Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity is an immoral Philosphy

KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior), thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior), then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.
KroneckerDelta
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:57:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior), thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior), then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.

How does Christianity allow ANY act? The Judeo-Christian tradition acknowledges the concept of sin; that's the point of Christ's atonement.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 2:05:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior), thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior), then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.

What do you mean by 'allows'?

A major tenet of Christianity is that God hates sin, and will punish it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:24:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior),

This is just patently false.

thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

Absurdity.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior),

Your inference is based on a fallacious claim.

then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.

Your conclusion from your inference therefore falls.

--

Sometimes I feel like my IQ slips just reading posts on DDO.
Tsar of DDO
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.

[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 9:14:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM, Pwner wrote:
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.


[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

In that case, Atheism would be an immoral belief. The problem with your view is that you're begging the question in favor of Atheism. You're essentially saying that if the evidence leads us to conclude Christianity is true, we don't have the right to believe that because no amount of evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe. That is a true crime against reason (not being able to go where the evidence leads), so Atheism is irrational, therefore an immoral belief.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 9:38:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:14:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM, Pwner wrote:
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.


[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

In that case, Atheism would be an immoral belief. The problem with your view is that you're begging the question in favor of Atheism. You're essentially saying that if the evidence leads us to conclude Christianity is true, we don't have the right to believe that because no amount of evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe. That is a true crime against reason (not being able to go where the evidence leads), so Atheism is irrational, therefore an immoral belief.

Atheim isnt a belief.....
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 9:41:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Keytar: I'm not an atheist, I'm a polytheist. I just think that God doesn't exist. Begging the question is a very easy informal fallacy to overcome: I'd just need to convince you of my case, which I'd be prepared to do. But, it still is a reason why I think Christianity is immoral.
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:09:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 2:05:40 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior), thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior), then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.

What do you mean by 'allows'?

A major tenet of Christianity is that God hates sin, and will punish it.

Do Christians not believe that if they commit any sin, that they merely need to ask for forgiveness and it's forgiven? How is it that this is punishing sin? Can't you rape and murder a little child, then realize it was wrong and ask for forgiveness and you will not be punished by God for your act.

Luke 23:40-43

40 "But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don"t you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]"

43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

So obviously a death bed confession or acceptance of Jesus is enough to wipe out anything you've done in your life. So that's why I make the statement that Christianity allows you to do anything.
KroneckerDelta
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:09:26 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
A major tenet of Christianity is that God hates sin, and will punish it.


Do Christians not believe that if they commit any sin, that they merely need to ask for forgiveness and it's forgiven?

They don't 'merely need to ask for forgiveness'.

How is it that this is punishing sin? Can't you rape and murder a little child, then realize it was wrong and ask for forgiveness and you will not be punished by God for your act.

You'll still suffer a temporal punishment.

Luke 23:40-43

40 "But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don"t you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]"

43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

So obviously a death bed confession or acceptance of Jesus is enough to wipe out anything you've done in your life.

A true one, not motivated by fear of eternal punishment, yes.

So that's why I make the statement that Christianity allows you to do anything.

Just wondering, what would you consider not allowing you to do anything?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 6:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:09:26 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Do Christians not believe that if they commit any sin, that they merely need to ask for forgiveness and it's forgiven?

They don't 'merely need to ask for forgiveness'.


Yes, there's always the "catch" that they have to actually mean it, but this gets into my next point...

At 2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:09:26 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
How is it that this is punishing sin? Can't you rape and murder a little child, then realize it was wrong and ask for forgiveness and you will not be punished by God for your act.

You'll still suffer a temporal punishment.

A punishment either delivered by yourself through guilt or humans, not God. And this gets into the whole "catch" thing. If God forgives you (because you are sincere), then so too shouldn't humans? I.e. if I murder someone but am truly sorry for it, then I shouldn't get punished by human law because I asked God, the ultimate authority, for forgiveness and he granted it.

But who can determine whether or not one is sincere? Obviously you'll say only God can determine this, right? So then humans should never take an appeal for forgiveness seriously and should just punish everyone for everything they do? But this seems to be completely against the whole idea of not judging. If Christians lived by that rule (and thank "god" they don't), then you would never trust anyone in your church because they all have sinned and you don't know whether or not any of them were serious when they supposedly asked for forgiveness.

At 2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

Just wondering, what would you consider not allowing you to do anything?

The problem here is that now we get out of the area of whether or not the teachings of Christians are moral and more into the area of whether or not it's just a misguided belief that clearly isn't based in reality.

In reality, Christians could easily believe that if you do something "wrong" that you will be punished by God either through eternal damnation or immediate consequences in this life. Now, they obviously believe that God doesn't hold an eternal grudge, so you don't get the whole eternal damnation thing. However, God could easily punish you in the actual world, but this clearly does not happen.

Now, I know some Christians, particularly old school Catholics, believe indeed that God does do this. Although they really just apply it posteriori, that is they see that something bad happens to someone and thus assume they must have done something to anger God.

So anyway, Christians could easily have this as part of their belief: if you do something immoral (a sin) then God punishes you for it swiftly in this life in hopes to correct the immoral behavior. However, this would present a pretty easy test case to prove Christianity is not real since there are bad people all of the time that go unpunished.
KroneckerDelta
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 3:45:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 6:21:08 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Yes, there's always the "catch" that they have to actually mean it, but this gets into my next point...

Mkay.

A punishment either delivered by yourself through guilt or humans, not God.

Temporal punishment is from God. The punishment is called 'temporal' to contrast it with 'eternal' punishment, that is, eternal death.

And this gets into the whole "catch" thing. If God forgives you (because you are sincere), then so too shouldn't humans? I.e. if I murder someone but am truly sorry for it, then I shouldn't get punished by human law because I asked God, the ultimate authority, for forgiveness and he granted it.

Just because you are forgiven doesn't mean you don't get punished. The eternal punishment is remitted, but the temporal punishment remains.

But who can determine whether or not one is sincere? Obviously you'll say only God can determine this, right? So then humans should never take an appeal for forgiveness seriously and should just punish everyone for everything they do?

We should always forgive someone, even if they don't seek forgiveness.

But this seems to be completely against the whole idea of not judging. If Christians lived by that rule (and thank "god" they don't), then you would never trust anyone in your church because they all have sinned and you don't know whether or not any of them were serious when they supposedly asked for forgiveness.

I've read this roughly five times, and I still can't make any sense out of it. I think the problem is that it's based on an unfounded premise. It seems like you've taken 'God will only forgive you if you are truly sorry', and extrapolated 'Humans should only forgive someone if they are truly sorry', or something like that.

The problem here is that now we get out of the area of whether or not the teachings of Christians are moral and more into the area of whether or not it's just a misguided belief that clearly isn't based in reality.

We wouldn't have to if you actually tried to answer my question.

In reality, Christians could easily believe that if you do something "wrong" that you will be punished by God either through eternal damnation or immediate consequences in this life. Now, they obviously believe that God doesn't hold an eternal grudge, so you don't get the whole eternal damnation thing. However, God could easily punish you in the actual world, but this clearly does not happen.

Now, I know some Christians, particularly old school Catholics, believe indeed that God does do this. Although they really just apply it posteriori, that is they see that something bad happens to someone and thus assume they must have done something to anger God.

So anyway, Christians could easily have this as part of their belief: if you do something immoral (a sin) then God punishes you for it swiftly in this life in hopes to correct the immoral behavior. However, this would present a pretty easy test case to prove Christianity is not real since there are bad people all of the time that go unpunished.

I reiterate my question that you somehow managed to completely dodge.

At 2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Just wondering, what would you consider not allowing you to do anything?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:50:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:41:56 AM, Pwner wrote:
I'm not an atheist, I'm a polytheist. I just think that God doesn't exist.
Sg'd
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 3:45:59 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Temporal punishment is from God. The punishment is called 'temporal' to contrast it with 'eternal' punishment, that is, eternal death.
Just because you are forgiven doesn't mean you don't get punished. The eternal punishment is remitted, but the temporal punishment remains.
We should always forgive someone, even if they don't seek forgiveness.
At 2/21/2013 1:17:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Just wondering, what would you consider not allowing you to do anything?

First, I have a question: what does it mean to forgive someone? How can you both forgive someone while at the same time punish them for their actions? I don't see how you can say the punishment is from God, since 1) this isn't part of the Christian teachings (that I am aware of) and 2) God clearly doesn't always do this.

Second, I will now try to answer your question without "dodging" it.

So perhaps philosophy is the wrong term here. I think a moral rule of law would be when you do something immoral, there are punishments put in place such that the threat of punishment would deter people from acting immorally. Judaism seems to be a good example of this (although one can certainly make the argument that the vast number of rules are anything but moral/immoral).

Even so, if we take the laws set forth in the Old Testament as showing what is moral and immoral, then Judaism teaches what atonement should be made for each such transgression. So there is certainly no idea of if you do something immoral, you can atone by simply uttering words (or feelings) of regret (i.e. ask for forgiveness). You have to actually act out atonements rather than just symbolic atonement.

Furthermore, it's less about the idealism of Christianity and more about the practice of Christianity. In the ideal sense, sure Christianity is "moral" because it's not like it says you can do anything, rather it says that you can be forgiven for anything. However, in practice this leads to Christians being able to justify almost any action because they know (or think) they can be forgiven. You might say this is just a misunderstanding of the Christian faith, but this is definitely how it's applied by the vast majority of Christians (whom more devout Christians probably wouldn't consider to be Christian).

So I think a philosophy that is so easily gamed, cannot be a good philosophy. As to the other things I said, the problem is that Christianity is more than just a philosophy, it's also a religion with an all powerful deity. If I introduce an all powerful deity into my religion, then it seems that it's not too much to ask that this all powerful deity can punish all immoral acts by everyone and punish them swiftly so as to curtail such acts in the future. Christianity doesn't have any kind of mechanism like that and certainly if it did, this can be proved to be incorrect (again, bad people do bad things and go unpunished all the time).

If you now say, well we don't get to dictate what God does or doesn't do, then I think it's immoral to believe in a God that sometimes punishes moral people and sometimes doesn't punish immoral people. Even if this God were definitely real, it would be an immoral God, so to worship such a God would make the worshiper immoral. Besides, what other reason would one have to worship such a God other than threat of eternal damnation?
KroneckerDelta
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:24:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:38:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:14:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM, Pwner wrote:
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.


[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

In that case, Atheism would be an immoral belief. The problem with your view is that you're begging the question in favor of Atheism. You're essentially saying that if the evidence leads us to conclude Christianity is true, we don't have the right to believe that because no amount of evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe. That is a true crime against reason (not being able to go where the evidence leads), so Atheism is irrational, therefore an immoral belief.

Atheim isnt a belief.....

Atheism is a belief just as much as anything else.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:41:56 AM, Pwner wrote:
Keytar: I'm not an atheist, I'm a polytheist. I just think that God doesn't exist. Begging the question is a very easy informal fallacy to overcome: I'd just need to convince you of my case, which I'd be prepared to do. But, it still is a reason why I think Christianity is immoral.

If you're a polytheist, then you're a very confused one (poly means many, and theist means one who believes in God or gods, so a polytheist believes in many gods). I'm not begging the question. In fact, I gave reasons for my conclusion. I wasn't simply assuming it as true.

I would be wiling to hear your case.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 5:24:09 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:38:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:14:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM, Pwner wrote:
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.


[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

In that case, Atheism would be an immoral belief. The problem with your view is that you're begging the question in favor of Atheism. You're essentially saying that if the evidence leads us to conclude Christianity is true, we don't have the right to believe that because no amount of evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe. That is a true crime against reason (not being able to go where the evidence leads), so Atheism is irrational, therefore an immoral belief.

Atheim isnt a belief.....

Atheism is a belief just as much as anything else.

Well, that is a sentence that makes no sense. Either it is a belief or it isn't. And anything entails things that are both beliefs and not. If you would like to explain why you belive that atheism is a beleif, then maybe we can clear up this misunderstanding you have.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:49:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 5:30:11 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, that is a sentence that makes no sense. Either it is a belief or it isn't. And anything entails things that are both beliefs and not. If you would like to explain why you belive that atheism is a beleif, then maybe we can clear up this misunderstanding you have.

I have to say, I don't see why many atheists argue this point (mind you I am an atheist). I can understand the irritation when theists claim that atheists also have a belief because it somehow makes an attempt to equate the two different beliefs. In fact, atheists "believe" in something that makes sense while theists believe in things for which there is absolutely NO reason to believe in and, in many cases, things that can be demonstrably proven to be false.

However, I do still hold that atheism is a belief (again, just a far more justified belief than theism). Now I know that most militant atheists will say no, it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief (in any deity). But this is pretty misleading in my opinion. Atheists, in my opinion (and certainly in my case) are more than just agnostics (which I hate because I think it's a total cop out). I don't merely say: I don't know whether or not a god exists and thus don't believe in it, rather I say no: there is no god. And I believe this because I think the idea of any kind of supernatural phenomenon is counter to everything we have ever experienced--in fact the whole idea of supernatural to me has no meaning.

So I do think atheism is a belief, but it's pretty silly for theists to act like their belief is just as valid (because it's not). Atheists beliefs are based on reality whereas theists beliefs are based on fairy tales.
KroneckerDelta
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:53:55 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
Christianity is immoral because it allows for ANY act (other than denying Christ as your savior), thus any act (other than the above exception) can be deemed moral.

If we assume that some acts are immoral (other than denying Christ as your savior), then Christianity allows for one to commit immoral acts and is thus an immoral philosophy.

Flawless logic. First, how in the world is everything permissible just because everything is forgivable? Isn't it the case that in order TO forgive an action, that action must be immoral? Second, how are immoral actions, that are forgivable, immoral?

This is complete nonsense, please take a philosophy class.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:24:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Immoral? Compared to what? To say this there must be a code or religion or what have you that is indisputably moral that all people agree on. As you must be able to compare that which is moral to be able to deem something immoral. This would render moral relativism a red herring.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 5:57:11 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Flawless logic. First, how in the world is everything permissible just because everything is forgivable? Isn't it the case that in order TO forgive an action, that action must be immoral? Second, how are immoral actions, that are forgivable, immoral?

This is complete nonsense, please take a philosophy class.

First, yes, it must be immoral to need forgiveness--thus Christianity allows for immorality to easily be forgiven. Next there are 2 things: 1) Christianity doesn't really spell out what is a sin and what is not (which is why so many Christians have such varying beliefs on what is or is not a sin, for instance homosexual Christians) and 2) let's assume we agree on what constitutes a sin (and is thus immoral) and was doesn't, then because forgiveness is so easy to come by in the Christian faith there is little reason to not commit this sin again--in fact most Christians continually commit the same sins over and over again and are continually asking forgiveness for those sins.

So it's less about the idea that "anything goes" and more about the idea that it's so easy to "get away" with anything which I think makes it immoral. There have been some good critiques, including yours, which is that it doesn't really allow for anything, but it does allow you to get forgiveness for anything and thus the idea that one should so easily be forgiven for certain immoral acts, to me allows for immoral people in your church and thus Christianity is a good religion to attract immoral people. If you want to say that's not what I originally said, go for it, this isn't a debate, it's a forum, I'm more than justified in clarifying my statements.

At 2/22/2013 6:24:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
Immoral? Compared to what? To say this there must be a code or religion or what have you that is indisputably moral that all people agree on. As you must be able to compare that which is moral to be able to deem something immoral. This would render moral relativism a red herring.

People on DDO sure do love to say their favorite logical fallacy. I mean, I don't blame you, it is the easiest way to actually avoid debate/discussion. How can whether or not morality exists or can be actually obtained be a red herring when the original statement says that the topic is about morality (is it not?). So how can morality be irrelevant to the topic of morality.

I would actually argue that you saying that there is no such thing as morality is closer to a red herring because it completely distracts from this topic and basically forces us into a debate over whether or not one can even define morality. While definitely a valid philosophical debate no doubt, it has no bearing on this topic because all I have to do is prove that such an immoral act exists. Again, while this might be technically impossible (meaning one cannot actually logically, 100%, prove any act to be immoral--but you cannot prove anything dealing with reality to be logically true), there seem to be overwhelming consensus about some things being immoral.

Here's a partial list: ethnic based slavery, Hitler gassing the Jews (I said give cats juice, NOT GAS THE JEWS!!!), denying women's suffrage, Stalin sending political dissenters to the gulag, etc. So the idea that we cannot come up with specific acts that everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees is immoral is a bit ludicrous. Sure, we might not be able to say, in general, what constitutes moral or immoral, but you're delusional if you honestly believe that no act is immoral.
KroneckerDelta
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 7:39:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:59:16 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
At 2/22/2013 5:57:11 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Flawless logic. First, how in the world is everything permissible just because everything is forgivable? Isn't it the case that in order TO forgive an action, that action must be immoral? Second, how are immoral actions, that are forgivable, immoral?

This is complete nonsense, please take a philosophy class.

First, yes, it must be immoral to need forgiveness--thus Christianity allows for immorality to easily be forgiven. Next there are 2 things: 1) Christianity doesn't really spell out what is a sin and what is not (which is why so many Christians have such varying beliefs on what is or is not a sin, for instance homosexual Christians)

So? That gets into moral epistemology vs moral ontology, a distinction you'll find in any moral philosophy whatever. But the bible does say that God will judge a person according to what she does know, not according to what they don't. That's what matters.

and 2) let's assume we agree on what constitutes a sin (and is thus immoral) and was doesn't, then because forgiveness is so easy to come by in the Christian faith there is little reason to not commit this sin again--

Again, how does that type of consequentialism follow? How in the world does "infinite grace" (arguably an incommensurable good in its own right) make an immoral act any less immoral? There's obviously some implicit premise here that you've got to make explicit for your objection to go through.

in fact most Christians continually commit the same sins over and over again and are continually asking forgiveness for those sins.

I think you're trying to draw a false dichotomy between genuine repentance and false repentance with the former being some type of moral justification for the latter, and that simply doesn't follow either.

So it's less about the idea that "anything goes" and more about the idea that it's so easy to "get away" with anything which I think makes it immoral.

Ah there we go, so somehow since God chooses grace over justice, immoral actions are therefore less immoral. I don't see how this follows in the least bit. Hitler's receiving grace is in no part a self-vindicating act of Hitler, rather it's a personal and powerful bestowal of grace from God. But in either case, you seem to think that God's grace also absolves consequences of sin? That remains to be seen, a person may be a Christian, but only because she needs salvation from herself. What then of the acts she commits as a Christian, that were genuinely repented? Those acts still have consequences in this life but also has eternal significance in the sense that her past is forgiven, but also in the sense that her sin was the Felix Culpa that made salvation by grace possible. A far greater good.

There have been some good critiques, including yours, which is that it doesn't really allow for anything, but it does allow you to get forgiveness for anything and thus the idea that one should so easily be forgiven for certain immoral acts, to me allows for immoral people in your church and thus Christianity is a good religion to attract immoral people. If you want to say that's not what I originally said, go for it, this isn't a debate, it's a forum, I'm more than justified in clarifying my statements.

Don't really know what all the rest here means, I will say that if you're worried that bad apples mix in with genuine Christians, then let me say that it's the necessary feature of the humanist, Christian church, we accept (or at least we had better accept) everyone scars and all. God didn't just send his son to die for those who could "get by without him," nah he came to breath new life into the fallen. He even says in his word that the folks who are merely lukewarm for him, he'll "vomit them out of his mouth." This is a good Lion, but he's still a dangerous one. And he's also one who sees a person for what they really are. So if a person is inauthentic in their repentance, not only will that show on the exterior, but it will also show on the interior as well. And God will know, if he exists, what real repentance is from false repentance. So no need to worry.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 8:49:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 5:30:11 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/22/2013 5:24:09 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:38:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:14:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:05:31 AM, Pwner wrote:
I actually agree that Christianity is immoral, but on several different grounds. One that you might find interesting is inspired by William Clifford. [1] William Clifford argued--persuasively in my eyes--that it's actually immoral to hold unjustified beliefs. A true crime against reason. He elicits this intuition with thought-experiment after thought-experiment, the problem being that the individual does not have the right to believe what she does on the basis of the evidence before her: it does not entitle her to belief. In my view, there is no evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe that Christianity is true. The religion would therefore be immoral because it promotes immoral belief.


[1]: Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

In that case, Atheism would be an immoral belief. The problem with your view is that you're begging the question in favor of Atheism. You're essentially saying that if the evidence leads us to conclude Christianity is true, we don't have the right to believe that because no amount of evidence capable of giving anyone the right to believe. That is a true crime against reason (not being able to go where the evidence leads), so Atheism is irrational, therefore an immoral belief.

Atheim isnt a belief.....

Atheism is a belief just as much as anything else.

Well, that is a sentence that makes no sense. Either it is a belief or it isn't. And anything entails things that are both beliefs and not. If you would like to explain why you belive that atheism is a beleif, then maybe we can clear up this misunderstanding you have.

You have to believe God doesn't exist, just like you have to believe God exists. If you're of the position that we can't know for sure because there's not enough evidence, then you're agnostic, not atheist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?

Clearly you've never read Kierkegaard. The story of Abraham's dedication to serve God in the face of tragically losing his son is much deeper than the favorite "example of old testament violence" that you 21st century Christianized-westernized knights of resignation would put forth. Read Kierkegaard.

Spoiler alert, God stopped Abraham from killing his son and began a nation through him that culminated to Christ.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:53:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?

Clearly you've never read Kierkegaard.
No, but you don't have to be condescending. I'm going to be reading him for class later this semester.
The story of Abraham's dedication to serve God in the face of tragically losing his son is much deeper than the favorite "example of old testament violence" that you 21st century Christianized-westernized knights of resignation would put forth. Read Kierkegaard.

How about you put forth the argument yourself instead of trolling and telling me to read x author like you always do? I bet you haven't read him yourself given that you can't explain his position.
Spoiler alert, God stopped Abraham from killing his son and began a nation through him that culminated to Christ.

You're just dodging the question. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son for God. Was this sacrifice moral? Was the intention moral?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:58:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:53:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?

Clearly you've never read Kierkegaard.
No, but you don't have to be condescending. I'm going to be reading him for class later this semester.

You read in the condescending part. Last I checked my internal states are internal to me, not external.

The story of Abraham's dedication to serve God in the face of tragically losing his son is much deeper than the favorite "example of old testament violence" that you 21st century Christianized-westernized knights of resignation would put forth. Read Kierkegaard.

How about you put forth the argument yourself instead of trolling and telling me to read x author like you always do? I bet you haven't read him yourself given that you can't explain his position.

Go to Berkley. And read Soren. Watch lost. Have a ball.

Spoiler alert, God stopped Abraham from killing his son and began a nation through him that culminated to Christ.

You're just dodging the question. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son for God. Was this sacrifice moral? Was the intention moral?

Yes. It would have been immoral within the absence of God's command. Read Divine command morality. And watch lost.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 10:05:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 10:03:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:58:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:53:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?

Clearly you've never read Kierkegaard.
No, but you don't have to be condescending. I'm going to be reading him for class later this semester.

You read in the condescending part. Last I checked my internal states are internal to me, not external.

Your internal states influence the manner in which you conduct yourself externally
The story of Abraham's dedication to serve God in the face of tragically losing his son is much deeper than the favorite "example of old testament violence" that you 21st century Christianized-westernized knights of resignation would put forth. Read Kierkegaard.

How about you put forth the argument yourself instead of trolling and telling me to read x author like you always do? I bet you haven't read him yourself given that you can't explain his position.

Go to Berkley. And read Soren. Watch lost. Have a ball.

Stop trolling. Make an argument. Don't cite authors you never read.
Spoiler alert, God stopped Abraham from killing his son and began a nation through him that culminated to Christ.

You're just dodging the question. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son for God. Was this sacrifice moral? Was the intention moral?

Yes. It would have been immoral within the absence of God's command. Read Divine command morality. And watch lost.

LOL, way to dodge the question again . . .
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 10:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 10:05:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/22/2013 10:03:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:58:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:53:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:24:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
St. Augustine says that any action that God commands us to do is moral because of its effect (bringing us closer to God). He uses this to justify Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son as well as suicide (which is generally considered immoral by Christians). Do Christians on here buy this?

Clearly you've never read Kierkegaard.
No, but you don't have to be condescending. I'm going to be reading him for class later this semester.

You read in the condescending part. Last I checked my internal states are internal to me, not external.

Your internal states influence the manner in which you conduct yourself externally.

That of course doesn't entail that you can reasonably infer backwards accurately.

The story of Abraham's dedication to serve God in the face of tragically losing his son is much deeper than the favorite "example of old testament violence" that you 21st century Christianized-westernized knights of resignation would put forth. Read Kierkegaard.

How about you put forth the argument yourself instead of trolling and telling me to read x author like you always do? I bet you haven't read him yourself given that you can't explain his position.

Go to Berkley. And read Soren. Watch lost. Have a ball.

Stop trolling. Make an argument. Don't cite authors you never read.

Show me a guy who's talking of knights of resignation and knights of faith who HASN'T read Soren K. and I'll show you lost. I made about a sufficient an argument as I need to make on this thread, and you still haven't read Kierkegaard.

Spoiler alert, God stopped Abraham from killing his son and began a nation through him that culminated to Christ.

You're just dodging the question. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son for God. Was this sacrifice moral? Was the intention moral?

Yes. It would have been immoral within the absence of God's command. Read Divine command morality. And watch lost.

LOL, way to dodge the question again . . .

What you call dodge, is a crippling defeater to your lame o view. I win. if this was a debate I would've hosed you, HOSED you.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 10:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Show me a guy who's talking of knights of resignation and knights of faith who HASN'T read Soren K. and I'll show you lost. I made about a sufficient an argument as I need to make on this thread, and you still haven't read Kierkegaard.

I'm not going to read authors who agree with you just because you say so. Present the argument, not the author. You haven't presented any argument.

What you call dodge, is a crippling defeater to your lame o view. I win. if this was a debate I would've hosed you, HOSED you.

It's not crippling at all because the context was a divine command to sacrifice the son. My question was whether or not the action was moral when God commanded it and before he changed his mind. You are just responding by saying that he changed his mind so the command did not exist, but that's entirely non-responsive.

Maybe in a fantasy land you can win debates by saying your opponent should read a book that you didn't understand yourself or by ignoring the conditions of the question, but that will not work on me.