Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

He is being dishonest, if we followed his logic we could never know history. What Lincoln said or Washington said, Plato, the history of The Gallic Wars would be complete gibberish in Carp's world.

Actually - no.

Funny, we "interpret" him the same! So that is two against one - we win...

If votes determined the outcomes of a rational argument, maybe...

[Tassman]

You cannot show the existence of relative morality is "true"

You have been unable to show the existence of absolute/objective morality to be “true”. You claim that God has revealed it but you can’t show what it is.

Morals are built into us. And we all seem to have a common set of basic values. The details can get messy but the basics are the same.

No, morals are not are built into us, but we are instinctively predisposed as social animals to behave in ways conducive to social cohesion. What exactly those “ways” are, will vary from one society and one era to another. Just as they vary according to the interpretation of scripture in the light of current social mores.

For example, homosexuality. The basic moral there that we both share is that people deserve to love one another. Where we disagree is on what types of relationships are valid. We agree some relationships are off limits (pedophilia for instance) and homosexuality is just one of the ones we disagree on. But the basic moral, love, we share. All humans do. It is "good" - to me that is an objective moral.

The thing that makes “love” non-objective is how and when we allow “love” to be expressed and with whom. This historically has changed over the millennia.

[seer]

Yeah, you guys like to go there a lot...

Going where? I was using homosexuality as an example of a moral wrong, and that that does not take a special interpretation to understand what the Biblical writers meant. It is pretty straight forward.

So your faith is based on the bible being a best seller and Jesus of Nazareth having influenced more people than anyone else? And then you get your pants in a knot when someone appeals to "majority?" What on earth is THAT but an appeal to majority. Sorry, Seer, but the world has been filled with many great thinkers, with many great ideas, and there are many things worth considering. To surrender your freedom of thought and reasoning to one collection of books and one of those thinkers is an unfortunate narrowing of perspective, IMO. And, at the end of the day, each of us has only what each of us finds to be true. You think what you think is "the truth." I think what I think is "the truth." Neither one of us has a superior claim on "proving reality." I just have a wider scope of input than you, and I do not lock myself into "the bible says it - so it must be so."

That was not my point, and that is not why I am a Christian. The point is that Scripture has had a lasting and deep moral influence, it has proved itself over the centuries. Unlike your novel ethical ideals. As far as your "wider scope" that is just bunk - like I said I had the same wider scope for most of my adult life - so what? It doesn't lead anywhere.

As per previous discussions, I don't think any of can "know" anything with 100% certainty. But I certainly am not going to hook my philosophical wagon to a claim no one can show to be true. I'm going to look around, see how things happen, and work from there. And when someone comes to me and says, "I'm right - I have the absolute truth," I'm going to nod politely and say, Isn't that nice." If they want to discuss, I'm happy to share with them (you) why I'm not going to go there. And then you are more than welcome to continue on your way. It certainly is not a thing I am anxious to get back to.

Well of course, if one doesn't have God in the picture absolute truth would be difficult to defend, perhaps the laws of logic would be an exception. But with God absolutism is not only possible, but certain.

[carpedm9587]

Going where?

I was referring to the accusation of dishonesty. You guys have a real hard time keeping it about the argument, and regularly attack the person arguing with you instead of the argument they are making. It's a logical fallacy, frankly. I don't know why you think it might add anything to your argument.

I was using homosexuality as an example of a moral wrong, and that that does not take a special interpretation to understand what the Biblical writers meant. It is pretty straight forward.

I think I have said that several times. At least, the translations of the copies of the (unavailable) originals written by largely unknown authors (with a few exceptions) from an ancient culture indicate as much. It does not change that you are locking your morality to your interpretation of a collection of books.

That was not my point, and that is not why I am a Christian. The point is that Scripture has had a lasting and deep moral influence, it has proved itself over the centuries.

Seer, the bible has been used to defend great acts of heroism, and great atrocities throughout time. I know you want to embrace the former and diminish the latter, but they both exist. The code of Hammurabi dates beyond the earliest date of any biblical text, and incorporates many of the concepts found in the decalogue. There are similarities in at least five other codexes dated before the bible. Almost every theme found in the Christian bible is found in other religions that predate Judaism and Christianity. Even monotheism traces back as far as the ironage.

Because of the success of the cult of the Nazarene, the themes brought together in the Christian bible certainly gained prominence in western thought. No doubt. And because of the success of western thought, they went on to crush many other religious forms throughout the world. Again, no doubt. None of that is any evidence of "truth." There are many things in the bible I would consider good moral guidelines. As I've noted, I probably agree with 90% of the precepts it puts forward in the moral domain. But the same is true (for me) of the Q'ruan, the Vedas, and most of the formal moral codes put forward by most of the world's religions. And I agree with that 90% because I have thought it through and measured it against what I value; not "because the book says so."

Unlike your novel ethical ideals.

Given that my moral framework probably aligns 90% with yours, it's hardly "novel."

As far as your "wider scope" that is just bunk - like I said I had the same wider scope for most of my adult life - so what? It doesn't lead anywhere.

Apparently not for you. I have to wonder why. Where did you think it was supposed to "lead." Your sentence seems to imply you expected an outcome from that set of beliefs that you didn't realize, so you turned to something else. What were those desired outcomes?

Well of course, if one doesn't have God in the picture absolute truth would be difficult to defend, perhaps the laws of logic would be an exception. But with God absolutism is not only possible, but certain.

And if there is actually no god, your "absolutes" are a figment of your imagination. My point, through this last part of our discussion is not to undermine your beliefs, Seer. It is to point out that you and I see one another in much the same terms. Unless I miss my guess, you are convinced that your god exists and you are following "The truth." You see my world as a set of "invented" realities because I have turned my back on the actual reality. I am convinced god does not exist, and no one can claim to be following "the truth." We are all moving through life with some combination of truths and untruths in our belief system. We don't have access to "perfection" and cannot achieve it. I see those (like you) who follow a god as following something that doesn't actually exist. So I see you as living a belief that is as "invented" as you think mine is. And I certainly recognize the attraction it holds, having had those beliefs for the first half of my life.

I'm guessing, but I suspect you see me as somewhat stumbling about in the dark, blind to a glorious reality.

I see you as having fallen into a trap it took me a couple of decades to escape. I don't think you're stupid or silly. I would have to think the same of myself if I did. I was in that same trap for a couple of decades. It is extremely hard to escape.

So we go about our lives. I have no doubt you are a good person. It has never crossed my mind to think otherwise (well, except for your propensity to attack your opponent in a debate, instead of the argument they are making, but I've noticed that is a common theme around here). I just find your arguments uncompelling. I suspect you think the same of mine.

[rogue06]

I was referring to the accusation of dishonesty. You guys have a real hard time keeping it about the argument, and regularly attack the person arguing with you instead of the argument they are making. It's a logical fallacy, frankly. I don't know why you think it might add anything to your argument.

Sort of like how those on the left here have a knee jerk visceral reaction to anything from a news outlet that hasn't become a part of the Democrat party?

Never examine the facts just smugly summarily dismiss it.

[carpedm9587]

Sort of like how those on the left here have a knee jerk visceral reaction to anything from a news outlet that hasn't become a part of the Democrat party?

I don't believe my comment said anything about the practice being more prevalent on the right or the left. Perhaps "you guys" was narrowly interpreted to mean "you Christians?" If so, that was not my intention. I was speaking about posters to this forum in general. I simply noted that there is a significant amount of personal attacking that happens on this forum. I find the practice somewhat pointless, since it doesn't really do much to further an argument.

Never examine the facts just smugly summarily dismiss it.

I cannot speak for others, but that has not been my practice (I wish I could say "never," but there was a time when I did exactly that). When I make a claim, I try to back it up with data. When someone else makes a claim, I try to take the time to review their data, or request it if they did not provide it. I'm by no means perfect, but I try to make those things my practice.

[rogue06]

I don't believe my comment said anything about the practice being more prevalent on the right or the left. Perhaps "you guys" was narrowly interpreted to mean "you Christians?" If so, that was not my intention. I was speaking about posters to this forum in general. I simply noted that there is a significant amount of personal attacking that happens on this forum. I find the practice somewhat pointless, since it doesn't really do much to further an argument.

You were specifically addressing seer.

[seer]

I was referring to the accusation of dishonesty. You guys have a real hard time keeping it about the argument, and regularly attack the person arguing with you instead of the argument they are making. It's a logical fallacy, frankly. I don't know why you think it might add anything to your argument.

Carp, you were being dishonest, you would apply standards to Scripture that no one would apply to any other historical work. As if everything is open to interpretation, so much so that any real meaning is lost. That is just false, we have an excellent understanding of the biblical cultures and languages. And the fact that most of scripture is pretty straight forward. Like I said, I would have no problem with you dismissing Scripture as not being the oracles of God, that is an honest assessment from your point of view, this other line of argument is pure subterfuge.

I think I have said that several times. At least, the translations of the copies of the (unavailable) originals written by largely unknown authors (with a few exceptions) from an ancient culture indicate as much. It does not change that you are locking your morality to your interpretation of a collection of books.

And the New Testament has more writings closer to the originals than let's say Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars, but we do not dismiss them as you are attempting to do with Scripture.

Seer, the bible has been used to defend great acts of heroism, and great atrocities throughout time. I know you want to embrace the former and diminish the latter, but they both exist. The code of Hammurabi dates beyond the earliest date of any biblical text, and incorporates many of the concepts found in the decalogue. There are similarities in at least five other codexes dated before the bible. Almost every theme found in the Christian bible is found in other religions that predate Judaism and Christianity. Even monotheism traces back as far as the ironage.

So what is your point? Since I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.

Apparently not for you. I have to wonder why. Where did you think it was supposed to "lead." Your sentence seems to imply you expected an outcome from that set of beliefs that you didn't realize, so you turned to something else. What were those desired outcomes?

The point is, as an unbeliever I knew that there were no objectively right moral answers. This bothered me, even as an agnostic. OK, so now I believe there are universal moral truths. On what rational basis would I go back? What argument could you possibly offer that I didn't once hold myself that would convince me to go back. Your vaunted "autonomy?" Reasoning based on severely limited and finite understanding?

And if there is actually no god, your "absolutes" are a figment of your imagination. My point, through this last part of our discussion is not to undermine your beliefs, Seer. It is to point out that you and I see one another in much the same terms. Unless I miss my guess, you are convinced that your god exists and you are following "The truth." You see my world as a set of "invented" realities because I have turned my back on the actual reality. I am convinced god does not exist, and no one can claim to be following "the truth." We are all moving through life with some combination of truths and untruths in our belief system. We don't have access to "perfection" and cannot achieve it. I see those (like you) who follow a god as following something that doesn't actually exist. So I see you as living a belief that is as "invented" as you think mine is. And I certainly recognize the attraction it holds, having had those beliefs for the first half of my life.

I'm guessing, but I suspect you see me as somewhat stumbling about in the dark, blind to a glorious reality.

Right, we are not going to convince each other.

I see you as having fallen into a trap it took me a couple of decades to escape. I don't think you're stupid or silly. I would have to think the same of myself if I did. I was in that same trap for a couple of decades. It is extremely hard to escape.

And I see that you have fallen into the trap of the Devil, and it is extremely hard to escape.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you were being dishonest, you would apply standards to Scripture that no one would apply to any other historical work.

No. I am actually applying the exact same standards across the board. No one, that I know of, is claiming "absolute perfect knowledge" of any historical document in existence. Historians deal with degrees of certainty, and will be the first to tell you they are always open to the next discovery that will further clarify something they think to be true today. The bible, on the other hand, is treated as if it is an exception - and we can know with perfect clarity what it means, why it was written. It has the unique position of "revealed truth" in the eyes of those reading it.

Dishonesty has nothing to do with it. And you will note that I do not accuse you of being dishonest because you hold this special view. I understand why you have it. The personal attacks really do nothing to further your argument - but you are welcome to keep making them. They're kind of a waste, but they don't really change who I am or what I'm saying.

As if everything is open to interpretation, so much so that any real meaning is lost.

The first part I have said. The second I have not. That is your addition.

That is just false, we have an excellent understanding of the biblical cultures and languages. And the fact that most of scripture is pretty straight forward. Like I said, I would have no problem with you dismissing Scripture as not being the oracles of God, that is an honest assessment from your point of view, this other line of argument is pure subterfuge.

Again - no further response since you are arguing against a position I did not espouse.

And the New Testament has more writings closer to the originals than let's say Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars, but we do not dismiss them as you are attempting to do with Scripture.

I have not attempted to dismiss the scriptures. I have pointed out that your claim of such certainty is not sustainable.

So what is your point? Since I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.

My point is that the Christian bible is not the origin point for pretty much any of the concepts it espouses. It does combine them in a unique way, but most of the moral framework found in the Christian bible predates the bible itself.

The point is, as an unbeliever I knew that there were no objectively right moral answers. This bothered me, even as an agnostic.

Why?

OK, so now I believe there are universal moral truths. On what rational basis would I go back?

On the basis that you cannot demonstrate the existence of any absolutes. The existence of wide commonality of moral principles can be explained without resorting to an absolute. I don't know about you, but when I cannot show something to be true, I let it go until I can. You appear to want to cling to it because, well, I'm not sure why. I guess you were "bothered" by the absence of moral absolutes and this makes you feel better about it. That doesn't appear to me to be a compelling argument.

What argument could you possibly offer that I didn't once hold myself that would convince me to go back. Your vaunted "autonomy?" Reasoning based on severely limited and finite understanding?

Seer, I have no desire to convince you to do anything. This discussion is, for me, a way to exercise (and possibly exorcise) my own beliefs. To look for holes. To see if, when pitted against the arguments of someone who disagrees with me, it can stand up. I make arguments here to test myself - not to convince you. I have no reason on earth to think anything I believe is going to convince anyone here of anything.

The one exception to that is discussions about specific moral positions (e.g., the LGBTQ discussion). There I DO hope to convince, for all of the reasons I have previously cited. I have to admit that I don't really have much hope of convincing the regular posters here. Those on the left already agree with me, and those on the right are lot likely to be convinced. I am hoping that the discussion will plant some seeds, and maybe someone down the road will read the exchange and find some of what I am saying compelling.

Right, we are not going to convince each other.

Probably not.

And I see that you have fallen into the trap of the Devil, and it is extremely hard to escape.

Yeah...I figured as much. Ironically, that is exactly what makes the "Christian trap" so difficult to escape. You are in the bosom of "goodness" and leaving that sanctuary puts you in the hands of "evil." Frankly, it is a significant part of the "us" and "them" mentality that is Christianity. From your perspective, I would imagine it's hard to see me as anything other than "participating in evil."

It's unfortunate. I do hope, someday, your views widen a bit. I suspect, however, that they won't I don't know too many people who have left Christianity (or theism) in their later years.

For what it's worth, I don't see you as "participating in evil." I do think you hold some immoral views, but I don't think you do so with an intent to be harmful or unkind.

[seer]

I have not attempted to dismiss the scriptures. I have pointed out that your claim of such certainty is not sustainable.

Nothing, like you said, is 100% certain. So? We all take our stand, where we choose.

My point is that the Christian bible is not the origin point for pretty much any of the concepts it espouses. It does combine them in a unique way, but most of the moral framework found in the Christian bible predates the bible itself.

Again so? So what is your point? Since I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.

Why?

I personally started to see the idea that something like the Holocaust was only relatively wrong as abhorrent. Though in those days it did not cause me to embrace theism, I was looking more towards Plato's forms. I think as an agnostic I was a moral realist all along, though I wouldn't have called it that..

On the basis that you cannot demonstrate the existence of any absolutes. The existence of wide commonality of moral principles can be explained without resorting to an absolute. I don't know about you, but when I cannot show something to be true, I let it go until I can. You appear to want to cling to it because, well, I'm not sure why. I guess you were "bothered" by the absence of moral absolutes and this makes you feel better about it. That doesn't appear to me to be a compelling argument.

Again Carp, we are back to God and His moral law. It is a worldview and a package deal.

The one exception to that is discussions about specific moral positions (e.g., the LGBTQ discussion). There I DO hope to convince, for all of the reasons I have previously cited. I have to admit that I don't really have much hope of convincing the regular posters here. Those on the left already agree with me, and those on the right are lot likely to be convinced. I am hoping that the discussion will plant some seeds, and maybe someone down the road will read the exchange and find some of what I am saying compelling.

But why would anyone be convinced by relative, subjective opinions? You have no objective grounding apart from personal preference.

It's unfortunate. I do hope, someday, your views widen a bit. I suspect, however, that they won't I don't know too many people who have left Christianity (or theism) in their later years.

See, since I have been in your position once, thinking more like you would be a moral regression for me.

[carpedm9587]

Nothing, like you said, is 100% certain. So? We all take our stand, where we choose.

Agreed. But I do find that "the faithful" make historical claims for the bible that transcend anything regular historians would do with regular historical documents.

Again so? So what is your point?

That the claims that these things are somehow unique to the bible, or originate from the bible, simply are not true.

Since I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.

You've said this before. I'm afraid Biblical quotes don't do much for me, so that doesn't really help your case in this discussion. As I noted, there are simpler, observable ways to explain how moral commonality occurs without having to invent "absolutes" that cannot be shown to actually exist.

I personally started to see the idea that something like the Holocaust was only relatively wrong as abhorrent. Though in those days it did not cause me to embrace theism, I was looking more towards Plato's forms. I think as an agnostic I was a moral realist all along, though I wouldn't have called it that.

And there is your problem, Seer. I believe the Holocaust was wrong - period. I don't believe it was "relatively" wrong. Relative is merely a term to describe how subjective moral norms are applied (relative to the holder). Each of us sees our moral framework as the best - by definition. You folks seem to be under the impression that a moral relativist/subjectivist has to say, "to each their own" and walk away unconcerned with people like Hitler and Pol Pot. Nothing could be further from the truth. A moral subjectivist/relativist will see their moral framework as the best, and assess all others in that light. I don't walk away unconcerned from you and Sparko and CP claiming that homosexuality is immoral. I believe your moral position is itself immoral, for all the reasons I have cited. I would love to convince you to align to mine. I know I have almost no chance to, but it's still worth an effort.

You folks see that as "inconsistent" and "a moral relativist thinking like a moral realist." It's not. Moral subjectivity merely acknowledges that the individual is the arbiter of their own moral framework. If I ever encounter a moral principle I become convinced is superior to my own, it will instantly become my own. So, at any given moment, I am following the best moral framework I can conceive. A natural extension of that is that I think all others should have that same moral framework, since I consider it "the best." Of course, it is "the best" for those who value the things that I value. But that too is what I believe others should do. Why? Because if they value the same things I value, the things I value are better protected/enhanced.

Another natural extension is that I am actually open to discussion/argumentation about the moral framework. It is not locked into this notion of an "inviolate absolute." I know, intuitively, that I am fallible and may find other moral norms more convincing down the road. Until I find them, what I have is the best I can currently conceive. That makes me open-minded to possible change if someone can make a compelling argument.

Again Carp, we are back to God and His moral law. It is a worldview and a package deal.

Yeah. Unfortunately you cannot even establish that this god exists either. From my perspective, it is a package without a content.

But why would anyone be convinced by relative, subjective opinions? You have no objective grounding apart from personal preference.

I do, and I have presented much of it. You (and those who think as you do) are resistant to even considering it. I have actually outlined the causal chain. And there are other ways. If I can show you an inconsistency within your own moral framework, that should be a cause for concern for you. Unfortunately, logical inconsistencies become irrelevant if "the bible says so." It is difficult to rationally discuss a position that is not arrived at rationally.

See, since I have been in your position once, thinking more like you would be a moral regression for me.

Interesting. I would have said exactly the same thing.

[seer]

Agreed. But I do find that "the faithful" make historical claims for the bible that transcend anything regular historians would do with regular historical documents.

Well of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.

That the claims that these things are somehow unique to the bible, or originate from the bible, simply are not true.

Did I ever claim that? As Romans says, and the fact that we are all created in the image of God, we all have that God given, intuitive moral sense. And this crosses cultural lines.

You've said this before. I'm afraid Biblical quotes don't do much for me, so that doesn't really help your case in this discussion. As I noted, there are simpler, observable ways to explain how moral commonality occurs without having to invent "absolutes" that cannot be shown to actually exist.

But this is meaningless to me, your unbelief has nothing to do with the reality of God. It is like a man born color blind arguing that colors don't exist.

And there is your problem, Seer. I believe the Holocaust was wrong - period. I don't believe it was "relatively" wrong. Relative is merely a term to describe how subjective moral norms are applied (relative to the holder). Each of us sees our moral framework as the best - by definition. You folks seem to be under the impression that a moral relativist/subjectivist has to say, "to each their own" and walk away unconcerned with people like Hitler and Pol Pot. Nothing could be further from the truth. A moral subjectivist/relativist will see their moral framework as the best, and assess all others in that light. I don't walk away unconcerned from you and Sparko and CP claiming that homosexuality is immoral. I believe your moral position is itself immoral, for all the reasons I have cited. I would love to convince you to align to mine. I know I have almost no chance to, but it's still worth an effort.

Except, again, there are no objective or right answers to moral questions. What Pol Pot did was right for him and his followers for that time and culture, even if you disagree today. And you have no logical way out of this moral morass - except to offer your personal preference.

Another natural extension is that I am actually open to discussion/argumentation about the moral framework. It is not locked into this notion of an "inviolate absolute." I know, intuitively, that I am fallible and may find other moral norms more convincing down the road. Until I find them, what I have is the best I can currently conceive. That makes me open-minded to possible change if someone can make a compelling argument.

It is not that you are merely fallible, it is that all your moral musings are based on ignorance. You are groping in the darkness.

Yeah. Unfortunately you cannot even establish that this god exists either. From my perspective, it is a package without a content.

But really Carp? Who cares? You are deceived, sin has darkened your understanding. That is part of my package too bro...

I do, and I have presented much of it. You (and those who think as you do) are resistant to even considering it. I have actually outlined the causal chain. And there are other ways. If I can show you an inconsistency within your own moral framework, that should be a cause for concern for you. Unfortunately, logical inconsistencies become irrelevant if "the bible says so." It is difficult to rationally discuss a position that is not arrived at rationally.

Nonsense, you have no other argument for, let's said, homosexuality being a moral behavior, apart from personal preference.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.

Correct. There are miracle claims in many historical documents. They are not generally considered historically accurate/relevant. Yet the Christian perspective is that the Christian bible is an exception to this norm. And when it is pointed out that Christians are holding the bible to a different historical standard, that objection is dismissed. Indeed, it is reversed - and accusations are made that historians are holding the bible to different standards. The state of affairs is odd indeed.

Did I ever claim that? As Romans says, and the fact that we are all created in the image of God, we all have that God given, intuitive moral sense. And this crosses cultural lines.

As I noted, there is a simpler explanation than "god did it," especially in the face of the fact that god cannot actually be shown to exist.

But this is meaningless to me, your unbelief has nothing to do with the reality of God. It is like a man born color blind arguing that colors don't exist.

Or like a man in the grips of a delusion insisting that everyone else is blind...

Except, again, there are no objective or right answers to moral questions.

And you are right back to Technique #1. At least you're predictable. Seer, your continued objection that "there are no objective right answers" is just a restatement of a definition. I honestly do not know why you do not see this. You don't have an argument. I've already agreed there are not objective right answers. You continually repeating this doesn't answer the fundamental question you need to answer: why is this a bad thing? You also need to show that there actually IS an objective/absolute standard, and you never have.

If you take a moment and see it from my side, I am being asked to accept that there is an objective/absolute moral standard (which no one can show exists), and to accept that this is somehow better (when no one has shown why that is true). Would you accept such a demand? Who would abandon rationality to that degree?

What Pol Pot did was right for him and his followers for that time and culture, even if you disagree today.

Maybe - and who cares?

And you have no logical way out of this moral morass - except to offer your personal preference.

It's actually not a "morass." I can explain exactly why Pol Pot's moral framework (assuming his actions matched his framework) was askew. Anyone who values what I value (life, liberty, happiness, trust, etc.). Will see the argument immediately. Those who do not will not. Since most of humanity does value those things, most of humanity will understand and agree with the arguments, and Pol Pot will be resisted. It's not really all that complicated.

It is not that you are merely fallible, it is that all your moral musings are based on ignorance. You are groping in the darkness.

Well - that is the human condition, Seer. Welcome to the world. And creating/inventing a god does not actually change the fact that you are in the same place. The only difference between us, Seer, is that I know I am doing the best I can, and you think you're doing the best that can be done. I find your view a little dangerous.

But really Carp? Who cares? You are deceived, sin has darkened your understanding. That is part of my package too bro...

Yeah, I know. And from my perspective, you too are deceived. But I don't think anyone is doing it to you, I think you are actually deceiving yourself. That is part of my package, bro...

Nonsense, you have no other argument for, let's said, homosexuality being a moral behavior, apart from personal preference.

Actually, I have put forward two arguments. One is based on the inconsistency of your own position. The other is based on the fundamental things people value (life, liberty, happiness, trust, etc.). Cut either way, you end up accept LGBTQ relationships as "just another form of human love." When your basis for morality is "the bible says so," then you end up where you are.

Fortunately, "the bible says so" is losing its grip on humanity.

[rogue06]

Well of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.

Exactly. It would be inconceivable that if they accepted them that they would remain secular.

[Tassman]

Well of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.

Very few historians give credence to the resurrection or to any other miracle. The consensus is that a miracle is the least likely explanation of an unexplained event. Any natural explanation, no matter how improbable, is more likely than a miracle.