Where are your tithes going?

[fool]

According to whom?

According to the person who thinks it's unnessary.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It makes it considerably easier to get a conviction an sentence in a court of law.

Who cares?

Zakath, you are a moral relativist!

According to you determining what is moral is relative to who is performing the action.

Therefore, if you consider "unnecessarily injuring others" immoral on what basis can you determine that "unnecessarily injuring others" is immoral for someone else?

What makes you right and others wrong?

You obviously don't seem to be able to understand it, even though we've had this discussion, what, about a half dozen times?

Oh I understand it allright.

Believe me I understand it. :rotfl:

 

[Granite]

Typically this turns into a "The Sky is Blue--Discuss" argument while the filth and offenses of the church go overlooked.

Nice job deflecting the point all ye white-washed tombs...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Typically this turns into a "The Sky is Blue--Discuss" argument while the filth and offenses of the church go overlooked.

Nice job deflecting the point all ye white-washed tombs...

I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Can you?

And if so, based on what?

 

[fool]

I would agree with your point. The individual decides to accept one moral system over another by accepting the book. It still boils down to individual choice.

Exactly, not only that but swallowing the bait puts them on the line that leads to the boat where preists are rapeing children.

 

[Zakath]

Who cares?

Zakath, you are a moral relativist!

Well duh! :doh:

Now there's a world-shaking revelation!

:darwinsm:

Nice Jay-like dodging the theme of the thread...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

According to the person who thinks it's unnessary.

Are you a moral relativist?

 

[Zakath]

I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Based on what?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well duh! :doh:

Now there's a world-shaking revelation!

:darwinsm:

I think it is important to remind you of this fact when you start threads like this accusing others of moral wrongs.

On what basis do can you condemn the immorality of others?

What makes your version of morality more "right" than those that you accuse?

 

[Granite]

I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Can you?

And if so, based on what?

Uh, yeah, Knight, I can. And I do. You have yet to, oddly enough, on this thread anyhow.

"First do no harm" seems to be a good place to start. Behavior that injures others does not benefit society as a whole which is why theft, rape, and murder have been outlawed for eons. Mankind does not need an instruction manual to figure out the order collapses when anything goes. Civilization by nature is the enemy of anarchy and humanity has always understood that.

What you people don't seem to understand is the survival mechanism of mankind: it's called self-preservation. I do unto others as they'd do unto me because it's EASIER that way and better that way. It's simplistic and childish to think the human race still needs the basics spelled out for them, especially when it's intolerant power-hungry philistines who are insisting on telling us the "right" way to live.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Zakath]

I think it is important to remind you of this fact when you start threads like this accusing others of moral wrongs.

On what basis do can you condemn the immorality of others?

What makes your version of morality more "right" than those that you accuse?

We've already discussed these questions, multiple times... how about sticking to the thread topic?

Or is it your intention to divert interest away from the activities of church leaders under discussion?

:think:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Based on what?

Based on the existence of a righteous God.

There's mine, where's yours?

Here is the rub, one of us (that would be you) claims that morality only exists in the mind of each one of us. So you might say to yourself "I am not going to moleste little kids" but you have no right to tell others that child molestation is wrong because you have conceded that morality is relative to each of us.

I do not claim morality is relative.

 

[fool]

I can condemn the immorality of the church.

based on what?

 

[Granite]

So you make it up as you go, just as we do. Since you THINK a righteous God exists you think you are entitled.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We've already discussed these questions, multiple times... how about sticking to the thread topic?

This IS the topic!

A moral relativist (that would be you) is making a claim that others are committing immorality.

That, my moral relativist friend (that would be you) is the relevant topic.

 

[Zakath]

Based on the existence of a righteous God.

You mean your belief in the existence of such an entity...

So if your deity, for his own inscrutable reasons, told someone to molest a child, you'd be OK with that?

 

[fool]

Are you a moral relativist?

what's a moral relativist?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So you make it up as you go, just as we do. Since you THINK a righteous God exists you think you are entitled.

You can disagree that a righteous God exists, that is your prerogative.

And if you go through life without making claims of immorality you will remain consistent.

 

[Zakath]

This IS the topic!

Nope. My thread, my topic.

The topic, is "the Church" spending its resources to pay for the crimes of its leadership, not how some atheist justifies his moral beliefs.



If you cannot see that, you're in the wrong thread.

 

[fool]

You mean your belief in the existence of such an entity...

So if your deity, for his own inscrutable reasons, told someone to molest a child, you'd be OK with that?

Or if he told you to sacrafice your child to him?
Like that Aberaham dude.