Astralinre

Once more, you're attacking arguments that we never made, and which we have flat out said we were not making. We've already clarified this exact same issue, so I'd appreciate it if you actually read my posts.

I'd love for you to point out exactly where we so much as implied that, when in fact we have been purposefully avoiding any appearance of that belief, since we do not believe it. Nowhere have I said that morals come from Christianity. I believe that morals come from God, and have been instilled in all humans, as I said ealier. (They need not necessarily come from my God, but there must be an absolute, transcendant source for there to be any real morality.) All of your supporting arguments support my point, not yours. If people still knew that those things were wrong even before Judaism/Christianity, then doesn't that make it seem like Judeo-Christian morality is absolute morality? If Egyptians merely knew certain things were right and wrong, without the Bible telling them so, doesn't that imply that those morals are absolute? If God is the source of absolute morality, and He has instilled that morality in mankind, then doesn't it make sense for people to follow that morality to some degree even if they don't know of the Judeo-Christian God?

I never said either of those things. I'm saying that in Christianity, morality is real - the unchanging character of an eternal God is the standard of what is good and what is evil. Good doesn't just mean "what I think is good"; it means "what really is good based on God's character." Evil doesn't just mean "what I think is wrong"; it means "what really violates God's character." There is a real reason to do what is good, because good really is real. Whereas in your system, good is not really real. It is merely what you say it is, and anybody else can say that you are wrong based on their morals. There is no real morality by which our subjective morals can be measured, so you are just as good and just as evil as anybody else, depending on whose eyes you're looking through. So being 'good' really doesn't mean anything. Does that mean an atheist can't be moral? Not at all. I know plenty of atheists who are moral people, yourself included. My point is merely that if your system is true, you are not really 'good', and you have no right to criticise what I view as 'good'. You're only doing what you call good, so just let me go and do what I call good. Would there be a reason for the law to exist in an atheistic society? I believe so. There would still be a law to keep order, because humans generally believe order to be good. (I do believe that God has instilled a sense of morality in all human beings, though it may become twisted, or even forgotten, over time. But because of this sense of morality, even those who don't believe in God will view certain things as good and evil. However, they no longer have a philosophical basis for saying that those things are really good and evil. They try to keep the fruit of the moral law, while cutting up the root of the moral law. Though eventually, separated from the root, the fruit will whither.) I would guess that if there is no strong, unifying power in this atheistic society (such as Stalin's regime in the U.S.S.R.), that there would be riots and anarchy. There has to be something to hold a society together, whether it be a common morality, a strong government, or even mutual economic goals. (For example, the Netherlands avoiding much of the strife of the religious wars in the 1700s because they were so prosperous that beliefs weren't a divisive factor; their desire for profit held the society together.) Ok, I probably went off on a tangent or two there, so if you would, please argue with my main points, and kindly point out where I went off topic so I can stay on topic better. :) Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet. That's a fine set of rules, but what reason do you have to follow them? I mean, you have your set of morals, and I believe that you'll follow your morals because you want to follow them, and because you're a moral person. But I see no reason why you should have a binding commitment to a set of morals that have no justification other than your choice to follow them. What basis do you have for saying those things are good? Are they good because you say they are good? Do you have any right to criticise those who follow a different set of moral guidelines?

Never mind that it was perfectly legal for Attorney General Gonzales to fire them and appoint new judges with Congress's approval. Never mind that the attorneys serve at the will of the President, and by extension, the Attorney General. The primary charge is not that the dismissals were against the law (because they weren't), but that they were politically motivated. I find that ironic considering that this whole "scandal" seems to be a Democrat-majority Congress trying to stir up trouble for a Republican administration which several of them hate.

Satenza, allow me for a moment to assume your absolute moral belief, the Mills Harm Principle. An action is only bad if it harms another person, correct? Now, if a friend comes to me pregnant and asking for advice, am I forcing my opinion on her by not telling her about abortion because of my religious objections to it? Is it wrong that I am "taking away her liberty" like that? (Nevermind that she can just as easily find out about abortion from any other source, so I'm not really forcing anything on her, merely stating my opinion.) I believe that abortion is harmful. It is obviously harmful to the foetus, which it kills, and I believe it has harmful psychological effects on the mother. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to knowingly give a person information that would lead to her harm? According to your Mills Harm Principle, the right thing for me to do is to avoid harm to the woman and the foetus by not talking about abortion. As an aside, it seems that you want to take away Barihawk's liberty. Why should he not have the right to express only the views with which he agrees? Why should he have to offer options with which he disagrees and believes are harmful? Let him have the liberty to say what he wants to say.

I agree entirely with the bolded. People should not be identified by labels of sexuality. I therefore propose that the "gay rights" movement be abolished, since it promotes the labeling of people by sexuality.

We're not talking about some ridiculously outlandish requirement. It's one or two inches different in sock length. What's the big deal? And no matter what, his language and reasoning are entirely over-the-top. Sock length is by no means a precious freedom or God-given right. If he wants to protest, he should at least be honest. This is how his letter should read: "I, Sean {Hidden}, on behalf of the undersigned portion of the student body, hereby request, from the administration of St. Bonaventure School, abolition to the rule designating the length of our socks. We don't like your stinking rule. We want to wear our socks the way we want to. We're shallow enough to think that our socks are an important expression of our individuality. Change the rule or we'll be angry."

Socks are a precious freedom, and choosing their length is a God-given right? You're like Martin Luther King, except fighting for Sock Rights instead of Human Rights. Oh, and he was fighting for something that actually mattered.

Haha, that's alright man. I look foward to continuing this tomorrow. :)

You do realize that over 2/3 of the Bible consists of the Torah? Christians call it the Old Testament. I agree that the Torah has not changed. Where is your proof that the New Testament has changed? What in here supports that the New Testament was heavily edited? If it is widely copied, it is easier to assure that changes have not been made. Everything you quoted supports the textual integrity of the NT. If you had read the link I posted earlier, there is plenty of textual evidence to suggest that most of the NT was written before 60 AD, which is less than 30 years after the events that took place, so plenty of eyewitnesses would still be around. There's a huge difference between 10-30 years after the event and 100-250 years. Since I've never seen any two which directly contradict in any way other than wording, I believe both. I don't mean to be difficult, but I can't get anything on that page to load correctly. Would you mind copy-pasting some of the argument for me? Who am I to question an all-powerful being? If the God of the Bible exists, He has the right to do whatever He wishes with His creation. I think you've got the definition of infallible wrong. Infallible means not making mistakes.

Proof? The Gnostic gospels, the ones which were thrown out, were written 100-200 years after the ones which are in the Bible. Point? Quotes? Why must those be wrong for God to do? As a side note, the Biblical God is not "all-loving" in the sense that people tend to use it; that is, He does not love everyone or everything. God is love. Because love is His essence, and anything which goes against His character is wrong, He has every right to destroy anything which is contrary to love. Loving good and hating evil is in no way contrary to God's nature. I've never thought about it that way, and you may be right, but what would the problem with that view be if it were correct? When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

One of my favorite poems, and one of the last great epic poems written in the English language, is G.K. Chesterton's The Ballad of the White Horse, about Alfred the Great. The entire poem can be found on Project Gutenburg. Here's a small part of it that has little to do with the full plot, but that has always captured my imagination. If you want to look up the poem, Book 3: The Harp of Alfred is, in my humble opinion, the best part.

Sorry if this has already been said, but I don't want to muck through 5 pages. You're creating a false dichotomy between choices three and four. You assume that all straight people either have no moral problem with homosexuality, or that they hate homosexuals. Why is it not possible for someone to dissapprove of homosexuality without hating those who practice it?

Pretty stupid question. Do you think a God would create beings (humans) and the ability for them to multiply and then tell them that he doesn't want them to do it and that its a sin. Ok, ok, no need to be sarcastic, it's just that someone on another board mentioned that sex was a terrible sin and I was like really? Anyway thankyou for answering my question. Biblically, sex is a beautiful, sacred gift to a man and a woman in marriage. Any perversion of that is considered a sin.

Blipo and I just played three games. This thing is amazing. We both made some brilliant moves. Blipo, we've gotta do this again sometime. We're awesome at this. :P

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original. Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's? I think they mean that the current version was finished being re-translated in the 90's. I assume that people haven't been adding to it (if they have, they need shooting). When the site says 90s, it is refering to 90 AD, not 1990.

Here's a post I made a couple months ago about the paradigm shift in the Bible. If you'd like, Locke or I could provide plenty of passages from the Bible that show that the Bible itself claims this paradigm shift. We aren't contradicting what the Bible literally says, because the Bible literally speaks of this shift.

I'd like to be a publisher or a newspaper editor. I love reading, writing, and working with writers. I'd also like to write a book or three myself. My other dream job would be a high school English teacher, assuming that job paid enough to support a family. I love teaching people things, and as previously mentioned, I love literature.

Once more, if you assume that your system of morality is absolute, there's nothing wrong with that. However, if you assume subjective morality, which you do, then all justifications are equally valid. Either you're right and other people are wrong, or there is no moral truth and you're just forcing your views on others. Which is it? Edit: I'm off to dinner. I may be a while before I respond again.

I agree entirely. However, for the sake of discussion, I was assuming Satenza's moral theory and looking at its logical outworkings. Once we enter the realm of absolute morals, our discussion becomes entirely different. Rather than fight over who gets to force their opinion, we begin to look at the absolutes we do know, and try to apply them both to practical situations, and to the things we don't know for sure.

When did I say I believed it to be better? My point is merely that, according to your own beliefs, a Christian who wants to pass laws because of his religious beliefs is just as justified as you are if you want to pass laws because of your personal beliefs. So, if we are to go back to the original topic of this thread, then the application would be that you have no right to deny a Christian the abilitiy to pass laws according to his religious beliefs, even if you disagree with them. If you disagree with those laws, then raise opposition to them and vote against them. In the end, whoever is stronger makes the laws; the tyranny of the majority rules. Might makes right. Unless you are a moral absolutist, you cannot logically claim any moral high ground over a bigot who wants to pass discriminatory laws. It seems like a rather mundane conclusion for pages of discussion, doesn't it?

But if morals are subjective, as you initially claimed, then who decides whether or not use is a good thing? For that matter, who decides what constitutes usefullness? If morality is subjective, then isn't the opinion that change is bad as equally valid as the claim that change is good? Who's to say that practically is better than another measure of what is good? You believe that religions, which are nothing more than belief systems, should not make laws that restrict the people who disagree with that religion. Yet you believe that you ought to be able to impose your personal, subjective standard of morality on others through the law. Why is this okay? If morals are relative, then you are merely an intolerant bigot who wants to impose his belief on anyone who disagrees with him - just the same as those religionists. It does not matter whether it is one belief or ten beliefs, whether that belief is based on personal opinion or an ancient book - in any case, somebody is legislating their personal, subjective morality to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with it. So either morality is subjective and you are as much of an intolerant bigot as Tigra believes Christians are, or there is absolute morality. Any refutations?

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember to stick to personal insults the next time we have a discussion, rather than look at basic philosophical assumptions and their logical outworkings.