Christianity

[BigMike]

So there was this guy, it was the iron age, and he had an urgent message. He was crucified. Was the message delivered/not?

Iron age??!

[Harry Baird]

Analogically, he says, the Dilemma asks (my paraphrasing in the context of a thread about monotheism): Does the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral explain why God decrees/commands/embodies/etc them as moral, or does God's decreeing/commanding/embodying/etc those acts/laws/principles/etc as moral explain their morality?

You can see given the above why this...

It's a false dichotomy. It's just that simple, really. It's like asking, "Is this man a husband or a father?" The answer is, "Plausibly both."

...is not a viable solution.

It can't be both the case that the former (the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral) explains the latter (God's decreeing/commanding/embodying them as moral) as well as the case that the latter explains the former, because they're opposite explanations, so common sense dictates that it can't be the case that both are true.

Let's imagine anyway though that that could be the case. Then we'd have the morality of those acts/laws/principles/etc being explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, etc, etc - round and round we go in a vicious circle, never ending, never reaching bedrock, and thus never ultimately explaining anything - let alone grounding morality in God.

[Gary Childress]

Analogically, he says, the Dilemma asks (my paraphrasing in the context of a thread about monotheism): Does the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral explain why God decrees/commands/embodies/etc them as moral, or does God's decreeing/commanding/embodying/etc those acts/laws/principles/etc as moral explain their morality?

You can see given the above why this...

It's a false dichotomy. It's just that simple, really. It's like asking, "Is this man a husband or a father?" The answer is, "Plausibly both."

...is not a viable solution.

It can't be both the case that the former (the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral) explains the latter (God's decreeing/commanding/embodying them as moral) as well as the case that the latter explains the former, because they're opposite explanations, so common sense dictates that it can't be the case that both are true.

Let's imagine anyway though that that could be the case. Then we'd have the morality of those acts/laws/principles/etc being explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, etc, etc - round and round we go in a vicious circle, never ending, never reaching bedrock, and thus never ultimately explaining anything - let alone grounding morality in God.

It's also not HELPFUL. If I want to know whether or not a possible action is right or wrong and the answer to that cannot be conclusively found directly in the Bible, then I need to know the essence of what makes for something being right or wrong in order to determine what is the right action to take. If I cannot answer that question without deference to God's word, then I basically CANNOT determine for myself what is right and what is wrong. I would need to ask God directly. Unless it is the case that God wants us to be utterly dependent on him for moral decision-making, then he needs to share with us what is the essence of morality so that we can make those discernments ourselves or else he needs to be CONSTANTLY present to communicate with us directly what is moral.

Now arguably Jesus has given us the key to morality and that is LOVE. There's only one problem with that. WE CANNOT LOVE EVERYTHING. We cannot "love" what we kill for food. Love and killing are two largely opposite things. Love is what makes us desire or wish to preserve life, NOT what makes us kill life. So the next question becomes, what makes it OK to not love something? Is it OK to not love a robot? Is it OK to not love a sophisticated, intelligent alien being from another planet? Is it OK not to love a human sperm? Is it OK not to love a zygote? Is it OK not to love a fetus? And if it is OK not to love a sperm, then at what point does that sperm become something we must love?

As far as I'm aware the Bible does NOT give us sufficient clue as to what property something must possess in order to love it. If it is that we must love every "soul", then how do we know whether something has a soul or not? I'm pretty tempted to say that a rock does not have a soul. However, there are cultures that seem to believe even rocks possess some kind of "spirit" or something. So can I even truly be sure that rocks don't have souls? If they do, then what constitutes loving a rock? Using it as a dildo? (Please excuse my vulgarity)

[attofishpi]

Analogically, he says, the Dilemma asks (my paraphrasing in the context of a thread about monotheism): Does the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral explain why God decrees/commands/embodies/etc them as moral, or does God's decreeing/commanding/embodying/etc those acts/laws/principles/etc as moral explain their morality?

You can see given the above why this...

It's a false dichotomy. It's just that simple, really. It's like asking, "Is this man a husband or a father?" The answer is, "Plausibly both."

...is not a viable solution.

It can't be both the case that the former (the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral) explains the latter (God's decreeing/commanding/embodying them as moral) as well as the case that the latter explains the former, because they're opposite explanations, so common sense dictates that it can't be the case that both are true.

Let's imagine anyway though that that could be the case. Then we'd have the morality of those acts/laws/principles/etc being explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, which is explained by their morality, which is explained by God's decree/command/embodiment/etc of them, etc, etc - round and round we go in a vicious circle, never ending, never reaching bedrock, and thus never ultimately explaining anything - let alone grounding morality in God.

It's also not HELPFUL. If I want to know whether or not a possible action is right or wrong and the answer to that cannot be conclusively found directly in the Bible, then I need to know the essence of what makes for something being right or wrong in order to determine what is the right action to take. If I cannot answer that question without deference to God's word, then I basically CANNOT determine for myself what is right and what is wrong. I would need to ask God directly. Unless it is the case that God wants us to be utterly dependent on him for moral decision-making, then he needs to share with us what is the essence of morality so that we can make those discernments ourselves or else he needs to be CONSTANTLY present to communicate with us directly what is moral.

Now arguably Jesus has given us the key to morality and that is LOVE. There's only one problem with that. WE CANNOT LOVE EVERYTHING. We cannot "love" what we kill for food. Love and killing are two largely opposite things. Love is what makes us desire or wish to preserve life, NOT what makes us kill life.

Rubbish.

I love eating meat, and I love the animal that provided the food *enough to kill it as swiftly and painlessly as possible.

So the next question becomes, what makes it OK to not love something? Is it OK to not love a robot? Is it OK to not love a sophisticated, intelligent alien being from another planet? Is it OK not to love a human sperm? Is it OK not to love a zygote? Is it OK not to love a fetus? And if it is OK not to love a sperm, then at what point does that sperm become something we must love?

Yes to all the above.

As far as I'm aware the Bible does NOT give us sufficient clue as to what property something must possess in order to love it. If it is that we must love every "soul", then how do we know whether something has a soul or not? I'm pretty tempted to say that a rock does not have a soul. However, there are cultures that seem to believe even rocks possess some kind of "spirit" or something. So can I even truly be sure that rocks don't have souls? If they do, then what constitutes loving a rock? Using it as a dildo? (Please excuse my vulgarity)

Yep, there are dumb arse people (within cultures) that believe their soul will inhabit the vermin they feed.

[Gary Childress]

...

[Gary Childress]

Yep, there are dumb arse people (within cultures) that believe their soul will inhabit the vermin they feed.

How do we know that it is not the case that those "vermin" have souls? The more we study consciousness and mind, the more it seems to invoke a puzzle on how body and soul (assuming there is such a thing) could be connected or attached to one another. Presumably, a sperm does not have a soul and therefore it is not "murder" to kill a sperm cell. But who knows? We think a baby has a soul. At some point between a sperm and a baby, a "soul" must attach itself or become present in that which becomes a baby.

[attofishpi]

...

..good move. That was a ridiculous comparison.

[attofishpi]

Yep, there are dumb arse people (within cultures) that believe their soul will inhabit the vermin they feed.

How do we know that it is not the case that those "vermin" have souls? The more we study consciousness and mind, the more it seems to invoke a puzzle on how body and soul (assuming there is such a thing) could be connected or attached to one another. Presumably, a sperm does not have a soul and therefore it is not "murder" to kill a sperm cell. But who knows? We think a baby has a soul. At some point between a sperm and a baby, a "soul" must attach itself or become present in that which becomes a baby.

What is your point? Should we allow vermin, rat infestations because some people within our culture believe aunty Betty is running around our feet!!?

Are we to be so stupid to allow that Gary? ..allow disease to spread because we want human souls to exist as vermin ..LMAO.

RE: Sperm, are you worried about wanking now? Many years ago I joined a Catholic forum, I soon realised how stupid people were there, when some young chap asked whether its a sin to masterbate and some older preachy twat told him it was (ya know "every sperm is sacred"). I made the point that what should the poor confused lad do when he wakes up covered in jizz from a wet dream?

..what can I say, the world is full of stupid pretentious fuckwits that can't seem to analyse the reality God has afforded them, and come to their own conclusions.

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

[Gary Childress]

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

[Lacewing]

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

See, there's SOMETHING you appreciate in life.

[Gary Childress]

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

See, there's SOMETHING you appreciate in life.

What's it to you whether I appreciate only being able to masturbate for sexual gratification or not. Am I supposed to count myself "lucky" for that?

[Lacewing]

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

See, there's SOMETHING you appreciate in life.

What's it to you whether I appreciate only being able to masturbate for sexual gratification or not. Am I supposed to count myself "lucky" for that?

Oh no, I don't imagine you will count yourself lucky for anything right now... and that's why you can't figure this out.

[commonsense]

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

Is it a sin because sperm is potential life? Is menstruation a sin? Isn’t a fetus potential life?

[Gary Childress]

See, there's SOMETHING you appreciate in life.

What's it to you whether I appreciate only being able to masturbate for sexual gratification or not. Am I supposed to count myself "lucky" for that?

Oh no, I don't imagine you will count yourself lucky for anything right now... and that's why you can't figure this out.

Yes. I would count myself lucky if something worthwhile happened in my life, or there was hope of something worthwhile happening. If I'm lucky to masturbate when that's over should I count myself "lucky" to have oxygen to breathe? I'm all too familiar with those who want to tell the mentally ill to just snap out of it. I don't wish severe mental illness on anyone but if that would be what it takes to get them to shut up about their stupid hypothesis, then by all means...

[Gary Childress]

What do you think Gary, is wanking a sin?

Yes. But it feels pretty damn good.

Is it a sin because sperm is potential life? Is menstruation a sin? Isn’t a fetus potential life?

I'm just going off what Christians say. Jesus apparently said it's sin to have impure thoughts.