It worked (this time)! Look around and check it out. You may need to reset your password. If there are problems let me know!
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
And it’s that self intellectually-emasculated mindset resulting from the post modern culture of death that devalues human life and causes one to deliberately deny the obvious that utterly baffles me.
Why does showing a little humility (rather than professing we are the supreme creation and everything, including this planet, was created for our benefit) devalue human life? That’s a hellva leap in logic to justify the enormity of your ego.
The only thing I can agree with is how puzzling it is see that you failed to understand the reality that I described.
I didn’t misunderstand anything. You simply fail to hold your God to the same standards of morality you want humans to uphold. Your God can intentionally murder millions and you justify it with “corporate responsibility”, then disagree with applying the same “justice” to criminals in our modern society.
While I expected you to disagree with the example I used, the analogy is incontrovertible.
That’s good one. For whatever reason you seem to think the unintended consequences of a particular economic policy somehow works as an analogy for the intentional murder of millions of innocent people by your God. But, whatever.
No! It’s nice to be fair. Only those who strive for parity over all else can believe fairness must somehow be a “moral” imperative.
WRONG! That’s completely ridiculous. We’re not talking about the fairness of accidental circumstance – so stop being intellectually dishonest. It is a moral obligation for one to be fair. The fact is many laws find their roots in the concept of fairness. Our laws are adjusted in many cases to reflect a better standard of fairness. It isn’t just “nice” to be fair, it’s a moral obligation. Didn’t your Jesus teach you that?
Yeah, you’re right, He likes watching that almost as much as he likes watching and rooting for the wicked to prosper.
We can certainly agree on that. Why else would he have created the wicked knowing full well what they would do?
What you said here strongly suggests to me that you’ve yet to fully consider the logical implications of what a “fair” existence would mean.
Obviously you haven’t either.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that assertion. It’s quite expected from one who’s convinced himself a subjective, self-derived code of morality actually exists.
This coming from somebody who believes unchanging moral authority comes from a book that endorses slavery, genocide, incest, murder, the subjugation of women and even animal cruelty. You know perfectly well I could demonstrate a dozen examples of how our (American) society has evolved morally and has parted from the rules your God laid out in the ten commandments.
So tell me, why is it when liberals lose an election and they threaten to leave the country and froth at the mouth with, “he’s not my president,” it’s called “post election depression” but when conservatives lose and they’re able to articulate their points of view and back them up with facts, liberals call it “rage?”
I wouldn’t know. I’m not a liberal. And I’ve never fallen victim to either of those post-election mental states. But, if you really must label me (even though that tends to undermine communication), I would for the most part be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
Why does showing a little humility (rather than professing we are the supreme creation and everything, including this planet, was created for our benefit) devalue human life?
Because that misguided humility is borne of a mindset that devalues human life. A worldview that purposefully denies the uniqueness of mankind does so at the expense of the value of the individuals within it. When we no longer regard human beings as being the most precious of all things by virtue of not just our physical natures, but more importantly, our spiritual natures, then we have no choice but to view our species as little more than a commodity. Human life becomes cheap; coldly aborted out of convenience and callously starved to death by writ of a “vegetative” state.
That’s a hellva leap in logic to justify the enormity of your ego.
It’s not my ego that’s out of control here; and that’s not a unsubstantiated “leap” in logic — it’s axiomatic.
I didn’t misunderstand anything.
I beg your pardon, but your response indicates that you did. As I tried to point out, entire societies have suffered en masse (whether every individual in it was culpable or not) because of the immoral “norms” that their cultures condoned. By choosing to remain in those cultures — whether individuals participated in the immoral behaviors or not — they all took on a corporate responsibility for those behaviors and as a result, they all suffered the logical consequences.
You simply fail to hold your God to the same standards of morality you want humans to uphold.
Hardly. God is consistent in dispensing His justice to those who deny Him and abundant in His mercy to those who acknowledge Him, and history bears witness to this.
Your God can intentionally murder millions and you justify it with “corporate responsibility”, then disagree with applying the same “justice” to criminals in our modern society.
First, meting out deserved punishment to those responsible (corporately or individually) for sinful behavior is not murder, it’s justice. Secondly, your scenario of visiting punishment on the families of criminals totally misconstrues the meaning of corporate responsibility. A criminal, by definition, is an individual who has broken the moral code of the society in which he lives. In order to be a criminal, the society he’s part of cannot be complicit in, or tolerate as a whole, the criminal’s immoral behavior, therefore, the criminal’s family cannot bear the responsibility for his actions. Now, if an individual criminal’s immoral behavior is tolerated by the entire society and is allowed to continue in that behavior, then the entire society is corporately responsible for his actions and they are all deserving of the same punishment.
For whatever reason you seem to think the unintended consequences of a particular economic policy somehow works as an analogy for the intentional murder of millions of innocent people by your God.
Let me try explaining it this way. “Unintended consequences” are the natural, logical results of immoral behaviors. They are built into the universe. A particular government policy that forces lending institutions to make loans under the threat of fines to unqualified people is irrefutably immoral — and therefore everyone will ultimately suffer consequences for it. It’s no different than when a nation that is corporately guilty of capital crimes is itself subject to capital punishment — which is anything but “intentional murder.”
We’re not talking about the fairness of accidental circumstance – so stop being intellectually dishonest.
I’m not the one being intellectually dishonest here. I was responding to your exact words of:
And life would be fair if your God wanted it so.
I wasn’t referring to “accidental circumstances,” I was referring to the realities of how unique individuals, with unique and unequal talents and abilities must interact with each other.
It is a moral obligation for one to be fair.
No, that’s ridiculous! It can’t possibly be an obligation in an existence where the unequal distribution of talents and abilities are the reality.
The fact is many laws find their roots in the concept of fairness.
Fairness in regard to how the law treats those who have been wronged by others — which is the original purpose for law — not how it has been per_verted to now dictate how we can make our livelihoods.
It isn’t just “nice” to be fair, it’s a moral obligation. Didn’t your Jesus teach you that?
Again, no, it’s not. Your assertion that life could be fair if God wanted it to be would require the outcome of every human activity to be fair — i.e. the elimination of competition in all forms. That’s an entirely different concept than Jesus’ commanding us to love (and therefore treat) each other as He loved (and treated) us. To be a unique individual and be forced to live in a totally “fair” world would mean never being able to realize one’s full potential in any ability or talent because it would be stifled by having to conform to the standard of what must be “fair” to others.
Why else would he have created the wicked knowing full well what they would do?
The wicked become wicked by exercising their God-given free will to do so. It’s a logical contradiction to allow free will and know beforehand how each individual will choose to exercise it.
You know perfectly well I could demonstrate a dozen examples of how our (American) society has evolved morally and has parted from the rules your God laid out in the ten commandments.
Yeah, you’re right. I can’t argue with that — that is, with the exception of one word. The proper, more accurate description is that America has devolved morally from the Biblical standard on which she was founded. And that proves my point that absolute morality cannot change, but the natural human tendency is to drift from and rationalize a dumbing-down of a standard that we know in our hearts will never change.
Because that misguided humility is borne of a mindset that devalues human life.
Devalues human life? Are you joking? No, of course you aren’t. Let’s face facts: your bankrupt anachronistic epistemology teaches people that they’re born handicapped, that they’re created w/some imagined flaw (yes, I speak of that imagined self-flagellation called sin), & the only way to strive upwards is to kneel down.
It’s a logical contradiction to allow free will and know beforehand how each individual will choose to exercise it.
So your imaginary ass-pal isn’t omniscient? Wow, what a newsflash.
…And there’s my “bad penny” Krys… How’s it going? (You’re really late though. It took you almost 60 hours this time. I do hope everything’s ok.)
As usual, it’s pretty slim pickin’s again:
your [blah, blah, blah] epistemology teaches people that they’re born handicapped, that they’re created w/some imagined flaw
Riiiight…with, of course, the exception of Krys who’s (sing it with me) perfect in ev’ry way!
the only way to strive upwards is to kneel down.
By George, you can still learn!!!
[blah, blah, blah] Wow, what a newsflash.
Oh dear, the spotty memory seems to be worsening. Perhaps a diet high in Omega-3 fatty acids (i.e. fish oil) would slow the progression… ‘course, then you’d literally smell fishy!
Well, this wasn’t much fun. I’d hoped you’d reply with something a little more challenging. I thought for sure that you’d make some attempt at corporate responsibility. Oh well, say la vee…
If you think about it, there is no scientific evidence to support religion. Considering the time it came into being, there was very little knowledge of Earth’s history. Religion stems from the fear of the unknown.
Evolution can be verified scientifically for all of it’s 4.6 Billion years.
I happen to belive in the 4.6 Billion Years of Evolution. Because of the very large period involved, I feel that 2,000 years ago scientific knowledge was barely existang, and that fear of the unknown is what started religion.
Because that misguided humility is borne of a mindset that devalues human life.
Misguided humility? Humility is no longer a virtue? It is just as easy to argue that religious belief devalues human life by inventing an afterlife. It diminishes the importance of this life by effectively turning the reality of our existence in this world into some self-serving quest for divine reward. Those that do the most “good” in the name of self-interest can look forward to spending eternity in some utopian retirement home in the sky. Why value human life when it is eternal?
Human life becomes cheap; coldly aborted out of convenience and callously starved to death by writ of a “vegetative” state.
That’s quite the exercise in applying a slippery slope argument. Unfortunately for your argument, the Christian mindset is as guilty of only valuing life when it’s convenient as any other mindset. I’d be happy to give examples if you like?
– they all took on a corporate responsibility for those behaviors and as a result, they all suffered the logical consequences.
Aside from the reality that “moral norms” vary from individual to individual (even among you Christians), this still doesn’t excuse the murder of those who haven’t yet taken part in a society. Infants for example (and your God must have killed them by the hundreds of thousands in the global flood). You still haven’t explained why you give your God a free pass when he murdered babies in the flood. By your own explanation, corporate justice wouldn’t apply to them.
I wasn’t referring to “accidental circumstances,” I was referring to the realities of how unique individuals, with unique and unequal talents and abilities must interact with each other.
You’re right. Why didn’t I see it before? Those with unique talents have no moral obligation to interact with others — who may not share said talents — in a fair manner. And you call yourself a Christian? That sounds almost like you’re trying to justify treating others as unfairly as you want, taking advantage of whatever talents they may lack. Is that what you’re saying? Is not taking advantage of the less fortunate just a matter of being nice, as you put it? I don’t think so. It’s your moral obligation to do so and EVERY Christian I know would agree with me — not you. As an atheist, I can at least take some comfort in believing that most Christians do not share your self-serving perversion of moral obligation when it comes to fairness.
Again, no, it’s not. Your assertion that life could be fair if God wanted it to be would require the outcome of every human activity to be fair — i.e. the elimination of competition in all forms.
Are you speaking for your God again?
The wicked become wicked by exercising their God-given free will to do so. It’s a logical contradiction to allow free will and know beforehand how each individual will choose to exercise it.
This of course is contradictory to the concept that God has a “plan” for us all — or that he is omniscient. Either way, he is responsible for creating everything which also means wickedness.
The proper, more accurate description is that America has devolved morally from the Biblical standard on which she was founded.
Interesting. America was founded on slavery. On genocide. On allowing the individual to worship any God they choose to (a direct violation of the first commandment). So then you agree that these are all Christian values? You believe America morally devolved in abolishing slavery? We morally devolved in granting/protecting women’s rights?
Man, you’re really becoming just another example of how the religious have absolutely nothing to offer society.
Boy, I’m glad I was finally able to log in again after that first brief interlude I had with the new blog. I was missing all this jcc kerfuffel. Good job, DVanW.
Misguided humility? Humility is no longer a virtue?
Who said that? Sincere humility is a virtue, but it’s what motivates it that, in the end, will matter.
[religious belief] diminishes the importance of this life by effectively turning the reality of our existence in this world into some self-serving quest for divine reward.
An erroneous conclusion based on a faulty or poorly understood premise – as evidenced by your next sentence:
Those that do the most “good” in the name of self-interest can look forward to spending eternity in some utopian retirement home in the sky.
Once again, an eternal, abundant life is the result of grace, not works.
Why value human life when it is eternal?
Because Christianity is not universalism. Motives matter, and they directly affect the location in which one spends eternity.
Unfortunately for your argument, the Christian mindset is as guilty of only valuing life when it’s convenient as any other mindset. I’d be happy to give examples if you like?
By all means, please do.
“moral norms” vary from individual to individual (even among you Christians)
Mores vary, morals don’t.
You still haven’t explained why you give your God a free pass when he murdered babies in the flood. By your own explanation, corporate justice wouldn’t apply to them.
My apologies for failing to adequately convey my point. Let me try again. The blood of the babies killed in the flood was on their parent’s hands, not God’s. Throughout time, innocent children have suffered the consequences of their parent’s bad behavior and/or decisions. As individuals, we must all realize that everything we do will in some way either directly or indirectly affect others – especially the ones we care the most about.
Those with unique talents have no moral obligation to interact with others “who may not share said talents” in a fair manner.
That’s neither what I said nor what I meant.
And you call yourself a Christian?
Yes, I do.
That sounds almost like you’re trying to justify treating others as unfairly as you want, taking advantage of whatever talents they may lack. Is that what you’re saying?
No. That’s not even close to what I was saying.
Is not taking advantage of the less fortunate just a matter of being nice, as you put it? I don’t think so. It’s your moral obligation to do so and EVERY Christian I know would agree with me not you.
You’re clearly confusing fairness with ethics.
I can at least take some comfort in believing that most Christians do not share your self-serving perversion of moral obligation when it comes to fairness.
Again, it seems I’ve failed to adequately explain my position. If I may try again… A Christian is called to love others which intrinsically means to treat them first and foremost ethically, not necessarily fairly. A Christian businessman is to treat his customers with honesty and integrity. The same principle applies to non-business associations. We are to treat others with dignity, respect and kindness. But this is not the same as treating them with fairness. No business could ever remain solvent if its proprietor treated all his customers and suppliers fairly – there could be no volume discounts; no discounts for repeat buyers; no preferred suppliers, etc. The same goes for relationships. As a father, I cannot always treat my children with what you consider to be fairness – what I give to my oldest I cannot always give to my youngest because it sometimes isn’t age appropriate despite the fierce protestations from the youngest.
Now, fairness, with regard to how individuals are seen by the law is a completely different matter. I expect fair (that is, equal) treatment in the eyes of the law. If I’m convicted of armed robbery, then I deserve, and should expect, the same punishment as anyone else guilty of the same crime under the same circumstances – because that is fair. I am morally obligated to behave ethically, but aside from matters concerning the law, I am under no such obligation for fairness.
Are you speaking for your God again?
I’m speaking for the objective reality that you and I both exist in.
This of course is contradictory to the concept that God has a “plan” for us all or that he is omniscient.
No, it doesn’t. As a parent, I have a plan for providing my children with a college education; whether or not they choose to accept that plan is up to them, but like God’s plans for each of us, they can only come to fruition when we recognize them and work together toward them.
Either way, he is responsible for creating everything which also means wickedness.
Nope. If God is good, then He cannot be the author of evil. Evil is of our doing, our free will, NOT his.
America was founded on slavery. On genocide.
Ok, that explains why you have such difficulty understanding such rudimentary concepts.
Man, you’re really becoming just another example of how the religious have absolutely nothing to offer society.
And if you were serious about the slavery/genocide comment, then that indicates just how detached from reality your thinking has become.
And if jcc had been born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents, it is highly likely that he would be arguing fervently for Allah and His Prophet (PBUH). Likewise if he had been born to a Jainist or a Sikh or in any other religious setting.
It absolutely fascinates me to see a person with obvious intellect wielding it in defence of a position they hold because of an emotional attachment they seem unable to perceive.
For 13 billion years and more you did not exist. Nothing. Just some atoms that would briefly come together. Even now the individual atoms you were born with have mostly been replaced. All too soon you will end and soon there will be nothing to show that as an individual, you ever existed.
So, little mayfly, enjoy what you have and help others to do the same. Science is the way to learn of the wonders. Don’t waste time with warm and fuzzy lies.
And if jcc had been born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents, it is highly likely that he would be arguing fervently for Allah…
Oh definitely! Just as you are unquestionably the product of a long, uninterrupted, genetically controlled lineage of committed atheists, my thoughts, like yours, are strictly dictated by my DNA. We simply had no choice in what we believe in, do we?
It absolutely fascinates me to see a person with obvious intellect wielding it in defence of a position they hold because of an emotional attachment they seem unable to perceive.
An “obvious intellect,” that’s unable to overcome an “emotional attachment?” That’s a very interesting choice of words, especially coming from someone who was either unwilling or unable to answer the simple question of who or what he can effectively pray to…
Even now the individual atoms you were born with have mostly been replaced.
And yet my consciousness, my personality, my being remains unchanged… pretty amazing to think that that “evolved” in just 550 million years! And atheists think Christians are stupid for believing in the most improbable of eventualities…
All too soon you will end and soon there will be nothing to show that as an individual, you ever existed.
Um, that’s your cry of existential angst, remember? (just ask Dave)
Science is the way to learn of the wonders.
Really? So, how do suppose this “obvious intellect” learned all it knows?
Don’t waste time with warm and fuzzy lies.
You mean like evolution, situational ethics, post modernism, existentialism, and man-made global warming?
@jcc:
Deny the obvious?
Theists haven’t had any proof (or even mildly-suggestive evidence) of a god for the entire history of the human race.
It’s hardly obvious…
how about now! Can you log in in the upper right corner now?
Ha! What do you know? — It actually worked!
Jcc,
Why does showing a little humility (rather than professing we are the supreme creation and everything, including this planet, was created for our benefit) devalue human life? That’s a hellva leap in logic to justify the enormity of your ego.
I didn’t misunderstand anything. You simply fail to hold your God to the same standards of morality you want humans to uphold. Your God can intentionally murder millions and you justify it with “corporate responsibility”, then disagree with applying the same “justice” to criminals in our modern society.
That’s good one. For whatever reason you seem to think the unintended consequences of a particular economic policy somehow works as an analogy for the intentional murder of millions of innocent people by your God. But, whatever.
WRONG! That’s completely ridiculous. We’re not talking about the fairness of accidental circumstance – so stop being intellectually dishonest. It is a moral obligation for one to be fair. The fact is many laws find their roots in the concept of fairness. Our laws are adjusted in many cases to reflect a better standard of fairness. It isn’t just “nice” to be fair, it’s a moral obligation. Didn’t your Jesus teach you that?
We can certainly agree on that. Why else would he have created the wicked knowing full well what they would do?
Obviously you haven’t either.
This coming from somebody who believes unchanging moral authority comes from a book that endorses slavery, genocide, incest, murder, the subjugation of women and even animal cruelty. You know perfectly well I could demonstrate a dozen examples of how our (American) society has evolved morally and has parted from the rules your God laid out in the ten commandments.
I wouldn’t know. I’m not a liberal. And I’ve never fallen victim to either of those post-election mental states. But, if you really must label me (even though that tends to undermine communication), I would for the most part be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
@David Silverman
I can!
However, I still can’t log in on the front page (or sign up).
dvanwechel:
Because that misguided humility is borne of a mindset that devalues human life. A worldview that purposefully denies the uniqueness of mankind does so at the expense of the value of the individuals within it. When we no longer regard human beings as being the most precious of all things by virtue of not just our physical natures, but more importantly, our spiritual natures, then we have no choice but to view our species as little more than a commodity. Human life becomes cheap; coldly aborted out of convenience and callously starved to death by writ of a “vegetative” state.
It’s not my ego that’s out of control here; and that’s not a unsubstantiated “leap” in logic — it’s axiomatic.
I beg your pardon, but your response indicates that you did. As I tried to point out, entire societies have suffered en masse (whether every individual in it was culpable or not) because of the immoral “norms” that their cultures condoned. By choosing to remain in those cultures — whether individuals participated in the immoral behaviors or not — they all took on a corporate responsibility for those behaviors and as a result, they all suffered the logical consequences.
Hardly. God is consistent in dispensing His justice to those who deny Him and abundant in His mercy to those who acknowledge Him, and history bears witness to this.
First, meting out deserved punishment to those responsible (corporately or individually) for sinful behavior is not murder, it’s justice. Secondly, your scenario of visiting punishment on the families of criminals totally misconstrues the meaning of corporate responsibility. A criminal, by definition, is an individual who has broken the moral code of the society in which he lives. In order to be a criminal, the society he’s part of cannot be complicit in, or tolerate as a whole, the criminal’s immoral behavior, therefore, the criminal’s family cannot bear the responsibility for his actions. Now, if an individual criminal’s immoral behavior is tolerated by the entire society and is allowed to continue in that behavior, then the entire society is corporately responsible for his actions and they are all deserving of the same punishment.
Let me try explaining it this way. “Unintended consequences” are the natural, logical results of immoral behaviors. They are built into the universe. A particular government policy that forces lending institutions to make loans under the threat of fines to unqualified people is irrefutably immoral — and therefore everyone will ultimately suffer consequences for it. It’s no different than when a nation that is corporately guilty of capital crimes is itself subject to capital punishment — which is anything but “intentional murder.”
I’m not the one being intellectually dishonest here. I was responding to your exact words of:
I wasn’t referring to “accidental circumstances,” I was referring to the realities of how unique individuals, with unique and unequal talents and abilities must interact with each other.
No, that’s ridiculous! It can’t possibly be an obligation in an existence where the unequal distribution of talents and abilities are the reality.
Fairness in regard to how the law treats those who have been wronged by others — which is the original purpose for law — not how it has been per_verted to now dictate how we can make our livelihoods.
Again, no, it’s not. Your assertion that life could be fair if God wanted it to be would require the outcome of every human activity to be fair — i.e. the elimination of competition in all forms. That’s an entirely different concept than Jesus’ commanding us to love (and therefore treat) each other as He loved (and treated) us. To be a unique individual and be forced to live in a totally “fair” world would mean never being able to realize one’s full potential in any ability or talent because it would be stifled by having to conform to the standard of what must be “fair” to others.
The wicked become wicked by exercising their God-given free will to do so. It’s a logical contradiction to allow free will and know beforehand how each individual will choose to exercise it.
Yeah, you’re right. I can’t argue with that — that is, with the exception of one word. The proper, more accurate description is that America has devolved morally from the Biblical standard on which she was founded. And that proves my point that absolute morality cannot change, but the natural human tendency is to drift from and rationalize a dumbing-down of a standard that we know in our hearts will never change.
Devalues human life? Are you joking? No, of course you aren’t. Let’s face facts: your bankrupt anachronistic epistemology teaches people that they’re born handicapped, that they’re created w/some imagined flaw (yes, I speak of that imagined self-flagellation called sin), & the only way to strive upwards is to kneel down.
So your imaginary ass-pal isn’t omniscient? Wow, what a newsflash.
…And there’s my “bad penny” Krys… How’s it going? (You’re really late though. It took you almost 60 hours this time. I do hope everything’s ok.)
As usual, it’s pretty slim pickin’s again:
Riiiight…with, of course, the exception of Krys who’s (sing it with me) perfect in ev’ry way!
By George, you can still learn!!!
Oh dear, the spotty memory seems to be worsening. Perhaps a diet high in Omega-3 fatty acids (i.e. fish oil) would slow the progression… ‘course, then you’d literally smell fishy!
Well, this wasn’t much fun. I’d hoped you’d reply with something a little more challenging. I thought for sure that you’d make some attempt at corporate responsibility. Oh well, say la vee…
If you think about it, there is no scientific evidence to support religion. Considering the time it came into being, there was very little knowledge of Earth’s history. Religion stems from the fear of the unknown.
Evolution can be verified scientifically for all of it’s 4.6 Billion years.
I happen to belive in the 4.6 Billion Years of Evolution. Because of the very large period involved, I feel that 2,000 years ago scientific knowledge was barely existang, and that fear of the unknown is what started religion.
Jcc,
Misguided humility? Humility is no longer a virtue? It is just as easy to argue that religious belief devalues human life by inventing an afterlife. It diminishes the importance of this life by effectively turning the reality of our existence in this world into some self-serving quest for divine reward. Those that do the most “good” in the name of self-interest can look forward to spending eternity in some utopian retirement home in the sky. Why value human life when it is eternal?
That’s quite the exercise in applying a slippery slope argument. Unfortunately for your argument, the Christian mindset is as guilty of only valuing life when it’s convenient as any other mindset. I’d be happy to give examples if you like?
Aside from the reality that “moral norms” vary from individual to individual (even among you Christians), this still doesn’t excuse the murder of those who haven’t yet taken part in a society. Infants for example (and your God must have killed them by the hundreds of thousands in the global flood). You still haven’t explained why you give your God a free pass when he murdered babies in the flood. By your own explanation, corporate justice wouldn’t apply to them.
You’re right. Why didn’t I see it before? Those with unique talents have no moral obligation to interact with others — who may not share said talents — in a fair manner. And you call yourself a Christian? That sounds almost like you’re trying to justify treating others as unfairly as you want, taking advantage of whatever talents they may lack. Is that what you’re saying? Is not taking advantage of the less fortunate just a matter of being nice, as you put it? I don’t think so. It’s your moral obligation to do so and EVERY Christian I know would agree with me — not you. As an atheist, I can at least take some comfort in believing that most Christians do not share your self-serving perversion of moral obligation when it comes to fairness.
Are you speaking for your God again?
This of course is contradictory to the concept that God has a “plan” for us all — or that he is omniscient. Either way, he is responsible for creating everything which also means wickedness.
Interesting. America was founded on slavery. On genocide. On allowing the individual to worship any God they choose to (a direct violation of the first commandment). So then you agree that these are all Christian values? You believe America morally devolved in abolishing slavery? We morally devolved in granting/protecting women’s rights?
Man, you’re really becoming just another example of how the religious have absolutely nothing to offer society.
Boy, I’m glad I was finally able to log in again after that first brief interlude I had with the new blog. I was missing all this jcc kerfuffel. Good job, DVanW.
DVanWechel:
Who said that? Sincere humility is a virtue, but it’s what motivates it that, in the end, will matter.
An erroneous conclusion based on a faulty or poorly understood premise – as evidenced by your next sentence:
Once again, an eternal, abundant life is the result of grace, not works.
Because Christianity is not universalism. Motives matter, and they directly affect the location in which one spends eternity.
By all means, please do.
Mores vary, morals don’t.
My apologies for failing to adequately convey my point. Let me try again. The blood of the babies killed in the flood was on their parent’s hands, not God’s. Throughout time, innocent children have suffered the consequences of their parent’s bad behavior and/or decisions. As individuals, we must all realize that everything we do will in some way either directly or indirectly affect others – especially the ones we care the most about.
That’s neither what I said nor what I meant.
Yes, I do.
No. That’s not even close to what I was saying.
You’re clearly confusing fairness with ethics.
Again, it seems I’ve failed to adequately explain my position. If I may try again… A Christian is called to love others which intrinsically means to treat them first and foremost ethically, not necessarily fairly. A Christian businessman is to treat his customers with honesty and integrity. The same principle applies to non-business associations. We are to treat others with dignity, respect and kindness. But this is not the same as treating them with fairness. No business could ever remain solvent if its proprietor treated all his customers and suppliers fairly – there could be no volume discounts; no discounts for repeat buyers; no preferred suppliers, etc. The same goes for relationships. As a father, I cannot always treat my children with what you consider to be fairness – what I give to my oldest I cannot always give to my youngest because it sometimes isn’t age appropriate despite the fierce protestations from the youngest.
Now, fairness, with regard to how individuals are seen by the law is a completely different matter. I expect fair (that is, equal) treatment in the eyes of the law. If I’m convicted of armed robbery, then I deserve, and should expect, the same punishment as anyone else guilty of the same crime under the same circumstances – because that is fair. I am morally obligated to behave ethically, but aside from matters concerning the law, I am under no such obligation for fairness.
I’m speaking for the objective reality that you and I both exist in.
No, it doesn’t. As a parent, I have a plan for providing my children with a college education; whether or not they choose to accept that plan is up to them, but like God’s plans for each of us, they can only come to fruition when we recognize them and work together toward them.
Nope. If God is good, then He cannot be the author of evil. Evil is of our doing, our free will, NOT his.
Ok, that explains why you have such difficulty understanding such rudimentary concepts.
And if you were serious about the slavery/genocide comment, then that indicates just how detached from reality your thinking has become.
And if jcc had been born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents, it is highly likely that he would be arguing fervently for Allah and His Prophet (PBUH). Likewise if he had been born to a Jainist or a Sikh or in any other religious setting.
It absolutely fascinates me to see a person with obvious intellect wielding it in defence of a position they hold because of an emotional attachment they seem unable to perceive.
For 13 billion years and more you did not exist. Nothing. Just some atoms that would briefly come together. Even now the individual atoms you were born with have mostly been replaced. All too soon you will end and soon there will be nothing to show that as an individual, you ever existed.
So, little mayfly, enjoy what you have and help others to do the same. Science is the way to learn of the wonders. Don’t waste time with warm and fuzzy lies.
DD Dropout:
Oh definitely! Just as you are unquestionably the product of a long, uninterrupted, genetically controlled lineage of committed atheists, my thoughts, like yours, are strictly dictated by my DNA. We simply had no choice in what we believe in, do we?
An “obvious intellect,” that’s unable to overcome an “emotional attachment?” That’s a very interesting choice of words, especially coming from someone who was either unwilling or unable to answer the simple question of who or what he can effectively pray to…
And yet my consciousness, my personality, my being remains unchanged… pretty amazing to think that that “evolved” in just 550 million years! And atheists think Christians are stupid for believing in the most improbable of eventualities…
Um, that’s your cry of existential angst, remember? (just ask Dave)
Really? So, how do suppose this “obvious intellect” learned all it knows?
You mean like evolution, situational ethics, post modernism, existentialism, and man-made global warming?