Some Christians' Flexible Morality

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not really. I have seen movies about Christians being burnt at the stake in the past. So whether ISIS cuts off their heads or burns them in a cage, it does not make their evil more or less evil.

However, if I saw ISIS all being burned in a cage, I might even be cheering myself, like children watching a movie when good triumps over evil.

And there we have it.

Thank you.

Originally posted by divegeester
I suspect you are trying to lead me somewhere, which is fine.

No actually, merely trying to understand what you mean/understand by morality.

What are your morals based on and how do you know they are good?
To be honest, they are largely intuitive. I could come up with justifications for them, and may need to use logic etc to determine the morality of particular situations, but the justifications are just that, an attempt to justify or formalize an intuition.

My morals are good by definition ie 'good' is what morality says is good.

I must also say that here I am talking about a specific branch of morality: the concept that causing unnecessary harm to others is wrong. I am not so much talking about traditional morality such as whether or not a woman should cover her knees (although they are related).

I also do not act to achieve the maximum moral good. ie I may act immorally for selfish reasons or for the sake of a loved one - and feel perfectly justified in doing so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To be honest, they are largely intuitive. I could come up with justifications for them, and may need to use logic etc to determine the morality of particular situations, but the justifications are just that, an attempt to justify or formalize an intuition.

My morals are good by definition ie 'good' is what morality says is good.

I must also say that ...[text shortened]... y for selfish reasons or for the sake of a loved one - and feel perfectly justified in doing so.

I would say I largely approach morality in the same way; specifically and for example the teaching of eternal suffering has been created from a small cluster of largely obscure Biblical scriptures but despite being incoherent in regards to the rest of the Bible and the gospels in particular, it is morally reprehensible therefore I do not accept it.

Recently I made a statement that my Christian adversaries here pounced on, but I'll say it again: If it could be demonstrated without reasonable doubt that the persons who authored the gospels and the rest of the NT intend for those scriptures to interpreted as a doctrine of eternal suffering for not believing in Christ, then I would reject the NT in its entirety.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Don't piss off their God" leaps to mind.

This sententious reply on page five qualifies for the 2015 Guinness Book Of Records.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
It amuses me that all the really crazy stuff on this forum comes from theists and hardly anything - if anything at all - crazy comes from the atheists.

If I were a moderate theist I'd really wonder why that is.

It would raise some serious questions. Why are theists, having a far closer relationship with god than atheists, on average batcrazy whe ...[text shortened]... crazy? What does that say about me?

Luckily, I'm a moderate atheist. No such worries for me.

I guess it's because theist try to infer other-worldly ideas into their posts, which by their nature are unverifiable (by current scientific methods :o ).

Atheists stick to what is known and the rationality of this world.

Originally posted by whodey
Only if God is doing the beheading Sherlock.

God put us here and he will escort us out as he sees fit.

So boring.

You don't think you have any say about when you die?

Originally posted by divegeester
I would say I largely approach morality in the same way; specifically and for example the teaching of eternal suffering has been created from a small cluster of largely obscure Biblical scriptures but despite being incoherent in regards to the rest of the Bible and the gospels in particular, it is morally reprehensible therefore I do not accept it.

R ...[text shortened]... ne of eternal suffering for not believing in Christ, then I would reject the NT in its entirety.

Thank you for the honest answers.

Originally posted by divegeester
I would say I largely approach morality in the same way; specifically and for example the teaching of eternal suffering has been created from a small cluster of largely obscure Biblical scriptures but despite being incoherent in regards to the rest of the Bible and the gospels in particular, it is morally reprehensible therefore I do not accept it.

R ...[text shortened]... ne of eternal suffering for not believing in Christ, then I would reject the NT in its entirety.

Then you should also reject the OT.

http://www.believersmagazine.com/bm.php?i=20100703

Originally posted by RJHinds

Then you should also reject the OT.

http://www.believersmagazine.com/bm.php?i=20100703

Which scriptures in this link you have posted, support your statement?

Originally posted by divegeester
Which scriptures in this link you have posted, support your statement?

You don't want to read it, right? I am not going to be able to help you for you seem to have your mind made up, like a die-hard atheist and evilutionist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't want to read it, right? I am not going to be able to help you for you seem to have your mind made up, like a die-hard atheist and evilutionist.

I read the text in the link. Did you?

Can you tell me which scriptures in there support your claim that I should reject the Old Testament?