The flaws of NT-based morality

[tabibito]

About the only point that I haven't heard countered with, "that's just your/his/her interpretation" is "the Bible records that Jesus died by crucifixion." Just about anything else is seemingly up for grabs. Of course, it is heard from Christians just as much as from sceptics - which is kind of sad.
People who use the line usually can't come up with anything solid by way of rebuttal.

[Starlight]

What this assertion doesn't do is address the even thornier issue of moral obligation. In the absence of a moral law giver to ultimately hold us accountable, choosing whether or not to live in accordance with objective moral values is nothing more than a personal preference. We have no more obligation to live morally than we do to choose one flavor of ice cream over another. A man who lives morally and is content, and a man who lives immorally and is content will both come to the same end in an atheistic universe, so what does it really matter how they choose live their lives?

So if you didn't think God was there to whack you with a big stick, you wouldn't bother to act morally? That says a lot about you as a person I guess.

Is it really a moral action if you do it merely selfishly out of fear of punishment rather than out of genuine positive intentions toward other humans?

[Starlight]

Stay in the car.

Charles I think you broke the Sparko bot. I suggest deleting it and reinstalling.

[Starlight]

It's very hard to look at things without a bias based on our current views.

I agree. I think this goes a long way to explaining how so many different Christians in history could have so many different theological views and biblical interpretations. Obviously it's very, very, easy to go wrong, and very, very hard to get it right.

However to practice it you have to make assumptions that most Christians consider wrong, e.g. you have to accept that the Biblical authors had their own biases, that they tended to be credulous about miracles by our standards, etc. Hence this approach remains a minority one.

Yep.

[Sparko]

I do not need protection. I am just looking for an answer. If you have got anything of substance then I think you should answer. That other stuff about cars and so is a little too foolish, don't you think?

Chuck, you wandered into this site, a little dog, yipping bravely while hiding behind the big dogs. Stay in the car for your own safety. You are not impressing anyone with your yapping and whining.

[Mountain Man]

So if you didn't think God was there to whack you with a big stick, you wouldn't bother to act morally? That says a lot about you as a person I guess.

Is it really a moral action if you do it merely selfishly out of fear of punishment rather than out of genuine positive intentions toward other humans?

A textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. Well done.

The question is not "What do you prefer?" The question is "In the absence of moral obligation, does your preference ultimately matter?" The only answer available to the atheist is "No."

[Charles]

I'm referring to informal conversations and debates I've had and various skeptical articles I've read over the past couple of decades. I've not done a formal survey or anything like that.

Not even a single source?

[JimL]

A textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. Well done.

The question is not "What do you prefer?" The question is "In the absence of moral obligation, does your preference ultimately matter?" The only answer available to the atheist is "No."

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle. Apparently christians, or the religious in general, think the only reason for themselves to be morally good persons is if there is an ultimate reward for their behavior. But then again, when you think about it, it is because of such thinking that we had to create gods and ultimate rewards, or punishments, in the first place.

[seer]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

Which atheist's principles Jim? Yours? The Stalinist? The Maoist?

[Mountain Man]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

That's an incoherent statement. Look up the definition of "principle". You're basically saying, "It's not about preference or obligation, it's about preference or obligation."

[Charles]

Chuck, you wandered into this site, a little dog, yipping bravely while hiding behind the big dogs. Stay in the car for your own safety. You are not impressing anyone with your yapping and whining.

Is talking to other human beings as if they were dogs consistent with a Christian world view?

[Sparko]

Is talking to other human beings as if they were dogs consistent with a Christian world view?

I guess so!

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.

Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh.

[Charles]

I guess so!

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.

Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh.

I don't see a single example of someone actually talking to another person as if he/she is a dog.

[Sparko]

I don't see a single example of someone actually talking to another person as if he/she is a dog.

Does chucky want a cookie? sit boy.

[37818]

Your inability to understand arguments or avoid fallacies is not my problem.

Ok. My inability to understand an argument and my failure to avoid a fallacy is not your problem. Your failure to recognize truth is your problem.