- 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: Is there a secular argument against abortions?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:14 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:14 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I disagree wholeheartedly. As time goes on, we don't have translation of translation of translation. We have translations based on manuscripts that are close to 2,000 years old and when new translations come out, they are based on the same original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. This isn't as much a game of telephone as you're making it out to be. But what you're doing is walking into a discussion about the reliability of the Bible. I'm more than happy to go there but I don't think that's necessary to our discussion on morality at this time. Needless to say, I believe the scriptures are reliable and clear enough to know what the moral law of God is, making it an authoritative (and objective) standard for morality if it speaks the truth.
Agreed.
But, he better show up more than once every 2000 years or else his followers are the equivalent of my 9 year old declaring "mommy said". And, actually, that's being kind.
His followers are the equivalent of declaring "Joey told Molly who told Sam who told Kelly who told John who told Mary who told.........x 10,000,000 that Mommy said".
quote:Again this gets into the reliability of scripture which could be its own discussion topic. I'm happy to get into that if you want, but I'll just say for now that there is sufficient evidence to trust the Bible as authentic and textually sound in its reliability to the original manuscripts. Not only that, but if its inspiration is true, time between when something happened and when it was written down is irrelevant since the spiritual author is God, who is omniscient and cannot lie.
Well, I mean, this is demonstrably false.
If God spoke to those people, he didn't speak English. And, they didn't write it down immediately. And, almost everything you read in the Bible was written well after the fact. I mean, you can absolutely believe in God.......but believing that the Bible is quote worth is demonstrably false.
quote:Since the Bible claims to be the word of God (God being its source), it really is a matter of not believing the Bible. It may be splitting hairs but I just wanted to say that I meant what I said. Feel free to disagree, obviously.
I actually concur with a great many if not the vast majority of Biblical teachings.
What you mean to say is that many don't believe God to be the source.
But, the most important thing about this thread is, you can't even get all the believers to agree.
Whether believers agree on everything is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is that the Bible is the word of God, God is an objective (moral) law giver, and thus His moral law is an objective source for morality. I don't want to say that it doesn't matter if people agree on it or not, but it kind of doesn't matter. Humans disagreeing about what the Bible says doesn't mean the Bible (and what it actually does say) isn't true.
quote:Like I said before, we can have a discussion about the reliability and inerrancy of the scriptures if you like, but that's not entirely pertinent to this discussion on morality. If you will concede that if the Bible is true, and that if it is the revealed word of God, and if God exists and is an objective law giver, then I have an objective moral standard to judge by, then we can move on to whether or not the Bible is true. If you don't accept that it's truthfulness changes anything in regards to an objective moral authority then what's the point of debating the specifics of what the Bible teaches?
I'm referring to the humans that interpret it now, but those who wrote it are not immune from critique.
Hell, let's be blunt here. The BIBLE ITSELF proves that it isn't a source for 100% objective truth. By definition, Jesus' new covenant contravened prior teachings which, by definition, means that objective truth..........changed
That being said, Christ was the fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. He didn't change anything but fulfilled the meaning of those things meaning they aren't necessary any longer.
0
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If the moral code that I believe in comes from an objective source (God) and it is an authority over all humanity, then yes, the morality that I have is objective. It's not may belief in it or acceptance of it that would make it objective but it's source.
Right, but your morality is not objective and can never be objective any more than my morality.
quote:
My worldview accepts an objective law giver and an objective moral law. Your worldview acknowledges universal moral subjectivity.
My worldview accepts a law giver that's as objective as your law giver.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I get readers of the Bible not agreeing, but if the authors don't agree, we're getting into scriptural inerrancy and that's another discussion. I'll just say I disagree, but if you want to have a discussion about that, I'm game.
Let's do it.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:17 pm to ShortyRob
Well that is exactly the point I was trying to make.
Viability is a terrible artificial measuring stick.
Viability is a terrible artificial measuring stick.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:21 pm to ShortyRob
quote:You're talking apples and oranges. Knowledge is not good or bad. Morality is the concept of good and bad. We're talking about morality and concepts of good and bad, and if there is no objective moral standard and all morality is subjective (which it has to be in secularism), then it cannot get better over time because there isn't an objective standard to compare it to in order to make that claim. You have to have a goal in order to know if you're making progress towards that goal and there is no goal in morality.
Then there's no such thing as objective knowledge......on ANY subject, moral or otherwise. (I HAD TO EDIT HERE. I'M USING THE TERM OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE IN THE SENSE YOU'VE BEEN USING IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE)
quote:Again, morality isn't some subset of knowledge.
They've "tested" them. Yes.
Not unlike any other area we seek knowledge in.
quote:Again, apples and oranges. Morality is different than the natural sciences (which applies to ship building). You're right that I wouldn't write that sentence to many if not most (or all) other areas of human experience because they are not all the same. Morality doesn't work like ship building because morality doesn't have an objective standard by which it is measured. Ship building does. The standard is to build a ship that can convey objects through water safely and as quickly as possible. You can build ships that improve on what came before in order to meet that goal. Morality just doesn't work that way.
Well of course it is.
Why do we treat ideas that come close to religion as special?
You wouldn't write the sentence you wrote above for any other area of human experience. You wouldn't say, "well, yes, we've got centuries of experience on how to properly build ships to survive ocean voyages but that doesn't make our current approach any better than approaches that don't apply that experience.
quote:Of course I do. The Bible records the first murder that happened long before that story was written down. History didn't start when the Bible was written and that is not a claim of Christianity that needs refutation.
You do realize that this idea predates the Bible, right?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Sorry but morality isn't like physics if you want to keep this secular. There are laws that the natural world abides by which allows you to measure the natural world and make predictions. Nothing exists in nature that establishes moral value to anything. Morality just doesn't work the same way.
Meh.
We're constantly looking for the "best" ways to do everything. And, there almost certainly are best ways.......best ways to hit a baseball........best ways to understand gravity........best physics.......etc etc.
While current physics may not represent the pinnacle of what physics can be, it does represent superior physics to the understanding of physics 1000 years ago.
So yes, one can say it is superior.
But, human progress isn't linear. The same goes for morality. It's not an exception to human progress; it's part of it.
Like the ship building example, you have to have an objective standard to measure your progress by in order to know that you are, in fact, making progress. There is no such thing as morality because what is bad, good, better, and best is subjective.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Please elaborate so we can discuss this point further.
Secularism has an objective basis that's as relevant as theism.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:31 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:No analogy is a perfect representation of what it is depicting, but I was working with what was there. To further clarify, it would be more like the parent dictating the message to a neighbor or other relative who left the note and then the children are arguing over what the parent meant. The result is still the same. The "parent" communicated a message to the children and will hold them accountable to it. The interpretation of the children is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the original message.
There's where your argument fails. God didn't leave a note or tell anyone alive today anything directly. People wrote notes claiming God inspired them and people claimed God told them directly. That's completely different and is exactly the same as two kids claiming different versions of what Mom said three weeks ago.
quote:Sure, but that was the analogy that was provided. If you'd like to make your own that you think would be helpful, I'm happy to discuss it.
And of course, nobody in this analogy is making any kind of moral choice because they are all ceding moral authority to God or Mom without making any critical moral judgments of their own, but simply trying to interpret whatever they think God or Mom said.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:If my morality is based on an objective standard, then yes, my morality would be objective, at least to the point in which my understanding is alignment with the reality. If the basis of my morality is not true then it would not be objective and therefore it would be no better or no worse than yours. If I'm wrong, then I'm not worse off than you are, but you don't have a hope to be better off in terms of objectivity based on your worldview.
Right, but your morality is not objective and can never be objective any more than my morality.
quote:Your worldview doesn't account for a law giver because there is no law that has been given. Each individual creates their own morality in their minds and that's as close as a law giver as you can provide.
My worldview accepts a law giver that's as objective as your law giver
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Great. Feel free to start a new thread on it. I'd prefer to keep this one to morality if at all possible.
Let's do it.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I think if you want to run with this then the correct add on is this.
I know all analogies break down so I won't get petty here but one key factor is missing in order for this to be an accurate analogy: you or your wife left a note (or told them both directly before leaving the room) about what was true and then the kids started arguing about what you meant.
About a week after my 9 year old heard mommy tell her what was right, she wrote it down.
Then, it was translated multiple times.............then, passed along to two or her cousins. Where, one of the cousins used their interpretation of the note written by my 9 year old(without talking to my 9 year old mind you) as a bludgeon on their other cousins.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Please elaborate so we can discuss this point further.
If you assert your objective basis with no need for verification, I could assert anything for mine. "I don't know" is as good as anything you can offer.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If my morality is based on an objective standard, then yes, my morality would be objective, at least to the point in which my understanding is alignment with the reality. If the basis of my morality is not true then it would not be objective and therefore it would be no better or no worse than yours.
See above.
quote:
If I'm wrong, then I'm not worse off than you are, but you don't have a hope to be better off in terms of objectivity based on your worldview.
That's a subjective view. The opposite could be just as true.
quote:
Your worldview doesn't account for a law giver because there is no law that has been given.
Sure it does. It's entirely possible we simply haven't identified or don't understand yet (aligning to anything you can offer, of course).
quote:
Each individual creates their own morality in their minds and that's as close as a law giver as you can provide.
Unless they don't.
By the way, I can tell you're a big fan of WLC.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:25 pm to ShortyRob
Hey, whatever works for you. Ultimately the analogy breaks down because the Bible claims to have been inspired by God and sustained by Him. We can't replicate that in an analogy because there is no analogy for it. Regardless, we're talking about scriptural authority and reliability.
If you and everyone else arguing against me would like to concede that if the Bible is what it claims to be and if what it describes (God, morality, etc.) is true than those who believe it have an objective basis for morality, then we can continue with the discussion of the reliability of scripture. You don't have to agree that it is true, just that if it is true then I have a point about objectivity compared to a secular worldview.
If you don't concede that, there's no point in diving into the nitty-gritty of the composition and reliability of the Bible because even if I can provide sufficient arguments that it is reliable, people will still refuse to believe it and thus the argument about objective morality doesn't get anywhere.
If you and everyone else arguing against me would like to concede that if the Bible is what it claims to be and if what it describes (God, morality, etc.) is true than those who believe it have an objective basis for morality, then we can continue with the discussion of the reliability of scripture. You don't have to agree that it is true, just that if it is true then I have a point about objectivity compared to a secular worldview.
If you don't concede that, there's no point in diving into the nitty-gritty of the composition and reliability of the Bible because even if I can provide sufficient arguments that it is reliable, people will still refuse to believe it and thus the argument about objective morality doesn't get anywhere.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Great. Feel free to start a new thread on it. I'd prefer to keep this one to morality if at all possible.
I believe you made the point. I'll defer to you to start the thread.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:28 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
Is there a secular argument against abortions?
Yes...and there's a circular argument for abortion.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I assert that the Bible is the revealed word of God and is authoritative in life, describing an objective moral code that all people will be held accountable to after death.
If you assert your objective basis with no need for verification, I could assert anything for mine. "I don't know" is as good as anything you can offer.
I have already said that examination is needed to determine the validity of that claim. I haven't said that examination isn't necessary, only that in this discussion of morality, that if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Bible is true, that it stands as an objective standard of morality juxtaposed with a secular worldview that has no possibility of an objective standard for morality. It's that claim that I'd like to discuss prior to defending the authority of the Bible that supports that claim. If the premise can't be accepted, why bother with further argumentation?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:34 pm to FooManChoo
OK, then let's say we have objective morality that doesn't come from your god. "I don't know" is where it comes from. There, now we each have an equal claim to objective morality.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I responded to it.
See above.
quote:Not at all. If your worldview is correct, the best you've got is that there is no universal, objective moral standard that all other standards are measured against. There is no possibility for the opposite to be true or else you would have to change your worldview. You have set the conditions so you have to play by the rules. That's why worldview discussions are so important.
That's a subjective view. The opposite could be just as true.
quote:What would that actually look like? You can say anything is possible, but in a worldview that denies the supernatural and denies that which is not material, how do you account for an objective moral standard? I don't believe you can, as morality would be relegated to a human construct that exists only in the minds of humans, and since each human moral experience is different, morality as a concept would have to be subjective by its very nature.
Sure it does. It's entirely possible we simply haven't identified or don't understand yet (aligning to anything you can offer, of course).
quote:They have to create their own morality in order to be consistent with a secular worldview. In order for morality to exist outside of each human experience, it would have to exist outside of humanity. I can see that in the form of God, but how else would it manifest itself if not for an autonomous, moral and sentient being (law giver)?
Unless they don't.
quote:Wireless LAN Controller or Westminster Larger Catechism or something else?
By the way, I can tell you're a big fan of WLC.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If your worldview is correct, the best you've got is that there is no universal, objective moral standard that all other standards are measured against. There is no possibility for the opposite to be true or else you would have to change your worldview. You have set the conditions so you have to play by the rules. That's why worldview discussions are so important.
Incorrect, insofar as you accept your own worldview.
quote:
What would that actually look like?
"I don't know."
quote:
They have to create their own morality in order to be consistent with a secular worldview.
No, they don't. It could come from anything.
quote:
something else?
William Lane Craig.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News