Get used to it....

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]By what authority?

presumably his own. Why do you feel the need to defer your morality to another? If an eleventh commandment popped up in the bible which told you to molest children, would you do it? Why?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Try 20 years of solid church attendance, and reading the bible cover-to-cover more times than I can count.

Before you lecture others on 'challenging preconceptions', why don't you try challenging your main one, namely, your assumption that God exists.

To be fair , I did admit it was a rant from the start and thus an exaggeration in order to make a point or raise debate. We all make assumptions mate and I'm no different , it's part of life on a forum, you don't get to meet the people. You have no idea of the struggles I've gone through in my faith. So you have made an assumption yourself in concluding I have not challenged myself on this.

Do you dispute that by looking for problems you are bound to find them?

So what put you off God?

Originally posted by Churlant
. Of course there are situations in which this harm can be justified - self-defense,.

-JC[/b]

So here is an example of where morals informed by faith might be different ( not better neccessarily) from morals informed by basic statements or human abstract concepts. EG - Self defence - Remember "turn the other cheek"? ..or "Peter put away your sword"?

What about pre-emptive defence (george bush etc) ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
To be fair , I did admit it was a rant from the start and thus an exaggeration in order to make a point or raise debate. We all make assumptions mate and I'm no different , it's part of life on a forum, you don't get to meet the people. You have no idea of the struggles I've gone through in my faith. So you have made an assumption yourself in concludin ...[text shortened]... pute that by looking for problems you are bound to find them?

So what put you off God?

If you're really willing to challenge your preconception of God's existence, you should avoid dogmatic statements like, "GOD ISN'T EASY. GET USED TO IT."

A book of such ambitious scope as the bible can hardly be read without encountering problems. Try reading the book of Job, for example.

Ultimately, I stopped believing in God because the bible has too many logical contradictions and philosophical problems for my taste.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If you're really willing to challenge your preconception of God's existence, you should avoid dogmatic statements like, "GOD ISN'T EASY. GET USED TO IT."

A book of such ambitious scope as the bible can hardly be read without encountering problems. Try reading the book of Job, for example.

Ultimately, I stopped believing in God because the bible has too many logical contradictions and philosophical problems for my taste.

I think it's kinda supposed to contradict itself in a way. It was never meant to be a consistent guide book , for a start it was written by so many different people across so many time zones coming at the same issue from many different angles , poetry , history , questioning etc , did you really expect it to add up neatly? The Bible is only a book after all. It's not the main deal for many people anyway. I can't say I've read it for ages.

I'm curious , after so much church attendance did you ever get an inkling of what the Holy Spirit was about , or did it never leap off the page?

PS- Sorry if the dogmatic statements get to you , it's tongue in cheek really , I would never say stuff like that in real life aggressively,,,it's just a cyber forum speak.You know, the kinda thing you get in the houses of parliament when it sounds awful but everyone meets in the bar afterwards.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So here is an example of where morals informed by faith might be different ( not better neccessarily) from morals informed by basic statements or human abstract concepts. EG - Self defence - Remember "turn the other cheek"? ..or "Peter put away your sword"?

What about pre-emptive defence (george bush etc) ?

I said the harm could be justified, not that it wasn't still immoral.

If you can't bother quoting me in full, why bother responding in part?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I said the harm could be justified, not that it wasn't still immoral.

If you can't bother quoting me in full, why bother responding in part?

-JC

If something is immoral then you don't do it . If it's justified then you are saying that it can be justified as the lesser of two evils? If I said I had killed 20 people in my life who were all trying to kill my children would you label me as an immoral person? I think you are missusing the word "immoral".

Originally posted by knightmeister
If something is immoral then you don't do it . If it's justified then you are saying that it can be justified as the lesser of two evils? If I said I had killed 20 people in my life who were all trying to kill my children would you label me as an immoral person? I think you are missusing the word "immoral".

The definition of "morality" only refers to established moral principles, which are inherently relative. Killing another is an action lacking in morality, any way you slice it (no pun intended).

I use the term to include killing, for whatever the reason, because such an action invariably alters an individuals mental state - most often in a negative fashion.

If you claimed to have killed 20 people in the defense of your child, I would probably question the justification of those killings (it is rare an individual must kill another in such defense, rarer still 20 of them).

Since you enjoy overblown examples, I'll humor you. Assuming each was a true act of self-defense:

I would consider your acts immoral, but not unjust, and you as an individual wouldn't necessarily be "immoral". The psychological ramifications of killing 20 human beings, even in defense of your own blood, would be extremely significant and it is this internal reaction that true morality is based on.

-JC

Originally posted by knightmeister
If something is immoral then you don't do it . If it's justified then you are saying that it can be justified as the lesser of two evils? If I said I had killed 20 people in my life who were all trying to kill my children would you label me as an immoral person? I think you are missusing the word "immoral".

Suppose you promise S you'll pick him up at the airport. Suppose this conflicts with a previous promise you made to T, but in promising S you forgot about your previous promise to S. Suppose neither S nor T will let you off the hook. Then you're left in a situation where regardless of what you do, you'll break a promise. Yet, you may be justified in breaking one of these promises rather than the other.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If something is immoral then you don't do it.

Isn't sinnning immoral?

Haven't you ever sinned?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If you're really willing to challenge your preconception of God's existence, you should avoid dogmatic statements like, "GOD ISN'T EASY. GET USED TO IT."

A book of such ambitious scope as the bible can hardly be read without encountering problems. Try reading the book of Job, for example.

Ultimately, I stopped believing in God because the bible has too many logical contradictions and philosophical problems for my taste.

I'd venture a guess that your critical analysis following your 'conversion' has far surpassed that which was employed prior to the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd venture a guess that your critical analysis following your 'conversion' has far surpassed that which was employed prior to the same.

I'd venture a guess that you use the phrase 'the same' about 10 times as much as the average person. It's getting fairly annoying to read it over and over again.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm curious , after so much church attendance did you ever get an inkling of what the Holy Spirit was about , or did it never leap off the page?

Oh, crap. Knew I forgot something! 🙄