- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you support government or Christian’s in the United States?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:38 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:38 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I don't believe the Bible is open to any interpretation that anyone wants to place upon it. Just because people disagree on what it says in various places doesn't mean there isn't a singular intent that God, through the human author, intended to convey. The entire point of biblical hermeneutics is to understand how to properly interpret the Bible according to it's true and objective meaning, not according to our own opinions.
But your opinion about what you think the Bible says isn’t an opinion, but rather a fact, because your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation
Contrary to what you might think, I don't believe that my opinion is what determines truth. I seek to align my interpretation with the truth that exists outside of myself. There have been nearly 2,000 years of godly men who have sought to understand the Scriptures and I am nothing special in and of myself.
But this sad point of yours aside, you have again missed the point I was making. The NTS fallacy is fallacious precisely because the person making it isn't attempting to use any sort of objective standard for what constitutes a "Scotsman", but is using his own preferences to say that someone or something doesn't belong.
What I'm saying is that there are certain characteristics that determine what a "Christian" is from the Bible, and when Christians use the Bible to determine if a person is or is not a Christian based on those characteristics, those Christians are not making some sort of arbitrary judgement, which is at the heart of the NTS fallacy. Whether all Christians agree on every point of interpretation in the Bible is irrelevant to whether or not the NTS fallacy is being employed.
quote:I don't believe Catholic or Jehovah's Witness "churches" are truly Christian in the final analysis because both of them deny the gospel of Jesus Christ (salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone), but that doesn't mean there aren't Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses that reject or are entirely ignorant of the false gospels held to by Rome and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. I have to differentiate between "Catholics" and "the Roman Catholic church" for this very reason, as I believe there are many Catholics who are saved in spite of what the church they adhere to teaches. I imagine there may be some JW's that are in the same boat. My condemnation is of the leaders in those sects and their official teachings.
Folks like Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore aren’t Christians, right?
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 11:01 am
2
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:40 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The entire point of biblical hermeneutics is to understand how to properly interpret the Bible according to it's true and objective meaning, not according to our own opinions.
...and how do we do that?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:57 am to TrueTiger
quote:quote:Then slavery can be moral.
Morality is determined by cultural and social norms
Sure, such is the case in many African countries to this day. It was moral in ancient Israel which is reflected in Old Testament and the New Testament. If you were to claim the Bible is objective truth, then you would absolutely support the morality of the institution of slavery.
Abraham had slaves. So did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, all the messiahs of the Old Testament etc. And they had sex with those slaves, as according to modern definitions that would be rape.
Ephesians 6:5
quote:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
Colossians 3:12
quote:
Slaves, obey those who are your human masters in everything, not with eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
So Paul and his disciples didn’t come out and say slaves should be freed. They said the opposite. Slaves obey your masters. It’s quite simple.
What about Jesus though? Now, I personally do not believe a flesh and blood Jesus ever existed on earth nor healed the sick nor walked on water nor flipped over the money changers table. If you believe the gospels though, you’d have to conclude that Jesus endorsed the Mosaic law of the Old Testament including laws permitting and governing slavery.
Matthew 5
quote:
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
In reality (I know not many people in this forum like to deal with it) the scribe who wrote this was rebuking Paul, who rebuked the Mosaic Law. Here though, “Jesus” is rebuking Paul and is endorsing the Mosaic Law. (How’s that for objectivity and univocality?). That law includes endorsing slavery, and requires circumcision, and abstaining from eating shellfish or wearing a shirt made of mixed fibers.
Based on modern moral relativism and applying basic humanistic ethics, the action of holding another human hostage for the purposes of forced labor or rape does not promote the wellbeing of the object of the slavery, therefore slavery is immoral.
For a Christian to claim slavery is immoral is to reject Christian scripture and borrow morality from humanists while falsely claiming it as their own.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:49 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You're getting wrong at least two things here, one of which is more fundamental.
Wrong. According to my definition, consensus cultural norms would be that killing babies does NOT promote the wellbeing of the babies, therefore the action of killing babies would be immoral.
The fundamental problem you have is that your definition of morality as being an action that "promotes a net positive, happiness, and well-being and/or decreases unnecessary suffering" is an arbitrary and subjective standard on its face. This is merely one standard among an infinite number of subjective standards that exist in the minds of human beings throughout time. Having a cultural consensus doesn't make this standard objectively true, which is what you seem to be admitting when you say morality is not objective, yet you then provide a seemingly objective standard for determining morality (the golden rule). Why is this standard objective in your opinion? And if it isn't objective (it can't be, in your own professed worldview), then why do you assert it as if that is what morality is, rather than asserting that morality is whatever society wants it to be (whether that's the golden rule or something else)?
Secondly, not only is your overall definition of morality subjective, even the words contained within your definition are subjective and open to interpretation. Your moral paradigm is predicated on the concept of an objective view of what constitutes "positive", "happiness", "well-being", "unnecessary", and "suffering". My children going to the doctor might be interpreted as "suffering" to them and a detriment to their temporary "happiness", but may very much being good for their "well-being" and a net "positive" for them long-term. Not only are these conflicts evident in the individual, but they exist at the societal level, as well. Many evils were justified as being for the good of society. Genocide under the guise of population control to manage resources is something floated around as something for the good of humanity overall. Slavery has always been seen as a net benefit to societies in the past, where the suffering and harm of one group was outweighed by the happiness and well-being of another group. Rape for the sake of forced reproduction might be a net benefit long-term to a society where birthrates are declining. Stealing wealth from one group to give to another has been a staple of Communism and is seen as a net positive and benefit to society by many people who view it as a moral issue more than an economic one.
On top of all that, you claim "unnecessary suffering" should be minimized. Why? If suffering for one group will maximize happiness and well-being for another group (let's say 5% of the population will suffer for the sake of the 95%), why isn't that something we should move forward with as a moral action, even if the act is not absolutely necessary? Should the amount of positive compared to the amount of negative be considered? What if we as a nation decided that taking homeless people off the street and forcing them into prostitution or gladiatorial-like events for the pleasure of the rest of society was going to provide much more benefit than suffering, even though that wasn't a necessary solution to the homeless situation? Where do we draw the line?
So you see, not only is your standard for moral reasoning as a whole subjective, but even the components of that standard are open to interpretation based on the wants and needs of a particular society, so you could literally justify any behavior you want to and say it's good because it will maximize the happiness and well-being of society as a whole (even if it's 51% of society) and minimize suffering and harm for that same group. And that's assuming that the majority of society is what we actually want to maximize happiness, pleasure, and well-being for. I don't see why those with the power can't select a minority group to lift up and a majority to cast down. We're seeing that to some degree in our nation today with DEI and Critical Race Theory objectives.
The bottom line is that you don't have an objective standard for moral reasoning, and the one you claim to adhere to cannot be adhered to consistently, even though it comes from your own brain as your own subjective opinion.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:52 am to Snipe
This thread is bad and you should feel bad.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:56 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The bottom line is that you don't have an objective standard for moral reasoning
Nope, and neither do you.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 10:53 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Examining the text by comparing texts against other texts within the Bible to understand what God has told us, not what we are telling God. The Bible is God's revelation to man, and the goal of hermeneutics is to understand what God is telling us through that revelation. Those who don't adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura tend to impose opinions into the text rather than forming them from the text.
...and how do we do that?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 10:59 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Glad you said that. I hope you're going to act consistently with that statement by either refusing to praise or condemn actions of others or by acknowledging that your praise or condemnation has no actual meaning.quote:
The bottom line is that you don't have an objective standard for moral reasoning
Nope...
quote:I do. I have the standard of God's perfectly holy and just moral character, which applies to all human beings in all times and in all places through the moral law written on the hearts of man.
... and neither do you.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:10 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Examining the text by comparing texts against other texts within the Bible to understand what God has told us, not what we are telling God. The Bible is God's revelation to man, and the goal of hermeneutics is to understand what God is telling us through that revelation. Those who don't adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura tend to impose opinions into the text rather than forming them from the text.
Oh...so subjectivity.
Sweet. Thank you for participating.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:13 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Glad you said that.
I've never said otherwise. You're the only one with an issue accepting reality.
quote:
I hope you're going to act consistently with that statement by either refusing to praise or condemn actions of others or by acknowledging that your praise or condemnation has no actual meaning.
Subjective morality isn't meaningless.
quote:
I do.
No, you don't. You have claimed that you have divine authority on your side. As a result, your praise or condemnation has no actual meaning.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:15 am to Snipe
It depends on which has the best prospects of curbing my freedom. Right now that is government, so I’d oppose that.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 4:39 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Oh...so subjectivity. Sweet. Thank you for participating.
He’s blind to his own hypocrisy. He assumes univocality of the entirety of the Bible - that it’s one message by one god with no errors or contractions. If he doesn’t understand a passage, or if there’s a passage he doesn’t like or disagrees with, he’s free to find another passage that says something totally different, or that says the exact opposite, and that’s what he’s going to choose to believe. Then he asserts his view using vicious circular logic
and asserts his subjective opinion on any matter is the objective Truth with a capital “T”.Posted on 4/17/24 at 4:49 pm to FooManChoo
Everything you are saying is straight up wrong because there is no objective standard for morality.
Even if the Bible were true and authoritative (it’s not), there’s still no objective moral standard in it. It’s because it is the work of hundreds of scribes and redactors with multiple opinions. One says to sacrifice their firstborn children. The next scribe reads it and doesn’t like it so he adds “don’t sacrifice your kids” to rebuke the previous scribe. The Bible can’t agree on many things, morality or otherwise, because of its blatant irreconcilable contradictions. There simply isn’t any truth or objectivity in the Bible.
Except for one thing… an action is pleasing to the LORD if it is what the LORD wants at that particular time based on the opinions of the scribes who wrote the stories.
Oh and except slavery - that’s objectively morally permissible in the Bible. Rape too, as long as it’s an unmarried virgin and you pay her father the dowry, or if it’s your own slave.
Foo, please don’t apply your objective moral standard to your children should they become rebellious. Use my subjective standard - the western humanist standard - and don’t stone your children to death.
Even if the Bible were true and authoritative (it’s not), there’s still no objective moral standard in it. It’s because it is the work of hundreds of scribes and redactors with multiple opinions. One says to sacrifice their firstborn children. The next scribe reads it and doesn’t like it so he adds “don’t sacrifice your kids” to rebuke the previous scribe. The Bible can’t agree on many things, morality or otherwise, because of its blatant irreconcilable contradictions. There simply isn’t any truth or objectivity in the Bible.
Except for one thing… an action is pleasing to the LORD if it is what the LORD wants at that particular time based on the opinions of the scribes who wrote the stories.
Oh and except slavery - that’s objectively morally permissible in the Bible. Rape too, as long as it’s an unmarried virgin and you pay her father the dowry, or if it’s your own slave.
Foo, please don’t apply your objective moral standard to your children should they become rebellious. Use my subjective standard - the western humanist standard - and don’t stone your children to death.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:10 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
He’s blind to his own hypocrisy. He assumes univocality of the entirety of the Bible - that it’s one message by one god with no errors or contractions. If he doesn’t understand a passage, or if there’s a passage he doesn’t like or disagrees with, he’s free to find another passage that says something totally different, or that says the exact opposite, and that’s what he’s going to choose to believe. Then he asserts his view using vicious circular logic and asserts his subjective opinion on any matter is the objective Truth with a capital “T”.
FooLaneCraig has been trying to push the Objective Morality myth for years.
He's right and he knows the Truth that we don't know. How do we know this? Well, he said so.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Objective morality does not exist.
Is that statement objectively true? Or, is that just like, your opinion, man?
Before we get to objective morality, let’s first establish whether or not truth is objective or subjective. Since you like to use terminology as a means to evade arguments, I’ll provide you with dictionary definitions of the applicable terms.
Truth: (noun)
- the true or actual state of a matter:
He tried to find out the truth.
- conformity with fact or reality; verity:
the truth of a statement.
- a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
mathematical truths.
- the state or character of being true.
- actuality or actual existence.
- an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
- (often initial capital letter)
ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience:
the basic truths of life.
- agreement with a standard or original.
accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
Objective: (adjective)
- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
- being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
- of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Morality: (noun)
- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
- moral quality or character.
- virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
- a doctrine or system of morals.
- moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
Do you agree with these standard definitions? If not, please explain. I’ll proceed as though you do. Let’s disregard the religious implications, and just focus on the logic, rationality, and the day to day consequences of a life ruled by subjective standards of truth and morality.
Is truth objective or subjective? I’m not talking about opinions or preferences. I’m talking about facts. Does truth exist independently of perception? Is it created? Or discovered? Does the truth change? If so, how can you know that you know the truth? There is no better modern example of this than gender identity. Is a man, pretending to be a woman, in truth, a woman?
Why do we have laws? What are they based on? If objective morality does not exist, then under what subjective circumstances is it morally acceptable to rape an infant? According to whom or what? If the Nazis would have won the war, would their actions then be morally right? When good and faithful husband’s wife commits adultery (or vice versa), does it not always negatively impact their marriage and children? When someone steals from you, do you not say that they “ought” not have done so?
The truth is, that we live in a world that is governed by an objective baseline of truth and morality; a system that works so well, that it overcomes the inefficiency of those who do not abide by it, and affords you the freedom to reject it. I’d love to hear your case for subjective truth and morality.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
FooLaneCraig
Brilliant!
I wish I’d have thought of that.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:48 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Is that statement objectively true?
No one has contradicted it yet, including you.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
Yeah, awhile back he tried to pawn some of Craig's apologetics off as his own. He wasn't very happy when he got caught and I called him on it.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 5:57 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I've rarely seen anyone spend so much energy on something that they claim to not believe exists, and the ones that I have seen spend that much energy on it do so because they get paid for it.
This is so boring. Your god being make-believe is entirely irrelevant. You believe your god is real and you act accordingly. So do many others, including people who represent me.
That's why I care, and that's why I spend time calling out this nonsense.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 6:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't believe Catholic or Jehovah's Witness "churches" are truly Christian in the final analysis because both of them deny the gospel of Jesus Christ (salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone)
All of my fellow Roman Catholics, please take heed of Foo's Christian Doctrine here. It is shared by MANY of his fellow Protestants - the believe that Catholics are NOT Christians.
Thank you, Foo, for clarifying this issue for us all.
By the way, Foo, do you still believe that the Universe is roughly Six Thousand years old?
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News