Where are your tithes going?

[Zakath]

You really think that Knight's whole point on this thread is that only Christians should be able to criticize the behavior of the church? I don't even know how you came up with that by what he's said.

It's not a big jump from Knight's apparent position of "only those with moral values based on my deity's absolute law have a right to make moral decisions" to that position... is it?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight seems to be implying only Christians are in a position to criticize the church's behavior.

I am arguing that a moral relativist is not in a position to condemn the immorality of others. Unless you wish to redefine what a moral relativist is how on earth could you disagree?

 

[Poly]

Or perhaps the point is just too subtle for mere mortals to comprehend.

Don't you realize that you leave yourself wide open for exposure every time you decide to bring up an issue criticizing the acts of another? How can any moral relativist even have the audacity to bring up faults in anybody and still hold true to their belief?

 

[Zakath]

Don't you realize that you leave yourself wide open for exposure every time you decide to bring up an issue criticizing the acts of another?

Unlike your position, mine does not require the existence of an absolute authority to engage in discussion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So your "absolute morality" is relative to what your deity tells you?

Even if true, that wouldn't fall into the definition of "relative".

Please try to stay on pace. :up:

 

[Granite]

I am arguing that a moral relativist is not in a position to condemn the immorality of others. Unless you wish to redefine what a moral relativist is how on earth could you disagree?

I disagree because people know injustice when they see it. Even an apostate like me, following what your book says, supposedly has the law written on his heart.

Paul said: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

It is, according to your apostle, an instinct to uphold the law even if one is a heretic.

Or do you disagree?

 

[fool]

Even if true, that wouldn't fall into the definition of "relative".

Please try to stay on pace. :up:

Absolutly relative?
Relativly absolute?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Unlike your position, mine does not require the existence of an absolute authority to engage in discussion.

Zakath we didn't force you to present yourself as a moral relativist.

You did that on your own freewill.

The way I see it you have two ways to remain consistent:

1. Admit that you do not believe that what the abusive priests did was immoral (since morality is relative to oneself).

Or....

2. Admit that you do not believe in moral relativism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I disagree because people know injustice when they see it. Even an apostate like me, following what your book says, supposedly has the law written on his heart.

Paul said: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

It is, according to your apostle, an instinct to uphold the law even if one is a heretic.

Or do you disagree?

Praise the Lord!

It's funny how truth can just slip out in such incredible ways. Nice job Granite! :up:

 

[Granite]

Praise the Lord!

It's funny how truth can just slip out in such incredible ways. Nice job Granite! :up:

Excellent! Then you'd agree if you people are right I do not need a guidebook or your laws to keep my behavior in check.

That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Excellent! Then you'd agree if you people are right I do not need a guidebook or your laws to keep my behavior in check.

The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.

That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.

Convince Zakath of that and were all good!

 

[Poly]

That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.

You do realize that Zakath doesn't believe that the law was written in his heart by God, right?

 

[Zakath]

Zakath we didn't force you to present yourself as a moral relativist.

You did that on your own freewill.

I prefer to honestly represent my position...

The way I see it you have two ways to remain consistent:

1. Admit that you do not believe that what the abusive priests did was immoral (since morality is relative to oneself).

Or....

2. Admit that you do not believe in moral relativism.

I have opinions on the subjects of handling non-profit organizations' finances and proper behavior by the people in charge of those organizations and I wanted to discuss them here.

From where I sit, those opinions do not require the existence of, or adherence to, some set of moral absolutes. On the other hand, it appears that the limitations of your worldview keep you from accepting the idea that people may indulge in different cognitive processes than your own. As such, you feel the need to reject the validity of any belief other than your own, using ridicule when logic fails.

It seems to severely limit the quality of interactions you have on discussion forums.

It's your worldview, and your problem, not mine.

 

[Granite]

The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.

Convince Zakath of that and were all good!

I wasn't asking about your idea of salvation. I was talking about the knowledge of right and wrong--which you guys claim even the unsaved have by instinct.

If Paul is correct and if our behavior is instinctively bent towards keeping the law, why are you so obsessed with the judgment calls made by the unwashed?

 

[Zakath]

You do realize that Zakath doesn't believe that the law was written in his heart by God, right?

Why would mere human belief change a metaphysical fact?

Does my disbelief affect the existence of any deity? :nono:

 

[Zakath]

The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.

We're not discussing soteriology here... we're trying to discuss the conduct of those in charge of churches and their handling of the people and monies entrusted to their charge...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From where I sit, those opinions do not require the existence of, or adherence to, some set of moral absolutes. On the other hand, it appears that the limitations of your worldview keep you from accepting the idea that people may indulge in different cognitive processes than your own. As such, you feel the need to reject the validity of any belief other than your own, using ridicule when logic fails.

It seems to severely limit the quality of interactions you have on discussion forums.

It's your worldview, and your problem, not mine.

Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We're not discussing soteriology here... we're trying to discuss the conduct of those in charge of churches and their handling of the people and monies entrusted to their charge...

Tell Granite, I was merely answering his question.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If Paul is correct and if our behavior is instinctively bent towards keeping the law, why are you so obsessed with the judgment calls made by the unwashed?

Uh... just a point of fact here... what is right and wrong is written on our heart HOWEVER, we are not instinctively bent towards keeping the law.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?