Where are your tithes going?

[Nathon Detroit]

The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.

Hitler would be proud.

 

[Zakath]

In this thread push did come to shove and you fell off the cliff on page one.

:blabla:

 

[Zakath]

Hitler would be proud.

Wow, it took you over 100 posts to drag out the Nazi card...

... you're slipping.

 

[Granite]

Hitler would be proud.

Yet another proof that when talked into a corner the Nazi remarks jump out... :devil:

Seriously, segregation, wife beating, lynching, crushing and hanging your enemies, and burning books is all stuff good Christian communities have agreed on, too, so let's not pretend the evil atheists are the only ones guilty here.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow, it took you over 100 posts to drag out the Nazi card...

... you're slipping.

I was giving you a fighting chance.

 

[Poly]

The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.



I submit your view is incomplete, Poly. In addition to you and me, society says that molestation is wrong.

Well, woo frickity hooo!

You've only shown that sometimes there are groups of people who share the same opinions. This doesn't show how you, a moral relativist, can make the claim that these priests are morally wrong and that the people who support what they do are as well. All you can do is suggest that it is your opinion as well as others who happen to agree with you that what they did was bad but you can't tell them why.

Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that it's your opinion that should convince others that molestation is wrong.

 

[allsmiles]

hey, Zak's saying that might makes right, and it does. the general consensus is that rape and murder and molestation are wrong, so whether you believe these ideals came from some invisible measuring stick or from a consensus of moral disgust at atrocities, the social standard is there. what i'm interested in is evidence beyond the bible that absolute morals exist.

 

[Zakath]

I was giving you a fighting chance.

Naw, face facts. The reflexes are slipping, you're just getting old... :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yet another proof that when talked into a corner the Nazi remarks jump out... :devil:

Talked into a corner? :rotfl:

Seriously, segregation, wife beating, lynching, crushing and hanging your enemies, and burning books is all stuff good Christian communities have agreed on, too, so let's not pretend the evil atheists are the only ones guilty here.

Oh I agree!

Tell me... do you condemn absolutely the wicked actions of wicked church leaders?

 

[allsmiles]

oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

hey, Zak's saying that might makes right, and it does. the general consensus is that rape and murder and molestation are wrong, so whether you believe these ideals came from some invisible measuring stick or from a consensus of moral disgust at atrocities, the social standard is there. what i'm interested in is evidence beyond the bible that absolute morals exist.

Forget about evidence for a minute.

Think about this....

I believe in absolute morality, therefore had I started a thread condemning wicked behavior it couldn't be considered inconsistent.

Zakath DOES NOT BELIEVE actual immorality exists! Therefore when he starts these threads it only makes sense that he gets waxed like this.

 

[Granite]

One would also think that considering rape and murder have NEVER been considered legal our forebears might have figured this out long before they were handed some slabs with the law on them.

"Common law" is an old and instinctual concept, I would think.

 

[Poly]

oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.

So basically when the molester who thinks what he's doing is right, asks you why it's wrong, you're just going to tell him, "because I say so". Pretty arrogant don't you think? Yeah, I bet that'll convince him.

 

[Zakath]

Well, woo frickity hooo!

You've only shown that sometimes there are groups of people who share the same opinions. This doesn't show how you, a moral relativist, can make the claim that these priests are morally wrong and that the people who support what they do are as well. All you can do is suggest that it is your opinion as well as others who happen to agree with you that what they did was bad but you can't tell them why.

When you're looking at the hangman's noose as punishment for your crime against society and it's members, "why" isn't nearly so important.

The activity of the clergy and their hierarchy is wrong from my perspective because it harms others unecessarily. For me, that's all the reason I need to hold my opinion.

If you need to appeal to a great cosmic cop to justify holding your opinion... hey, it's a free country.

Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that it's your opinion that should convince others that molestation is wrong.

Arrogant? No. That's why it's a discussion forum. Some of us come here to discuss things, not merely browbeat people who disagree with us...


Interesting that you completely ignored the rest of the post... :think:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.

Does your belief system mean anything to you?

Shouldn't you be proud of your moral relativism?

Why are you arguing against it?

 

[Granite]

Talked into a corner? :rotfl:

Oh I agree!

Tell me... do you condemn absolutely the wicked actions of wicked church leaders?

Yup, that's right. You've been riding this one-trick pony all day.

The actions of church leaders? Knight, who do you think you're talking to? I condemn whatever you guys consider good works, too, let alone the wicked ones...:chuckle:

 

[Zakath]

Forget about evidence for a minute.

Ah yes, the ultimate refuge of the religionist...

I am the great and powerful moral absolutist, pay no attention to that evidence behind the curtain... :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"Common law" is an old and instinctual concept, I would think.

History would prove you wrong.

But moreover, if you are REALLY a moral relativist you should argue against such "common law" as that would defeat the relative position of the "law".

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ah yes, the ultimate refuge of the religionist...

I am the great and powerful moral absolutist, pay no attention to that evidence behind the curtain... :chuckle:

Are you a moral relativist or not?

Why do you keep arguing against it?

Why not embrace it and promote it?

 

[Poly]

When you're looking at the hangman's noose as punishment for your crime against society and it's members, "why" isn't nearly so important.

How can you justify punishing somebody when it might be possible that they haven't done anything deserving of being punished?