire to discover God's creation,
> >> >including Copernicus who ended up on the church's bad side as a
> >> >result.
> >>
> >> Copernicus wasn't the only scientist to discover that Christianity
> >> hates science. The "dark" ages were a direct result of the Church's
> >> opposition to learning. It was only when the Church started to lose
> >> its grip that learning flourished.
> >
> >The problem was that the church became powerful and became corrupted.
>
> Heh. And you think that the corruption went away?
>
> No. Churches became impotent. They're as corrupt as they every were.

I never said the corruption went away. I don't agree that churches
are as corrupt as they ever were, since there has been much effort to
reform.

> > Christianity does not hate science.
>
> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
> human biology.

I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
says that it hates science? I don't hate science, I'm actually
fascinated by it. What scientific 'knowledge' do you think I would
disagree with?

> >> > The only reason you call me ignorant is because you do not
> >> >accept my beliefs,
> >>
> >> No, it's because you think that you are God.
> >
> >Well if that's all, let me assure you that I am not ignorant since I
> >do not think I am God.
>
> You think that your personal morality is absolute.

No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.
I don't claim to know everything about it, I just believe it's there
and that I can know about it because God wants me to know about it.

> >> > you assume that you know how I think because I am
> >> >"one of those close-minded Christians". I accept Christianity because
> >> >I am convinced of it's truth and have not found any convincing
> >> >evidence to the contrary (it's not even a contest here).
> >>
> >> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
> >> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
> >> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
> >> Adolph ****** -- Mein Kampf
> >
> >What's your point? That ****** was a madman? I agree.
>
> ****** thought he was doing God's work.
> So do you.

Oh no! ****** thought he was a good person and so do you. That must
mean that you are the same as ******! That is the logic you have just
used. If you are saying that Christianity is responsible for the
Holocaust you are mistaken because ****** was very clearly acting in
opposition to Christianity and even persecuted Christians.

 

[Paul Anderson]

On 18 Mar 2005 22:55:30 -0800, [email protected] (Hugiboo) wrote:

.....

>I don't expect non-Christians to be bound by Christian morals.
>However, since our culture does recognize that there is intrinsic
>value in a human life,

This claim is not supported by any evidence and is contrary to what I
know of our culture. A lot of human life is looked upon as waste, not
value.

> we should expect the government to protect that human life.

A conclusion based upon a false assumption is often false. As it is
in this case. In a lawsuit after the Rodney King riots the LAPD
successfully argued in court that it has no obgation to protect human
life.

> I believe that a foetus is a human life,

A human life is the life of a human being. A human being is that
which is born, human, and alive. A fetus, not yet born, cannot be a
human life no matter what you believe.

> therefore I believe abortions to be killing human life.

Another false belief based upon a false belief and false claims.

> What business is it of mine?....

None. Nor is it my business. Nor is the Government obligated to
entertain your fantasies. The rightful job of the Government is to
keep you from interfering in other peoples' lives against their
wishes.

 

[Ray Fischer]

Hugiboo <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I am taking about objective moral authority
>>
>> Let's see some evidence that there is such a thing.
>
>Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
>objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?

Nope.

But until I see some real evidence, I will assume that every
egotistical control freak with delusions of godhood who tells me that
what he says is absolute truth is really a dangerous lunatic and not
to be trusted.

>> >> I have never seen any evidence for any "objective moral authority".
>> >
>> >An objective moral authority can only come from a being that the
>> >concept of God describes. I am not referring to a personal view of
>> >God, but the concept itself. The concept is the greatest possible
>> >being conceivable (this does not mean someone actually has to conceive
>> >of the greatness). Without an objective moral authority nothing is
>> >inherintly wrong.
>>
>> None of this is any evidence of any "objective moral authority".
>
>What's your point?

Where is your evidence of any "objective moral authority"?

> This part of my post was clearly not meant to be
>proof for an objective moral authority. I was explaining what an
>objective moral authority means,

You were stating your opinion about something which 1) you are not
qualified to explain, and 2) you have no knowledge of.

> If you don't accept this
>authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong.

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolph ******

If ****** can invoke an objective moral authority to justify genocide,
then why should I trust your claims about objective moral authorities?

> A lot of
>people have a problem with this, because it would mean morals are
>subjective.

And?

> If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
>wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
>culture it is not morally wrong.

Do you think it is objectively wrong because it offends _you_?

You _are_ arrogant and self-centered.

>> >> Do you have any?
>> >
>> >My evidence for objective moral authority is my evidence for God.
>>
>> Nonexistant.
>>
>> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
>> personal moral authority.
>
>In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
>on themselves to know what to trust.

Thus, there is no evidence for any objective morality.

> So it is by my own authority
>that I decide to trust in an objective moral authority.

An "objective moral authority" which is really nothing but your own
personal morality.

>> >> > You're right that
>> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
>> >> >(not because of religious morality).
>> >>
>> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
>> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
>> >>
>> >> The punishment is death.
>> >
>> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
>>
>> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.
>
>You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
>your point?

How can objective morality be used to justify immoral acts?

>> >> > Do you know where hospitals come from? How about the very
>> >> >fact that there are certain rights that you take for granted, like the
>> >> >rights to life and liberty?
>> >>
>> >> Rights are in fundamental opposition to religion. Churches recognize
>> >> no freedoms. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed because it allows
>> >> heresy. Freedom of religion cannot be allowed. Freedom to disregard
>> >> church law is forbidden.
>> >
>> >Freedoms are a result of religion.
>>
>> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
>> the freedom to worship at the church demands.
>
>Do you have evidence for that statement?

Yes. The 10 commandments.

> What current church doctrine
>or official church teaching teaches that?

The Catholic Churches works incessantly to have laws passed that would
force people to act like Catholics.

>> > Without the church you would not
>> >enjoy the freedom you do.
>>
>> The Dark Ages were when the Church was the strongest and freedoms did
>> not exist.
>
>Good point, but was that really a result of the church or the culture?

Same thing.

> If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
>not any better.

Religion promotes ignorance. 200 years ago the Arabs were the
intellectual leaders of the world. Then they got religion.

> Do you think that freedoms suddenly came about as
>religion declined? It was Christianity that established those
>freedoms that you hold so dear.

Repeating your ******** doesn't make it true.

>> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
>>
>> According to the Bible it is.
>
>Where in the Bible?

Cursing one's parents merits death. What's the punishment for
speaking out against God?

>> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
>>
>> All.
>
>Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?"

LOL! You do realize that that's a mistranslation, don't you?

> Why don't you name specific
>church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
>scripture or church teaching that proposes it?

All.

>> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
>> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
>> >> >Christianity.
>> >>
>> >> Like?
>> >
>> >Like the stuff above.
>>
>> Those didn't start with Christianity.
>
>Do you know where they started then?

The earliest written law that still exists is the Code of Hammurabi.

>> > Christianity does not hate science.
>>
>> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
>> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
>> human biology.
>
>I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
>says that it hates science?

I thought you claimed that "Christianity" does not hate science
instead of the Bible.

>> >> > The only reason you call me ignorant is because you do not
>> >> >accept my beliefs,
>> >>
>> >> No, it's because you think that you are God.
>> >
>> >Well if that's all, let me assure you that I am not ignorant since I
>> >do not think I am God.
>>
>> You think that your personal morality is absolute.
>
>No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.

Which means that you think that you are infallible, able to decide
which is absolute morality.

>> >> > you assume that you know how I think because I am
>> >> >"one of those close-minded Christians". I accept Christianity because
>> >> >I am convinced of it's truth and have not found any convincing
>> >> >evidence to the contrary (it's not even a contest here).
>> >>
>> >> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
>> >> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
>> >> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>> >> Adolph ****** -- Mein Kampf
>> >
>> >What's your point? That ****** was a madman? I agree.
>>
>> ****** thought he was doing God's work.
>> So do you.
>
>Oh no! ****** thought he was a good person and so do you.

I don't try to force other to accept my dictates.

You do.

--
Ray Fischer
[email protected]

 

[Hugiboo]

> >I'm not sure what sort of Christianity you subscribe to, but Christians
> >for over 2000 years have believed that sex outside of marriage is
> >wrong.
>
> I'm not sure that's true, actually. What is wrong is fornication,
> which is different. I don't think the bible says that two people must
> be married, only that once they unite they should remain faithful.
>
> I could be wrong, of course, but that was how it seemed to me. And I
> got married while still an undergraduate and have never once strayed,
> so I can hardly be said to be the greatest living exponent of
> unmarried sex...
>
> Guy

What do you think marriage is? It is a promise to remain faithful.
You just said that marriage is not necessary but a marriage-like
relationship is necessary. But if a couple refuses to get married,
they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.
If marriage did not exist in our culture, all that would be necessary
would be to make that promise in their hearts and they would be
"married".

 

[Hugiboo]

> >Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
> >objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?
>
> Nope.
>
> But until I see some real evidence, I will assume that every
> egotistical control freak with delusions of godhood who tells me that
> what he says is absolute truth is really a dangerous lunatic and not
> to be trusted.

So, you think there's a possibility of an absolute moral authority,
but everyone who thinks they've found it is a dangerous lunatic
because they believe there is an objective moral authority? Do they
really tell you that what they tell you is absolute truth? I haven't
said that. I have said that I believe that I have found an absolute
truth. I do not claim that whatever I say about it is the absolute
truth.

> >> >> I have never seen any evidence for any "objective moral authority".
> >> >
> >> >An objective moral authority can only come from a being that the
> >> >concept of God describes. I am not referring to a personal view of
> >> >God, but the concept itself. The concept is the greatest possible
> >> >being conceivable (this does not mean someone actually has to conceive
> >> >of the greatness). Without an objective moral authority nothing is
> >> >inherintly wrong.
> >>
> >> None of this is any evidence of any "objective moral authority".
> >
> >What's your point?
>
> Where is your evidence of any "objective moral authority"?

The way language works allows different words to represent different
things. This way we can say more than one thing in a sentance. As
well, different sentances can mean different things to convey an
overall argument. I felt it was necessary to explain what an
objective moral authority means here, and then if you keep reading a
little bit you will come to the part that deals with the evidence. I
already explained this once to you.

> > This part of my post was clearly not meant to be
> >proof for an objective moral authority. I was explaining what an
> >objective moral authority means,
>
> You were stating your opinion about something which 1) you are not
> qualified to explain, and 2) you have no knowledge of.

First, how do you know my qualifications. Second, I am perfectly
qualified to state what my understanding of what an objective moral
authority is. If you think I have no knowledge of the subject, point
out where in my definition I made a mistake.

> > If you don't accept this
> >authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong.
>
> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
> Adolph ******
>
> If ****** can invoke an objective moral authority to justify genocide,
> then why should I trust your claims about objective moral authorities?

I'll use a similar argument. If Stalin can claim that it is for the
greater good of society (his own subjective moral authority) to
justify genocide, then why should I trust your own subjective moral
authority? One person twisting moral principles to suit his own
purposes does not mean that the moral principles he twisted were bad.

> > A lot of
> >people have a problem with this, because it would mean morals are
> >subjective.
>
> And?
>
> > If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
> >wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
> >culture it is not morally wrong.
>
> Do you think it is objectively wrong because it offends _you_?
>
> You _are_ arrogant and self-centered.

Normally I like to answer my own questions, not have them answered for
me. I think it is objectively wrong because my understanding of God
leads me to believe that God views it as wrong, and yes it does offend
me, doesn't it offend you?

> >> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
> >> personal moral authority.
> >
> >In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
> >on themselves to know what to trust.
>
> Thus, there is no evidence for any objective morality.

There is no physical evidence of God Himself. God is not a physical
being. There is evidence within the physical creation. Read Case for
Creator by Lee Strobel. His other two books are excellent as well,
Case for Christ and Case for Faith. It is a very logical step by step
examination of the facts. If you want really good arguments, don't
ask me, look there.

> > So it is by my own authority
> >that I decide to trust in an objective moral authority.
>
> An "objective moral authority" which is really nothing but your own
> personal morality.
>
> >> >> > You're right that
> >> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
> >> >> >(not because of religious morality).
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
> >> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
> >> >>
> >> >> The punishment is death.
> >> >
> >> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
> >>
> >> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.
> >
> >You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
> >your point?
>
> How can objective morality be used to justify immoral acts?

Easy, when you claim to follow an objective moral authority, you can
legitimize your immoral acts by claiming that this is the will of that
objective moral authority. People in control of the Catholic church
used the church in this way. People do bad things. It sucks. Move
on.

> >> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
> >> the freedom to worship at the church demands.
> >
> >Do you have evidence for that statement?
>
> Yes. The 10 commandments.

Quote the command that restricts freedoms and explain it.

> > What current church doctrine
> >or official church teaching teaches that?
>
> The Catholic Churches works incessantly to have laws passed that would
> force people to act like Catholics.

I see no doctrine presented here. If you truly want freedom, there
can be no laws. Most people support laws that restrict our freedom to
do certain things for the benefit of society as a whole.

> >> > Without the church you would not
> >> >enjoy the freedom you do.
> >>
> >> The Dark Ages were when the Church was the strongest and freedoms did
> >> not exist.
> >
> >Good point, but was that really a result of the church or the culture?
>
> Same thing.

No, not the same thing. The church had a big impact on the culture,
but the culture also had an impact on the church. It was a warrior
society, that is not from the church.

> > If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
> >not any better.
>
> Religion promotes ignorance. 200 years ago the Arabs were the
> intellectual leaders of the world. Then they got religion.

200 years ago was 1800. Islam began in the 600s, and since then the
Arabs have been religious. Well, even before that they had tribal
gods. It was during the success of the Muslim empire that the Muslims
became scientifically advanced. During the dark ages a Christian king
was proud to have a Muslim physician, because they knew what they were
doing. The only effect religion had on science before the 20th
century was to encourage it. Recently, some Christians have felt
threatened by scientific theories that attempt to disprove God, and
have reacted negatively to science. So far those theories have been
unable to achieve this, and many have only supported Christianities
claims. This is stuff from history class, not a Christian source.

> > Do you think that freedoms suddenly came about as
> >religion declined? It was Christianity that established those
> >freedoms that you hold so dear.
>
> Repeating your ******** doesn't make it true.
>
> >> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
> >>
> >> According to the Bible it is.
> >
> >Where in the Bible?
>
> Cursing one's parents merits death. What's the punishment for
> speaking out against God?

If you accept who God is, why would you speak out against Him? This
is a law only for those who believe in God. Cursing is a lot
different than criticizing. Free speech does not mean that we can go
around saying anything we please. Just try it, there's a lot of stuff
that you can get in trouble for saying.

> >> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
> >>
> >> All.
> >
> >Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?"
>
> LOL! You do realize that that's a mistranslation, don't you?

Depends which version you use. The NIV translation says "You shall
not murder" So is this one of the church laws that you would like to
get rid of?

> > Why don't you name specific
> >church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
> >scripture or church teaching that proposes it?
>
> All.

It's pretty hard to come up with a specific church law in a quote that
you think we should be free from isn't it? Could you really not find
any?

> >> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
> >> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
> >> >> >Christianity.
> >> >>
> >> >> Like?
> >> >
> >> >Like the stuff above.
> >>
> >> Those didn't start with Christianity.
> >
> >Do you know where they started then?
>
> The earliest written law that still exists is the Code of Hammurabi.

That is irrelevant to the question. The question was, where do
institutions such as public schools, orphanages, social wellfare
institutions, and hospitals come from if not from Christianity? I'm
looking for history here.

> >> > Christianity does not hate science.
> >>
> >> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
> >> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
> >> human biology.
> >
> >I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
> >says that it hates science?
>
> I thought you claimed that "Christianity" does not hate science
> instead of the Bible.

Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, so they follow
what the Bible says. The Bible lays out what Christianity believes.
Where in the Bible does it say bad things about science?

> >> You think that your personal morality is absolute.
> >
> >No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.
>
> Which means that you think that you are infallible, able to decide
> which is absolute morality.

I think I am very fallible. That's why I must rely on God's word, the
Bible. If I was infallible, I would not need the Bible or anyone else
to teach me. It's not that I think I am specially qualified to decide
what is absolute morality. I don't have much of a choice though, as
nobody does, we all have to make a choice whethere we're qualified or
not.

> >> >> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
> >> >> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
> >> >> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
> >> >> Adolph ****** -- Mein Kampf
> >> >
> >> >What's your point? That ****** was a madman? I agree.
> >>
> >> ****** thought he was doing God's work.
> >> So do you.
> >
> >Oh no! ****** thought he was a good person and so do you.
>
> I don't try to force other to accept my dictates.
>
> You do.

What do you mean by force others to accept my dictates?

 

[dgk]

On 22 Mar 2005 01:44:17 -0800, [email protected] (Hugiboo) wrote:

>> >Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
>> >objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> But until I see some real evidence, I will assume that every
>> egotistical control freak with delusions of godhood who tells me that
>> what he says is absolute truth is really a dangerous lunatic and not
>> to be trusted.
>
>So, you think there's a possibility of an absolute moral authority,
>but everyone who thinks they've found it is a dangerous lunatic
>because they believe there is an objective moral authority? Do they
>really tell you that what they tell you is absolute truth? I haven't
>said that. I have said that I believe that I have found an absolute
>truth. I do not claim that whatever I say about it is the absolute
>truth.
>
>> >> >> I have never seen any evidence for any "objective moral authority".
>> >> >
>> >> >An objective moral authority can only come from a being that the
>> >> >concept of God describes. I am not referring to a personal view of
>> >> >God, but the concept itself. The concept is the greatest possible
>> >> >being conceivable (this does not mean someone actually has to conceive
>> >> >of the greatness). Without an objective moral authority nothing is
>> >> >inherintly wrong.
>> >>
>> >> None of this is any evidence of any "objective moral authority".
>> >
>> >What's your point?
>>
>> Where is your evidence of any "objective moral authority"?
>
>The way language works allows different words to represent different
>things. This way we can say more than one thing in a sentance. As
>well, different sentances can mean different things to convey an
>overall argument. I felt it was necessary to explain what an
>objective moral authority means here, and then if you keep reading a
>little bit you will come to the part that deals with the evidence. I
>already explained this once to you.
>
>> > This part of my post was clearly not meant to be
>> >proof for an objective moral authority. I was explaining what an
>> >objective moral authority means,
>>
>> You were stating your opinion about something which 1) you are not
>> qualified to explain, and 2) you have no knowledge of.
>
>First, how do you know my qualifications. Second, I am perfectly
>qualified to state what my understanding of what an objective moral
>authority is. If you think I have no knowledge of the subject, point
>out where in my definition I made a mistake.
>
>> > If you don't accept this
>> >authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong.
>>
>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
>> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
>> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>> Adolph ******
>>
>> If ****** can invoke an objective moral authority to justify genocide,
>> then why should I trust your claims about objective moral authorities?
>
>I'll use a similar argument. If Stalin can claim that it is for the
>greater good of society (his own subjective moral authority) to
>justify genocide, then why should I trust your own subjective moral
>authority? One person twisting moral principles to suit his own
>purposes does not mean that the moral principles he twisted were bad.
>
>> > A lot of
>> >people have a problem with this, because it would mean morals are
>> >subjective.
>>
>> And?
>>
>> > If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
>> >wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
>> >culture it is not morally wrong.
>>
>> Do you think it is objectively wrong because it offends _you_?
>>
>> You _are_ arrogant and self-centered.
>
>Normally I like to answer my own questions, not have them answered for
>me. I think it is objectively wrong because my understanding of God
>leads me to believe that God views it as wrong, and yes it does offend
>me, doesn't it offend you?
>
>> >> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
>> >> personal moral authority.
>> >
>> >In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
>> >on themselves to know what to trust.
>>
>> Thus, there is no evidence for any objective morality.
>
>There is no physical evidence of God Himself. God is not a physical
>being. There is evidence within the physical creation. Read Case for
>Creator by Lee Strobel. His other two books are excellent as well,
>Case for Christ and Case for Faith. It is a very logical step by step
>examination of the facts. If you want really good arguments, don't
>ask me, look there.
>
>> > So it is by my own authority
>> >that I decide to trust in an objective moral authority.
>>
>> An "objective moral authority" which is really nothing but your own
>> personal morality.
>>
>> >> >> > You're right that
>> >> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
>> >> >> >(not because of religious morality).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
>> >> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The punishment is death.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
>> >>
>> >> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.
>> >
>> >You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
>> >your point?
>>
>> How can objective morality be used to justify immoral acts?
>
>Easy, when you claim to follow an objective moral authority, you can
>legitimize your immoral acts by claiming that this is the will of that
>objective moral authority. People in control of the Catholic church
>used the church in this way. People do bad things. It sucks. Move
>on.
>
>> >> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
>> >> the freedom to worship at the church demands.
>> >
>> >Do you have evidence for that statement?
>>
>> Yes. The 10 commandments.
>
>Quote the command that restricts freedoms and explain it.
>
>> > What current church doctrine
>> >or official church teaching teaches that?
>>
>> The Catholic Churches works incessantly to have laws passed that would
>> force people to act like Catholics.
>
>I see no doctrine presented here. If you truly want freedom, there
>can be no laws. Most people support laws that restrict our freedom to
>do certain things for the benefit of society as a whole.
>
>> >> > Without the church you would not
>> >> >enjoy the freedom you do.
>> >>
>> >> The Dark Ages were when the Church was the strongest and freedoms did
>> >> not exist.
>> >
>> >Good point, but was that really a result of the church or the culture?
>>
>> Same thing.
>
>No, not the same thing. The church had a big impact on the culture,
>but the culture also had an impact on the church. It was a warrior
>society, that is not from the church.
>
>> > If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
>> >not any better.
>>
>> Religion promotes ignorance. 200 years ago the Arabs were the
>> intellectual leaders of the world. Then they got religion.
>
>200 years ago was 1800. Islam began in the 600s, and since then the
>Arabs have been religious. Well, even before that they had tribal
>gods. It was during the success of the Muslim empire that the Muslims
>became scientifically advanced. During the dark ages a Christian king
>was proud to have a Muslim physician, because they knew what they were
>doing. The only effect religion had on science before the 20th
>century was to encourage it. Recently, some Christians have felt
>threatened by scientific theories that attempt to disprove God, and
>have reacted negatively to science. So far those theories have been
>unable to achieve this, and many have only supported Christianities
>claims. This is stuff from history class, not a Christian source.
>
>> > Do you think that freedoms suddenly came about as
>> >religion declined? It was Christianity that established those
>> >freedoms that you hold so dear.
>>
>> Repeating your ******** doesn't make it true.
>>
>> >> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
>> >>
>> >> According to the Bible it is.
>> >
>> >Where in the Bible?
>>
>> Cursing one's parents merits death. What's the punishment for
>> speaking out against God?
>
>If you accept who God is, why would you speak out against Him? This
>is a law only for those who believe in God. Cursing is a lot
>different than criticizing. Free speech does not mean that we can go
>around saying anything we please. Just try it, there's a lot of stuff
>that you can get in trouble for saying.
>
>> >> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
>> >>
>> >> All.
>> >
>> >Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?"
>>
>> LOL! You do realize that that's a mistranslation, don't you?
>
>Depends which version you use. The NIV translation says "You shall
>not murder" So is this one of the church laws that you would like to
>get rid of?
>
>> > Why don't you name specific
>> >church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
>> >scripture or church teaching that proposes it?
>>
>> All.
>
>It's pretty hard to come up with a specific church law in a quote that
>you think we should be free from isn't it? Could you really not find
>any?
>
>> >> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
>> >> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
>> >> >> >Christianity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like?
>> >> >
>> >> >Like the stuff above.
>> >>
>> >> Those didn't start with Christianity.
>> >
>> >Do you know where they started then?
>>
>> The earliest written law that still exists is the Code of Hammurabi.
>
>That is irrelevant to the question. The question was, where do
>institutions such as public schools, orphanages, social wellfare
>institutions, and hospitals come from if not from Christianity? I'm
>looking for history here.
>
>> >> > Christianity does not hate science.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
>> >> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
>> >> human biology.
>> >
>> >I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
>> >says that it hates science?
>>
>> I thought you claimed that "Christianity" does not hate science
>> instead of the Bible.
>
>Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, so they follow
>what the Bible says. The Bible lays out what Christianity believes.
>Where in the Bible does it say bad things about science?
>
>> >> You think that your personal morality is absolute.
>> >
>> >No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.
>>
>> Which means that you think that you are infallible, able to decide
>> which is absolute morality.
>
>I think I am very fallible. That's why I must rely on God's word, the
>Bible. If I was infallible, I would not need the Bible or anyone else
>to teach me. It's not that I think I am specially qualified to decide
>what is absolute morality. I don't have much of a choice though, as
>nobody does, we all have to make a choice whethere we're qualified or
>not.
>
>> >> >> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
>> >> >> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
>> >> >> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>> >> >> Adolph ****** -- Mein Kampf
>> >> >
>> >> >What's your point? That ****** was a madman? I agree.
>> >>
>> >> ****** thought he was doing God's work.
>> >> So do you.
>> >
>> >Oh no! ****** thought he was a good person and so do you.
>>
>> I don't try to force other to accept my dictates.
>>
>> You do.
>
>What do you mean by force others to accept my dictates?



Anyone who has this much time on their hands has too much time on
their hands.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 21 Mar 2005 15:41:52 -0800, [email protected] (Hugiboo) wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>What do you think marriage is? It is a promise to remain faithful.
>You just said that marriage is not necessary but a marriage-like
>relationship is necessary. But if a couple refuses to get married,
>they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.

Ever been to a house church? No ordained ministers, no formulaic
prayer book, no costumes and rites. Still a church. Some people are
so hung up on the rituals they forget the important things.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Pat Winstanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> But if a couple refuses to get married,
> they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.
>
>

Doesn't follow. Their preference of non-marriage may be for totally
different reasons - reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with
whether or not they are going to sleep with other people.

It is NOT necessary for someone to be married in order for them to sleep
only with their partner, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise.

 

[Ray Fischer]

Hugiboo <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
>> >objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> But until I see some real evidence, I will assume that every
>> egotistical control freak with delusions of godhood who tells me that
>> what he says is absolute truth is really a dangerous lunatic and not
>> to be trusted.
>
>So, you think there's a possibility of an absolute moral authority,
>but everyone who thinks they've found it is a dangerous lunatic
>because they believe there is an objective moral authority?

That's not what I wrote.

> Do they
>really tell you that what they tell you is absolute truth? I haven't
>said that. I have said that I believe that I have found an absolute
>truth. I do not claim that whatever I say about it is the absolute
>truth.

So you may be completely wrong about what you believe.

Which is ample reason for me to consider your claims with much
skepticism.

>> > This part of my post was clearly not meant to be
>> >proof for an objective moral authority. I was explaining what an
>> >objective moral authority means,
>>
>> You were stating your opinion about something which 1) you are not
>> qualified to explain, and 2) you have no knowledge of.
>
>First, how do you know my qualifications.

Easy. You're not God. You do not have Absolute Knowledge.

> Second, I am perfectly
>qualified to state what my understanding of what an objective moral
>authority is.

Just as you're free to state your understanding of the Tooth Fairy,
Santa Claus, or the color of unicorns.

> If you think I have no knowledge of the subject, point
>out where in my definition I made a mistake.

"Point out where I made a mistake about the Tooth Fairy."

>> > If you don't accept this
>> >authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong.
>>
>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
>> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
>> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>> Adolph ******
>>
>> If ****** can invoke an objective moral authority to justify genocide,
>> then why should I trust your claims about objective moral authorities?
>
>I'll use a similar argument.

It won't work.

> If Stalin can claim that it is for the
>greater good of society (his own subjective moral authority) to
>justify genocide, then why should I trust your own subjective moral
>authority?

You shouldn't.

And I'm not asking you to. In fact it would be stupid of you to truth
ANYBODY's morals, INCLUDING your own.

>> > If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
>> >wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
>> >culture it is not morally wrong.
>>
>> Do you think it is objectively wrong because it offends _you_?
>>
>> You _are_ arrogant and self-centered.
>
>Normally I like to answer my own questions, not have them answered for
>me. I think it is objectively wrong because my understanding of God
>leads me to believe that God views it as wrong, and yes it does offend
>me, doesn't it offend you?

You just happen to think that God agrees with you.

>> >> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
>> >> personal moral authority.
>> >
>> >In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
>> >on themselves to know what to trust.
>>
>> Thus, there is no evidence for any objective morality.
>
>There is no physical evidence of God Himself.

That's right.

> God is not a physical
>being. There is evidence within the physical creation.

Nope.

> Read Case for
>Creator by Lee Strobel.

Why? I've seen all of the arguments. Riddled with logical fallacies.
Every one of them.

People have been trying to prove the existance of God for hundreds of
years. All have failed.

> His other two books are excellent as well,
>Case for Christ and Case for Faith. It is a very logical step by step
>examination of the facts.

They're never an examination of the facts.

>> >> >> > You're right that
>> >> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
>> >> >> >(not because of religious morality).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
>> >> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The punishment is death.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
>> >>
>> >> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.
>> >
>> >You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
>> >your point?
>>
>> How can objective morality be used to justify immoral acts?
>
>Easy, when you claim to follow an objective moral authority, you can
>legitimize your immoral acts by claiming that this is the will of that
>objective moral authority.

A CLUE!

>> >> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
>> >> the freedom to worship at the church demands.
>> >
>> >Do you have evidence for that statement?
>>
>> Yes. The 10 commandments.
>
>Quote the command that restricts freedoms and explain it.

There is no freedom to worship a different god.

>> > If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
>> >not any better.
>>
>> Religion promotes ignorance. 200 years ago the Arabs were the
>> intellectual leaders of the world. Then they got religion.
>
>200 years ago was 1800.

Typo. 2000 years ago.

> Islam began in the 600s, and since then the
>Arabs have been religious.

How about that.

>> >> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
>> >>
>> >> According to the Bible it is.
>> >
>> >Where in the Bible?
>>
>> Cursing one's parents merits death. What's the punishment for
>> speaking out against God?
>
>If you accept who God is, why would you speak out against Him?

What a bizarre question. Do you think that "freedom" means "do as
you're told"?

> This
>is a law only for those who believe in God. Cursing is a lot
>different than criticizing. Free speech does not mean that we can go
>around saying anything we please. Just try it, there's a lot of stuff
>that you can get in trouble for saying.

Excuses and rationalization.

>> >> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
>> >>
>> >> All.
>> >
>> >Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?"
>>
>> LOL! You do realize that that's a mistranslation, don't you?
>
>Depends which version you use. The NIV translation says "You shall
>not murder" So is this one of the church laws that you would like to
>get rid of?

What is "murder"? It's not a church law.

>> > Why don't you name specific
>> >church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
>> >scripture or church teaching that proposes it?
>>
>> All.
>
>It's pretty hard to come up with a specific church law in a quote that
>you think we should be free from isn't it?

All.

>> >> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
>> >> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
>> >> >> >Christianity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like?
>> >> >
>> >> >Like the stuff above.
>> >>
>> >> Those didn't start with Christianity.
>> >
>> >Do you know where they started then?
>>
>> The earliest written law that still exists is the Code of Hammurabi.
>
>That is irrelevant to the question. The question was, where do
>institutions such as public schools, orphanages, social wellfare
>institutions, and hospitals come from if not from Christianity?

Self interest. Common sense.

>> >> > Christianity does not hate science.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
>> >> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
>> >> human biology.
>> >
>> >I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
>> >says that it hates science?
>>
>> I thought you claimed that "Christianity" does not hate science
>> instead of the Bible.
>
>Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, so they follow
>what the Bible says.

LOL!

Since when?

>> >> You think that your personal morality is absolute.
>> >
>> >No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.
>>
>> Which means that you think that you are infallible, able to decide
>> which is absolute morality.
>
>I think I am very fallible. That's why I must rely on God's word, the
>Bible.

Smirk. You seem to think that you're infallible in deciding that
the Bible is God's word.

--
Ray Fischer
[email protected]

 

[Hugiboo]

> >What do you think marriage is? It is a promise to remain faithful.
> >You just said that marriage is not necessary but a marriage-like
> >relationship is necessary. But if a couple refuses to get married,
> >they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.
>
> Ever been to a house church? No ordained ministers, no formulaic
> prayer book, no costumes and rites. Still a church. Some people are
> so hung up on the rituals they forget the important things.
>
> Guy

Are we still only talking about marriage here? If there is some kind
of formal ceremony which is made known to the community (relational
community, not necessarily locational community), then I think it is
valid. For a Christian couple it should involve a religious
authority, to reject that is like saying you don't want God in the
relationship (which is very anti-Christian). But if it is simply a
private promise between two people, there is no sense of socail
accountability. There is nobody that knows about the promise and
because it is an informal promise, there is less importance placed on
keeping the promise. The promise made in a marriage is a promise for
life, "till death do us part". Every dating couple makes an informal
promise (except in some strange relationships) to remain faithful, but
there is no requirement that the promise last longer than a day. What
would be a good reason for not having a legal marriage?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 23 Mar 2005 21:59:22 -0800, [email protected] (Hugiboo) wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>if it is simply a
>private promise between two people, there is no sense of socail
>accountability.

And? Isn't that between two people and God? Not everyone demands
that society take an interest.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Hugiboo]

> >if it is simply a
> >private promise between two people, there is no sense of socail
> >accountability.
>
> And? Isn't that between two people and God? Not everyone demands
> that society take an interest.
>
> Guy

The people that society refers to are the people in your community.
If you never interact with the people in your physical community, it
would refer to the community that you do interact with, the people who
know you. As well when you get married you wear a wedding ring to
show that you are married. Why would anyone want to hide the fact
that they are married or not want to be legally married? Is it a
sense of freedom from the promise of being with one person for the
rest of their life? They are leaving the door open, just in case
things don't work out, which shows that they are not totally committed
to their partner. Why would anyone who is totally committed to their
partner not want to be legally married?

 

[Hugiboo]

> > But if a couple refuses to get married,
> > they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.
> >
> >
>
> Doesn't follow. Their preference of non-marriage may be for totally
> different reasons - reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with
> whether or not they are going to sleep with other people.
>
> It is NOT necessary for someone to be married in order for them to sleep
> only with their partner, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise.

It's not that they want to sleep with other people, or have any
intention of ever doing so. The point is that they don't want to
formally commit themselves. Why not?

 

[Lady Chatterly]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Hugiboo) wrote:
>
>> > But if a couple refuses to get married,
>> > they are clearly not ready to make that promise to remain faithful.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Doesn't follow. Their preference of non-marriage may be for totally
>> different reasons - reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with
>> whether or not they are going to sleep with other people.
>>
>> It is NOT necessary for someone to be married in order for them to sleep
>> only with their partner, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise.
>
>It's not that they want to sleep with other people, or have any
>intention of ever doing so. The point is that they don't want to
>formally commit themselves. Why not?

Is that the only way you can write that Down in your book in great big
letters?

--
Lady Chatterly

"Er, wait, I didn't realize what this Lady Chatterly was until reading
the other posts. Wackiness ensues." -- Julie d'Aubigny

 

[Hugiboo]

> >> >Are you saying that because you don't see any evidence for an
> >> >objective moral authority, that it is not possible that there is one?
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> But until I see some real evidence, I will assume that every
> >> egotistical control freak with delusions of godhood who tells me that
> >> what he says is absolute truth is really a dangerous lunatic and not
> >> to be trusted.
> >
> >So, you think there's a possibility of an absolute moral authority,
> >but everyone who thinks they've found it is a dangerous lunatic
> >because they believe there is an objective moral authority?
>
> That's not what I wrote.

Sometimes it's helpful when you notice a misunderstanding to try to
correct the misunderstanding rather than just saying it's wrong. If
that's not what you think, then in what way is it not accurate?

> > Do they
> >really tell you that what they tell you is absolute truth? I haven't
> >said that. I have said that I believe that I have found an absolute
> >truth. I do not claim that whatever I say about it is the absolute
> >truth.
>
> So you may be completely wrong about what you believe.
>
> Which is ample reason for me to consider your claims with much
> skepticism.

Sure I could be completely wrong about what I believe. That's a given
for anyone's beliefs because people are not perfect. Sure, consider
it with skepticism. If you simply accepted what I say about God
without holding it up to severe scrutiny, I would think you weren't
very bright. A lot of Christian beliefs are not easy to believe
without some very powerful evidence. Jesus is both fully man and
fully God? Jesus was raised from the dead? People throughout history
(including today) perform miracles?

> >> You were stating your opinion about something which 1) you are not
> >> qualified to explain, and 2) you have no knowledge of.
> >
> >First, how do you know my qualifications.
>
> Easy. You're not God. You do not have Absolute Knowledge.

If we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of it,
don't you think? Do you have a better definition, or were you just
arguing for the sake of it?

> > Second, I am perfectly
> >qualified to state what my understanding of what an objective moral
> >authority is.
>
> Just as you're free to state your understanding of the Tooth Fairy,
> Santa Claus, or the color of unicorns.

Relevance? Maybe if we were talking about these things, then a
definition would be useful so we were both talking about the same
thing.

> > If you think I have no knowledge of the subject, point
> >out where in my definition I made a mistake.
>
> "Point out where I made a mistake about the Tooth Fairy."

The Tooth Fairy was not the subject here, and you didn't set out a
definition of the Tooth Fairy that I might have disagreed with if we
were talking about it. Let's try to stay on topic here, I set out a
definition of an absolute moral authority and you thought that I
shouldn't do that because I can't know everything about the subject?
Do you just not want to talk about it or what? So I'll ask you again,
is my definition acceptable as a base to talk about an objective moral
authority, as we have been talking about it, or do you think a
different definition would more accurately describe the concept?

> >> > If you don't accept this
> >> >authority, you must think that nothing is inherintly wrong.
> >>
> >> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
> >> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
> >> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
> >> Adolph ******
> >>
> >> If ****** can invoke an objective moral authority to justify genocide,
> >> then why should I trust your claims about objective moral authorities?
> >
> >I'll use a similar argument.
>
> It won't work.
>
> > If Stalin can claim that it is for the
> >greater good of society (his own subjective moral authority) to
> >justify genocide, then why should I trust your own subjective moral
> >authority?
>
> You shouldn't.
>
> And I'm not asking you to. In fact it would be stupid of you to truth
> ANYBODY's morals, INCLUDING your own.

I don't actually have much of a choice here. I have to trust myself
for some things or I'll have to run around like a chicken with it's
head cut off. I trust myself to recognize the truth that God shows
me. I hate to use this argument, but if only to convince you of the
importance of what you believe consider: if you're right and I'm
wrong, it won't make a difference when we die; but if I'm right and
you're wrong, there will be eternal consequences of our life. That's
not to say that I know how you or I will be judged, but if
Christianity is true, we will be judged and we had better keep that in
mind.

> >> > If morals are subjective, something like genocide is not
> >> >wrong if it happens in a different culture than ours because in that
> >> >culture it is not morally wrong.
> >>
> >> Do you think it is objectively wrong because it offends _you_?
> >>
> >> You _are_ arrogant and self-centered.
> >
> >Normally I like to answer my own questions, not have them answered for
> >me. I think it is objectively wrong because my understanding of God
> >leads me to believe that God views it as wrong, and yes it does offend
> >me, doesn't it offend you?
>
> You just happen to think that God agrees with you.

I would put it as, I happen to think that I am accurately representing
God's views. Not that I know everything of God's opinions, but in
these cases I am more confident.

> >> >> In short, your "objective moral authority" is nothing but your
> >> >> personal moral authority.
> >> >
> >> >In a sense you could say that, because in the end everyone must rely
> >> >on themselves to know what to trust.
> >>
> >> Thus, there is no evidence for any objective morality.
> >
> >There is no physical evidence of God Himself.
>
> That's right.
>
> > God is not a physical
> >being. There is evidence within the physical creation.
>
> Nope.

Your opinion verses my opinion. I've provided evidence for my
opinion, you've provided doubt for yours.

> > Read Case for
> >Creator by Lee Strobel.
>
> Why? I've seen all of the arguments. Riddled with logical fallacies.
> Every one of them.
>
> People have been trying to prove the existance of God for hundreds of
> years. All have failed.

That's true, people who have tried to prove the existence of God have
failed and will continue to fail, just the same as people who try to
prove the non-existence of God will always fail. I don't really think
you will read those books or take my arguments seriously, but maybe
someone reading this board who is looking for answers will see my
arguments or the much better ones in books like the ones by Strobel
and maybe it will help them.

> > His other two books are excellent as well,
> >Case for Christ and Case for Faith. It is a very logical step by step
> >examination of the facts.
>
> They're never an examination of the facts.

They promote Christianity to be sure, Strobel only interviews
Christians about the difficult questions, but the point is that there
are answers to those difficult questions. Surely, there must be
well-educated atheists who could come up with more objections. I
would encourage the serious truth seeker to read books from both
perspectives and listen to debates on the subject.

> >> >> >> > You're right that
> >> >> >> >millions of people were tortured and killed in the name of religion
> >> >> >> >(not because of religious morality).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Exactly because of religious morality. Look at the 10 commandments.
> >> >> >> You may have no other God. You may not worship any other God.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The punishment is death.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh is that the problem? That was the Jewish national law.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what? It's been used by Christians to kill people.
> >> >
> >> >You're right, it has been used by Christians to kill people. What's
> >> >your point?
> >>
> >> How can objective morality be used to justify immoral acts?
> >
> >Easy, when you claim to follow an objective moral authority, you can
> >legitimize your immoral acts by claiming that this is the will of that
> >objective moral authority.
>
> A CLUE!

A clue to how power corrupts. This just shows how people can become
corrupted without proper accountability. The Roman Catholic church
was corrupt. They were not acting by the principles they held. You
can't claim that the principles that they strayed from are to blame
from the consequences of that straying. You also can't claim that
because people trying to follow God messed up, that God doesn't exist.
It is our nature to mess up, but God always forgives us.

> >> >> That's complete bull. Religions do not allow any freedom except
> >> >> the freedom to worship at the church demands.
> >> >
> >> >Do you have evidence for that statement?
> >>
> >> Yes. The 10 commandments.
> >
> >Quote the command that restricts freedoms and explain it.
>
> There is no freedom to worship a different god.

There is no freedom for Christians to worship a different god. Why
would there be? If you accept who God is and everything He's done for
us and then go and worship a false god or an idol, that's spitting in
God's face.

> >> > If you look at other cultures that were not Christian, things were
> >> >not any better.
> >>
> >> Religion promotes ignorance. 200 years ago the Arabs were the
> >> intellectual leaders of the world. Then they got religion.
> >
> >200 years ago was 1800.
>
> Typo. 2000 years ago.
>
> > Islam began in the 600s, and since then the
> >Arabs have been religious.
>
> How about that.

What about it? Actually I think the intellectual leaders 2000 years
ago would have been the Greeks. But civilizations rise and fall all
over the world, through all times. I doubt the vast number of gods
the Greeks had contributed at all to their intellectual prowess. The
Arabs really peaked scientifically during the height of the Muslim
empire, so I guess your observation that religion hampers science is
flawed.

> >> >> > Christianity is not opposed to free speech.
> >> >>
> >> >> According to the Bible it is.
> >> >
> >> >Where in the Bible?
> >>
> >> Cursing one's parents merits death. What's the punishment for
> >> speaking out against God?
> >
> >If you accept who God is, why would you speak out against Him?
>
> What a bizarre question. Do you think that "freedom" means "do as
> you're told"?

My point is that if you accept who God is, you will understand that He
is perfect and that it is just stupid to criticize Him.

> > This
> >is a law only for those who believe in God. Cursing is a lot
> >different than criticizing. Free speech does not mean that we can go
> >around saying anything we please. Just try it, there's a lot of stuff
> >that you can get in trouble for saying.
>
> Excuses and rationalization.

Which means what? Do you not agree that there are things that we
cannot do? And do you not agree that it is good that we are limited
in some ways? Or would you prefer anarchy?

> >> >> > What kind of church law are you suggesting we should be free from?
> >> >>
> >> >> All.
> >> >
> >> >Even the law, "thou shalt not kill?"
> >>
> >> LOL! You do realize that that's a mistranslation, don't you?
> >
> >Depends which version you use. The NIV translation says "You shall
> >not murder" So is this one of the church laws that you would like to
> >get rid of?
>
> What is "murder"? It's not a church law.

The Bible may not be the first time a law such as this was in written
form, but it is a law given to us by God. As such, it is a church
law. Can you give any church laws that you would consider church laws
that we should be free of? How about "you shall not commit adultery"?
What's wrong with that one?

> >> > Why don't you name specific
> >> >church laws that you think we should be free from, and quote the
> >> >scripture or church teaching that proposes it?
> >>
> >> All.
> >
> >It's pretty hard to come up with a specific church law in a quote that
> >you think we should be free from isn't it?
>
> All.

So far you've given: the law to not worship any other gods. This is
not something that would make sense to impose on non-Christians, since
by worshipping other gods they would not be doing harm to anyone but
themselves.

> >> >> >> > Orphanages, social wellfare, public
> >> >> >> >schools. Our culture is full of things that were started with
> >> >> >> >Christianity.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Like the stuff above.
> >> >>
> >> >> Those didn't start with Christianity.
> >> >
> >> >Do you know where they started then?
> >>
> >> The earliest written law that still exists is the Code of Hammurabi.
> >
> >That is irrelevant to the question. The question was, where do
> >institutions such as public schools, orphanages, social wellfare
> >institutions, and hospitals come from if not from Christianity?
>
> Self interest. Common sense.

Orphanages come from self interest? Common sense is not so common as
you might think. The church has had a strong history of caring for
orphans and the poor, while everyone else forgets about them. Before
Christian morals were considered common sense, the only orphanages
around were run by nuns. Since then the government has begun to
subsidize and de-religionize social assistance organizations (in
Canada where I live anyway, I'm not sure exactly how those things are
run in the US).

> >> >> > Christianity does not hate science.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course it does. The churches have been opposing scientific research
> >> >> for the past 1000 years. 500 years ago it was astronomy. Now it's
> >> >> human biology.
> >> >
> >> >I said Christianity, not the historic church. What about the Bible
> >> >says that it hates science?
> >>
> >> I thought you claimed that "Christianity" does not hate science
> >> instead of the Bible.
> >
> >Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, so they follow
> >what the Bible says.
>
> LOL!
>
> Since when?

Since Christ died, Christians have followed his teachings and the
authority of the Apostles whom Christ chose to lead us. We follow
their teachings which were recorded and which are considered inspired
by God. The Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church
also place a strong emphasis on the traditions that have been passed
on throughout the history of the church. The Protestant church
unfortunately seems to be very much against tradition, since it is
associated with Roman Catholicism. Be careful who you let represent
Christianity to you or you may get a bad impression from a fake
Christian. Many Christians are simply cultural Christians, only
Christian because their parents were Christian. They do not actually
live for Christ and present a very hypocritical view of what a
Christian is.

> >> >> You think that your personal morality is absolute.
> >> >
> >> >No... I think that the moral authority that I believe in is absolute.
> >>
> >> Which means that you think that you are infallible, able to decide
> >> which is absolute morality.
> >
> >I think I am very fallible. That's why I must rely on God's word, the
> >Bible.
>
> Smirk. You seem to think that you're infallible in deciding that
> the Bible is God's word.

I don't know how many times I've told you this, I don't have any
choice but to trust myself to know what is the truth or not. Niether
do you. Just because you are not infallible doesn't mean that you
can't believe in something.

 

[Hugiboo]

> > Read Job. God approved of and granted Satan the right to kill Job's
> > family and servants and animals.
>
> That's a really good point Paul, I will have to get back to you on
> that. Serves me right for making such a bold claim.

Ok, I have an answer: I don't know. There are many things I do not
know. Was it evil for God to give Satan the right to kill Job's
family, servants, and animals? Well, since evil is to do the opposite
of God's will, God is incapable of doing evil. At the same time, God
is consistent and unchanging, so while I don't understand everything
about the situation, I do know that God wanted to test Job, and that
He was perfectly justified in doing so. Maybe I overstated the truth,
it wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong nor the last. I will
look for a better answer, I just didn't want to forget about this
after I said I would get back to you.