Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?

[Azdgari]

What attributes would one require in order for you to consider one a sect?

[jetson]

That's why we now have 38,000 sects of Christianity - you know, that Christianity that God wanted us all to have, and so sent his boy Jesus down to die for it all.  Go Jesus!

What do you mean by a sect? Are baptists one sect, lutherans another?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

So refer to them as denominations...

OK, but look at them all!  There was only one Jesus, and I assume he had a unified message, would you agree?  So doesn't it bother you a little that Christianity is so disjointed?  Pleas don't say that they all believe in the same God!

Be honest in your reply on this issue.  It seems to me that this should cause concern for Christians.  I mean, imagine how much more powerful the Christian message would be if it was completely unified.

[magicmiles]

It concerns me in the sense that I believe the church should be unified. I don't especially like denominations, I think many Christians agree and it's why so many churches now are called " community church " or similar.

But it's not really surprising that it happens, people being people. We like to think we have all the answers to the many pieces of Christianity which baffle us, and it becomes divisive, when I'm sure God would be better pleased to see us all unified in our core belief of the cross and salvation.

[magicmiles]

What attributes would one require in order for you to consider one a sect?

Never really thought about it, I was just wanting George Jetson to clarify what HE meant. I do know that Christianity is considered a sect by some

[12 Monkeys]

So the Ten Commandments were laws given to other people.  Not today's people.  Gotcha.

Are the ten commandments culturally relevant today? I'd think so, most of them. They seem to have been intended for all time.

Many of the levitican laws on the other hand do not apply today and its reasonable to deduce that they were meant to apply only to a certain culture at a certain time.

Makes sense to me.

So everything in the perfect word of God (the Bible) is 100% just and 100% true... except for everything that we flawed humans concluded isn't.
And you don't see a problem with that?

I didn't say that any aspect of the bible is less than 100% true and just.

So why has the Christian movement abandonded God,they work the Sabbath,freed slaves,now treat women as equals(generally speaking) There must be 2000 points of scripture Christians have abandoned or ignored because it no longer suits THEM and would be very inconvienent.
So everything in the perfect word of God (the Bible) is 100% just and 100% true... except for everything that we flawed humans concluded isn't.
And you don't see a problem with that?

[magicmiles]

time out!! I've posted myself into mental exhaustion...I think I've posted about 50 times today. It's my weekend in about 30 minutes...I'll be back online ina  few days.

[Lorax]

Do you suppose it's possible that objective moral values can change over time?

I rather think they do.
<snip>

Only if you can somehow explain how objective morality is subjective.
Go ahead. Try it.

There's a difference between subjectivity and mutability.

[Lorax]

Do you suppose it's possible that objective moral values can change over time?

Objective physical reality changes over time.  So sure, objective things can objectively change over time.

Good to have company out here on this limb

I rather think they do.

It seems to me that as society progresses the bar get's higher.

Veganism for instance, may become a standard moral virtue in 100 years considering it's efficiency (you can grow grain once and feed people, rather than growing grain to feed cows to feed people) But long ago veganism would have been tantamount to insanity when you live on the land where most plants will make you sick but all furry animals can be caught cooked and eaten.

Slavery is unimaginable now, but pet ownership is considered virtuous. Is it possible that we may one day progress so much that we begin to recognize the intrinsic canine rights of German Shepherds? I think it might, but that day is not today, and insisting that we aught to begin now will only result in a lot of unadopted pets and a distraction away from more important issues like aids in Africa.

What about War? Could the virtue of violence be in flux, (not our opinion of what is virtuous but the actual reality of what represents the greatest good for mankind?)

I am by no means prepared to defend my answer. but I like thinking about it.

You're describing how our morality changes over time.  Do you consider our morality to be objective?

I consider morality to be objective rather than subjective.

Nonetheless my understanding of morality is subjective, and I can't be sure what the objective moral truth is.

Does that answer your question?

[One Above All]

There's a difference between subjectivity and mutability.

If something changes according to the people's opinion (cultures) it is subjective. So, once again, explain how something can be objective while also being subjective.

[Azdgari]

You're describing how our morality changes over time.  Do you consider our morality to be objective?

I consider morality to be objective rather than subjective.

Nonetheless my understanding of morality is subjective, and I can't be sure what the objective moral truth is.

Does that answer your question?

Sort of.  But you'd cited our changing morality as a change to the objective morality.  By your own understanding, though, that's not what happened:  Our understanding had changed, but that would in no way imply that this "objective morality" had changed.

[12 Monkeys]

So the Ten Commandments were laws given to other people.  Not today's people.  Gotcha.

Are the ten commandments culturally relevant today? I'd think so, most of them. They seem to have been intended for all time.

Many of the levitican laws on the other hand do not apply today and its reasonable to deduce that they were meant to apply only to a certain culture at a certain time.

Makes sense to me.

So everything in the perfect word of God (the Bible) is 100% just and 100% true... except for everything that we flawed humans concluded isn't.
And you don't see a problem with that?

I didn't say that any aspect of the bible is less than 100% true and just.

So why has the Christian movement abandonded God,they work the Sabbath,freed slaves,now treat women as equals(generally speaking) There must be 2000 points of scripture Christians have abandoned or ignored because it no longer suits THEM and would be very inconvienent.
So everything in the perfect word of God (the Bible) is 100% just and 100% true... except for everything that we flawed humans concluded isn't.
And you don't see a problem with that?

Lucifer...the last line belongs to you,sorry for not referring the credit to you...it's either your line or Azdgari's......in either case I repeated the line without the credits.

 My apologies to both of you

[12 Monkeys]

So the Ten Commandments were laws given to other people.  Not today's people.  Gotcha.

Are the ten commandments culturally relevant today? I'd think so, most of them. They seem to have been intended for all time.

Many of the levitican laws on the other hand do not apply today and its reasonable to deduce that they were meant to apply only to a certain culture at a certain time.

Makes sense to me.

So everything in the perfect word of God (the Bible) is 100% just and 100% true... except for everything that we flawed humans concluded isn't.
And you don't see a problem with that?

Found it ...sorry lucifer for not giving you props for the line

[One Above All]

I didn't say that any aspect of the bible is less than 100% true and just.

So the perfect word of God isn't 100% true and just, and yet you follow it?
Once again, don't you see any problem with that?

My apologies to both of you

It's mine, but it's OK. Credit (in this situation) is irrelevant, as long as the point has been well-established.

[velkyn]

First, beform MM claims that he is beign overwhelmed, MM, you can request a one -on-one debate. 

Please read Jeff's response for an example of how to respond to somebody forcefully AND politely. The question wasn't even asked of you.

Sorry, MM, but I’ll respond where and when I like.  I don’t care about your opinion of my posts.  I only care about the opinions of those who have earned my respect.  You have not.    You have demonstrated yourself to be a Christian who is dishonest and who tries to make false claims about atheists.   

You can't understand how free will and God being in control can co-exist. I can.

  Ah, that claim of knowledge again when convenient.  Free will and divine control cannot exist together. It is a contradiction in terms, no matter how you try to redefine them.  If God has a plan all though tout and all in place (being omnipotent and omniscient) *and* there is a rapist in this world, your god had to know he was going to do what he did, allow him to do what he did and have a plan for what comes next.  But like most Christians you are too ignorant of your own bible to know that your god never advocates or demonstrates free will in that bible that you hold in such high reguard.

Per your bible, God constantly intervenes via miracles.  Thus no free will.  God could have stopped a rapist and not done anything he hadn’t done before.  He could have allowed the rapist to think of raping and then smote him, again, doing nothing against anything in the bible.  But no, we get rules on what to do with raped women.  They have to marry their attacker; they have to be killed if they didn’t scream loud “enough”.   

You sure like to twist things. Of course I read the bible. I've never memorised the passages in the OT which discuss rape - have you?  The poster clearly had a verse in mind, I asked him to post it.

  Nope, I don’t twist things, I observe and comment.  I’ve read the bible and no I have not memorized the verses about rape, but I know that they are there.  With your comment, it seems likely that you didn’t even know that they were there.  I could be wrong about that and *if* I was, I’m sorry. 

I invite somebody other than Velkyn to read what I posted and give their opinion on whether I was 'excusing rapists". 
To answer your question about 'checks', I know that many sex offenders have said that their crime was a result of a gradual warping of their mind and attitude to women, often starting with soft porn, progressing to hard porn  and to a chemical addition that is harder and harder to satisfy. I guess much the same way as a drug dealer.

Ah, it was the porn’s fault, then?  And that men’s sexual urge is ever so powerful?  You sound like various men who want women to wear a burka because their manhood is just to powerful to control.

I didn't try to change what the Guy meant at all and I agree with most of what he said in the article that was posted. I speculated that perhaps he's think twice about saying "horrible gift", but I really don't know. And I'm not going to debate abortion with you.

  You said this MM:

I expect he wouldn't use the term 'horrible gift from God' if he could re-do the interview. But I'm speculating. I think his meaning was pretty clear, and I thought quite admirable. He stated several times that rape was horrible, and showed concern for the mother. Rightly so.

Yep, you are speculating and that’s what my question was about.  What if he didn’t take it back?  He’s had the chance and hasn’t.  You want to portray him as so very concerned for the woman, and all that you have is an assumption on your part, countered with Santorums other words and actions.  It doesn’t’ surprise me that you refuse to address the abortion issue. 

I also see that you have used the common excuse that it was just the “culture” that was responsible for the nonsense about rape in the bible.  Funny how the religion was the culture and a god supposedly gave all of these laws, right from the divine horse’s mouth.  Jesus did said repeatedly that his father’s laws are *not* to be ignored.  He never said that they were to be picked and chosen by Christains by how inconvenient they were for them.  Jesus also never said put your wife first.  Another addition you’ve added to excuse your bible.  Paul said that women were to obey their husbands, that they should not speak in church, that they should not teach, etc etc. 

[Lorax]

There's a difference between subjectivity and mutability.

If something changes according to the people's opinion (cultures) it is subjective. So, once again, explain how something can be objective while also being subjective.

If something changes over time, it is mutable

One other thing that is mutable is the opinions of individuals.

So imply that because opinions of changing and also morals are changing that therefore morals are subjective to opinions is to commit the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Azdgari]

Lorax, what - according to you - are objective morals values?

I mean, the values of human beings objectively exist.  So they're objective, in a sense.  A god, if it exists, would also hold values that objectively exist.

But I take it that that's not what you mean when you use the term.  So what do you refer to?

[Lorax]

You're describing how our morality changes over time.  Do you consider our morality to be objective?

I consider morality to be objective rather than subjective.

Nonetheless my understanding of morality is subjective, and I can't be sure what the objective moral truth is.

Does that answer your question?

Sort of.  But you'd cited our changing morality as a change to the objective morality.  By your own understanding, though, that's not what happened:  Our understanding had changed, but that would in no way imply that this "objective morality" had changed.

Ahh yes this makes more sense, I seethe confusion now.

I wasn't citing the change in society as evidence of changing morality. I have no evidence.

I brought up our understanding of morality as a means to introduce the idea. as in "what if we were actually right then, as well as now?"

So for pets for instance. we believe that it is moral to treat them well but keep them as property.
We used to feel this way about women and slaves.

I do not believe it is moral now to give dogs human rights. Actually i think that would be immoral. If someone were to spend the millions of dollars it would take to create a utopian society for liberated domesticated dogs I would object, as that money should be spent elsewhere. I believe it is moral in the year 2012 to own a dog and treat it well, because otherwise it would be mistreated or put down.

But that could change. Maybe by 2212 society will have progressed enough that we will be able to waste emotional energy to object to the prospect of "owning" an animal without taking energy away from more important causes or causing unforseen ramifications.

Does that make sense?

So if for instance morality is defined by utilitarianism "the greatest good for the greatest number" at one time, it might well have been true that slavery accomplished that. But it is certainty no longer the case

It's different than "People thought it was moral so that made it moral" it's more like "maybe people thought it was moral because at the time it actually was"

[Azdgari]

Actually utilitarianism holds "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" when applied.  Hence the hedonistic calculus, etc.  The trouble with utilitarianism is that it holds one good to be the sole goal of its calculations.  But our values aren't that simple.  We want to promote happiness, but we also want to reduce suffering.  The two aren't merely +/- along a continuum; they are qualitatively different.  Freedom?  Knowledge?  How do these compare with each other, in terms of priority?  One human being won't hold identical priorities to those of the next.  And one can't hold a single over-arching priority as "the one true" priority without begging the question.

[Lorax]

Another good point Azgardi

[One Above All]

So imply that because opinions of changing and also morals are changing that therefore morals are subjective to opinions is to commit the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I was actually referring within the same time frame. In theocracies, it's considered OK to kill non-believers, but in other countries it's not.

[Lorax]

So imply that because opinions of changing and also morals are changing that therefore morals are subjective to opinions is to commit the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I was actually referring within the same time frame. In theocracies, it's considered OK to kill non-believers, but in other countries it's not.

and in both countries, the reality is that it's not

[One Above All]

and in both countries, the reality is that it's not

Your view on absolute morality seems to be based on egocentrism and woo just as much as other theists'. How lucky you are that we already know the magical objective morality that has always existed!

[Lorax]

and in both countries, the reality is that it's not

Your view on absolute morality seems to be based on egocentrism and woo just as much as other theists'. How lucky you are that we already know the magical objective morality that has always existed!

I know of no way to evidence ethics, and therefore cannot dispute that statement of yours that my views are egocentric.

Perhaps that can be remedied if you would enlighten me.

What is the truth concerning morality as understood by one so rational and non-egocentric as yourself, and why should i take it in place of my own?

[One Above All]

What is the truth concerning morality as understood by one so rational and non-egocentric as yourself, and why should i take it in place of my own?

Rational, yes. Non-egocentric, no. My view is that all morality is subjective, although there are things that the majority of people agree are good/bad. You should take it in place of your own because, unlike yours, it is not based on egocentrism and woo, but rather what we observe throughout history and even what we observe nowadays - people making their own moral code, and that in which the majority agrees on becomes law.
Everyone who has claimed that objective morality exists was also a theist, and surprise surprise, those objective morals just happened to be the morals of the society they lived in at the time, endorsed by their god(s). This in itself should be enough to discredit them, unless you wish to use a fallacy called "Special Pleading"; that somehow your view on objective morality is different from everyone else's and that the flaws in others' arguments don't apply to your own.

[Lorax]

What is the truth concerning morality as understood by one so rational and non-egocentric as yourself, and why should i take it in place of my own?

Rational, yes. Non-egocentric, no. <snip> You should take it in place of your own because, unlike yours, it is not based on egocentrism and woo

So it is egocentric, but i get to cut out the woo?

Why don't I want woo?

[One Above All]

So it is egocentric, but i get to cut out the woo?

I'm egocentric, not my view. Huge difference.

Why don't I want woo?

Woo is irrational, illogical, unsupported by evidence and just plain false. It is also based on the egocentric nature of mankind - we want to believe we are special, when we're nothing but specs of specs (...) of specs of dust in the universe. Why do you think the first theists became theists in the first place?

[Lorax]

So it is egocentric, but i get to cut out the woo?

I'm egocentric, not my view. Huge difference.

Your view is moral subjectivity.

How do you get more egocentric than that?

Why don't I want woo?

Woo is irrational, illogical, unsupported by evidence and just plain false. It is also based on the egocentric nature of mankind

So the problem with woo is the egocentricity of it?



I don't see any rational logical physical evidence for any morality. including yours. Coherence theory is helpful. I can throw out some moralities because they are logically incoherent, or contradict themselves. And some moralities just don't pass the sniff test. other than that I'm lost at sea.

[One Above All]

Your view is moral subjectivity.

How do you get more egocentric than that?

Moral subjectivity:
Each individual decides what he/she thinks is right or wrong.
Truly, my view is egocentric. People thinking for themselves? We can't have that. What would happen to religion?

So the problem with woo is the egocentricity of it?

I posted a bunch of things wrong with it. Egocentrism is just a small part of it.

I don't see any rational logical physical evidence for any morality. including yours.

You must not have looked hard enough. I recommend you read a bit about neurology and morality.

[Azdgari]

Your view is moral subjectivity.

How do you get more egocentric than that?

The idea that one's moral values are objective truths of the universe, and that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively wrong, is far more egocentric and arrogant.

As for whether yours are objective or subjective:  If, as you say, you have no way of making observations on the universe's objective moral standard, then there is no reason to assume that that standard has anything whatsoever to do with the concept that we humans call "morality".