Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[Sparko]

I don't think "atheism" teaches anything specific around that. Atheism does not have an accompanying body of doctrine and rules, that I know of.

exactly. So your entire line of argument that we don't need religion to get good basic moral values in society is invalid. Atheism doesn't provide any cohesive morality. It's whatever you want. Which is what we now have in society.

My original response to you was to note that I do not agree that retreating into theistic thinking is the right path forward for us as a species. It also does not meet the criteria of "practical" and "doable." Our world is secularizing (as well as globalizing). Figuring out how to make that work is a better path than trying to turn back the clock, IMO.

I never said you had to agree.

[carpedm9587]

Good!

That is a false dichotomy Carp, one can believe that homosexuality or adultery or stealing are sin, yet still be gracious to the sinner, since we are all in the same boat. To deny the text in favor of of a personal peccadillo is wrongheaded on so many levels.

I didn't paint a dichotomy. I pointed out that there are Christian sects that preach treating the LGBTQ community as no different from the heterosexual community across the board - and base their position on the accepting spirit of many of Jesus teachings. I am noting the reality - not defending it or justifying it. Personally, I think ANY personal moral decisions that are based on the bible (or any other religious text) are pointless and somewhat dangerous. They represent someone abandoning their own moral reasoning and attempting to align that reasoning to the reaosning of someone else. So instead of saying to oneself, "why do I think this action/thing is right or wrong," the person is saying, "I need to understand what he/she/it says is wrong so I can align to it." It is essentially an abandonment of moral reasoning in favor of "alignment" reasoning.

But we already agree that homosexuality is considered sin in Scripture, it is not about how you approach the text in this case, it is about ignoring or rejecting the text.

It's actually about how one approaches/interprets the text.

Really? How are the supporters of homosexual behavior Biblically correct? Be specific please

No thanks, Seer. I'm not getting sucked into a "why it's correct" argument. I suggest you have that discussion with them. I am noting their existence. You would have to work very hard to deny that there are Christian sects that embrace the LGBTQ community and defend it as a WWJD principle. They exist. That is my point. If you want to argue with their basis - you'll have to have that argument with them. I do not defend you to them or them to you.

[carpedm9587]

exactly. So your entire line of argument that we don't need religion to get good basic moral values in society is invalid.

Umm.. no. It would ony be invalid if you could make the case that moral reasoning is impossible outside the context of a religion. You cannot make that case.

Atheism doesn't provide any cohesive morality. It's whatever you want. Which is what we now have in society.

The statement "atheism does not provide a moral framework" is not equivalent to "religion is the only context in which a moral framework is possible." I said the former. I did not say the latter.

I never said you had to agree.

I never said that you said I had to agree...

[Sparko]

Umm.. no. It would ony be invalid if you could make the case that moral reasoning is impossible outside the context of a religion. You cannot make that case.

no we are talking about a moral solution to the problems of society, which would take a cohesive morality like taught by Christianity. Since some atheists might have similar values and others not, there is nothing for people to follow. Everyone who turns to Christianity would be choosing to follow those moral ideals taught by Jesus, which you even agreed are good ones. Not so with atheists. You yourself said that atheism teaches nothing about morality.

[seer]

I didn't paint a dichotomy. I pointed out that there are Christian sects that preach treating the LGBTQ community as no different from the heterosexual community across the board - and base their position on the accepting spirit of many of Jesus teachings. I am noting the reality - not defending it or justifying it. Personally, I think ANY personal moral decisions that are based on the bible (or any other religious text) are pointless and somewhat dangerous. They represent someone abandoning their own moral reasoning and attempting to align that reasoning to the reaosning of someone else. So instead of saying to oneself, "why do I think this action/thing is right or wrong," the person is saying, "I need to understand what he/she/it says is wrong so I can align to it." It is essentially an abandonment of moral reasoning in favor of "alignment" reasoning.

That is just silly Carp, but I'm glad you agree that they have abandoned the text for some subjective, ethereal spirit thingy. And since Christians believe that NT teachings are inspired, to substitute our moral reasoning (which is limited and generally ignorant of long term consequences) would be the height of folly and hubris.

It's actually about how one approaches/interprets the text.

How do you interpret homosexuality as sin, to not being sin? That is an actual denial of the text, not an interpretation.

No thanks, Seer. I'm not getting sucked into a "why it's correct" argument. I suggest you have that discussion with them. I am noting their existence. You would have to work very hard to deny that there are Christian sects that embrace the LGBTQ community and defend it as a WWJD principle. They exist. That is my point. If you want to argue with their basis - you'll have to have that argument with them. I do not defend you to them or them to you.

I have had hours of debates with them over the years on Beliefnet and CARM. And what would Jesus do? Tell them to go and sin no more. And don't bring these canards up if you are not willing to defend them, that is dishonest IMHO. You attack our faith with scattershot accusations then hand wave when called on it.

[carpedm9587]

That is just silly Carp, but I'm glad you agree that they have abandoned the text for some subjective, ethereal spirit thingy.

The terms "abandoned the text" were never part of my post or my thoughts.

And since Christians believe that NT teachings are inspired, to substitute our moral reasoning (which is limited and generally ignorant of long term consequences) would be the height of folly and hubris.

What they believe is inconsequential to me, Seer. If the basis for those texts is not real (as I believe), then they are abandoning moral reasoning in favor of moral interpretation/compliance.

How do you interpret homosexuality as sin, to not being sin? That is an actual denial of the text, not an interpretation.

Usually the argument goes something along the lines of, "Jesus message of love and acceptance - and his eschewing "law" for "spirit" - is the core of the NT. However, Jesus was also a man of his times, region, and tradition. The position of the time/region was "anti-homosexual." Despite that, Jesus also never explicitly said anything anti-homosexual himself - that was added later by his followers (e.g, Paul). Ergo - the spirit of love/acceptance takes precedence over the anti-homosexual language."

Whether or not the argument is sound is largely irrelevant to me. The point is they believe you to be wrong in your insistence on a literal interpretation and believe they are following "the will of god". Likewise, you believe they are wrong in abandoning a literal interpretation of the text and believe you are following the will of god. The dispute has no mechanism for resolution, which is my point.

I have had hours of debates with them over the years on Beliefnet and CARM. And what would Jesus do? Tell them to go and sin no more. And don't bring these canards up if you are not willing to defend them, that is dishonest IMHO. You attack our faith with scattershot accusations then hand wave when called on it.

I am happy to defend any position I have actually taken. My position is that these differing sects exist. My position is that they call themselves Christian. My position is they all insist "they have it right." I am happy to defend those positions all evening long. I think I can easily show that they exist, and they believe themselves to be right.

I never took a position on which one was actually right (for obvious reasons), so I won't be defending any particular position as more or less reasonable than any other.

[carpedm9587]

That is just silly Carp....

BTW - you have a tendency to start responses with statements like this. You do know that just declaring a thing "silly" is not really an argument, right? It's just an extraneous pejorative tossed in to "poison the well." If a position is not tenable - it will show itself as such in the argumentation. You have a tendency to use these "debate-style" tactics. If the goal is to convince - that will only influence the most neophyte of debaters.

[seer]

The terms "abandoned the text" were never part of my post or my thoughts.

Of course it is, since we both agreed that Scripture does in fact label homosexuality as sin. In both Testaments.

What they believe is inconsequential to me, Seer. If the basis for those texts is not real (as I believe), then they are abandoning moral reasoning in favor of moral interpretation/compliance.

Right, but we were speaking of Christians who deny the prohibitions on homosexual behavior. On a side note what makes you think your that your moral reasoning is correct? Because it is yours?

Usually the argument goes something along the lines of, "Jesus message of love and acceptance - and his eschewing "law" for "spirit" - is the core of the NT. However, Jesus was also a man of his times, region, and tradition. The position of the time/region was "anti-homosexual." Despite that, Jesus also never explicitly said anything anti-homosexual himself - that was added later by his followers (e.g, Paul). Ergo - the spirit of love/acceptance takes precedence over the anti-homosexual language."

But over all Jesus' message was not merely of love and acceptance, He actually spoke as much about judgement. And Jesus never said anything about rape either, so? Remember Jesus said He came to fulfill the the Law, and that the Torah was in fact God's law. He wouldn't have accepted homosexual behavior any more than adultery or fornication. And if a Christian wants to reject the writings of Paul then he does so at his own peril.

Whether or not the argument is sound is largely irrelevant to me. The point is they believe you to be wrong in your insistence on a literal interpretation and believe they are following "the will of god". Likewise, you believe they are wrong in abandoning a literal interpretation of the text and believe you are following the will of god. The dispute has no mechanism for resolution, which is my point.

Again, that is nonsense. One does not get to change the text to mean its opposite. And BTW there is no mechanism for resolution with secular ethics either, as a mater of fact it is decidedly worse since you have no texts to argue over, or interpret as a starting point, or that can judge between differing opinions... It is every man or culture for himself.

I am happy to defend any position I have actually taken. My position is that these differing sects exist. My position is that they call themselves Christian. My position is they all insist "they have it right." I am happy to defend those positions all evening long. I think I can easily show that they exist, and they believe themselves to be right.

I just showed, conclusively, that the Bible does in fact prohibit homosexual behavior (which you agreed). Those Christians who reject that reject the text that they claim to revere for some some subjective, ethereal spirit thingy. And we can go down your list on each point. And if you read the linked poll, Christians who take their religion more seriously, attend Church and study Scripture weekly see homosexual behavior as wrong. It is the Biblically illiterate, who attend Church less and take their faith less seriously who tend to accept this behavior.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/

[Sparko]

Christianity provides a moral framework that if followed would solve many of today's problems like broken families, school shootings, and crime in general. Atheism does not provide any moral framework to follow.

[carpedm9587]

Of course it is, since we both agreed that Scripture does in fact label homosexuality as sin. In both Testaments.

You can put words in my mouth if you wish, Seer

It doesn't make them my words or opinions.

Right, but we were speaking of Christians who deny the prohibitions on homosexual behavior. On a side note what makes you think your that your moral reasoning is correct? Because it is yours?

I was speaking of all Christians (or any theist) when I was referring to "abandoning moral reasoning." Indeed, anyone who's basis for their moral reasoning is "because X says so" is abandoning true moral reasoning. As for your question, I believe we've had that discussion already. Moral reasoning is like any reasoning - it begins with premises and arrives at conclusions. Those conclusions are true of the argument is sound.

But over all Jesus' message was not merely of love and acceptance, He actually spoke as much about judgement. And Jesus never said anything about rape either, so? Remember Jesus said He came to fulfill the the Law, and that the Torah was in fact God's law. He wouldn't have accepted homosexual behavior any more than adultery or fornication. And if a Christian wants to reject the writings of Paul then he does so at his own peril.

It's not my argument - so I'm not going to defend it. The fact is there are Christians and Christian sects who take that position, which was my point.

Again, that is nonsense.

Again - this kind of statement is nothing more than "poisoning the well." It's not a necessary part of a well-structured argument.

One does not get to change the text to mean its opposite. And BTW there is no mechanism for resolution with secular ethics either, as a mater of fact it is decidedly worse since you have no texts to argue over, or interpret as a starting point, or that can judge between differing opinions... It is every man or culture for himself.

I just showed, conclusively, that the Bible does in fact prohibit homosexual behavior (which you agreed). Those Christians who reject that reject the text that they claim to revere for some some subjective, ethereal spirit thingy. And we can go down your list on each point. And if you read the linked poll, Christians who take their religion more seriously, attend Church and study Scripture weekly see homosexual behavior as wrong. It is the Biblically illiterate, who attend Church less and take their faith less seriously who tend to accept this behavior.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/

It's not my argument - so I'm not going to defend it. The fact is there are Christians and Christian sects who take that position, which was my point. And your link nicely makes that point. Thanks!

[carpedm9587]

Christianity provides a moral framework that if followed would solve many of today's problems like broken families, school shootings, and crime in general. Atheism does not provide any moral framework to follow.

Agreed. However, since the Christian moral framework is "align to what X thinks," where "X" is a god that cannot be shown to exist, Christians are left aligning to their interpretation of a text that is 2,000 years old, for which we have no original copies, which was written in multiple other languages, was written in a different culture/society, and is widely interpreted by different sects to have different meanings.

I prefer a moral framework in which the person thinks for him/herself.

[One Bad Pig]

Agreed. However, since the Christian moral framework is "align to what X thinks," where "X" is a god that cannot be shown to exist, Christians are left aligning to their interpretation of a text that is 2,000 years old, for which we have no original copies, which was written in multiple other languages, was written in a different culture/society, and is widely interpreted by different sects to have different meanings.

I prefer a moral framework in which the person thinks for him/herself.

Yes, much more convenient for you when you can decide for yourself what's wrong and what's right - also known as anarchy.

[Sparko]

Agreed.

Great.

However, since the Christian moral framework is "align to what X thinks," where "X" is a god that cannot be shown to exist, Christians are left aligning to their interpretation of a text that is 2,000 years old, for which we have no original copies, which was written in multiple other languages, was written in a different culture/society, and is widely interpreted by different sects to have different meanings.

I prefer a moral framework in which the person thinks for him/herself.

Regardless, we do have the moral framework in place and you just agreed that it would solve many of today's problems if followed whereas Atheism would not. So your objection is a non-sequitur.

You might prefer a moral framework where 'the person thinks for himself' and there is no moral framework, but that doesn't solve anything. That is what we have now.

[seer]

You can put words in my mouth if you wish, Seer

It doesn't make them my words or opinions.

But these Christians have in fact rejected the text. Which is clear and unambiguous

I was speaking of all Christians (or any theist) when I was referring to "abandoning moral reasoning." Indeed, anyone who's basis for their moral reasoning is "because X says so" is abandoning true moral reasoning. As for your question, I believe we've had that discussion already. Moral reasoning is like any reasoning - it begins with premises and arrives at conclusions. Those conclusions are true of the argument is sound.

Carp, you are not answering my question. There is no mechanism for resolution with secular ethics which is what you are accusing us of. And premises and reasoning are subjective, depending on the moral goal or outcome that one seeks. You are in a no better situation, you are in fact in a worse position than the Christian who takes Scripture as inspired. At least we are starting with what we consider universal moral truths.

It's not my argument - so I'm not going to defend it. The fact is there are Christians and Christian sects who take that position, which was my point.

Yes they take that position AGAINST Scripture.

It's not my argument - so I'm not going to defend it. The fact is there are Christians and Christian sects who take that position, which was my point. And your link nicely makes that point. Thanks!

Yes they do, the Biblically illiterate who do not take their faith seriously. No duh...

[carpedm9587]

But these Christians have in fact rejected the text. Which is clear and unambiguous

These Christians have interpreted the text differently - attempting to resolve what they perceive as inconsistencies. That is because they do not start with your requirement that a literal interpretation is required. I neither agree with them nor defend them. I merely point out that they exist.

Carp, you are not answering my question. There is no mechanism for resolution with secular ethics which is what you are accusing us of. And premises and reasoning are subjective, depending on the moral goal or outcome that one seeks. You are in a no better situation, you are in fact in a worse position than the Christian who takes Scripture as inspired. At least we are starting with what we consider universal moral truths.

The difference, Seer, is that secular ethics acknowledges (or should acknowledge) the lack of universals and the individuality of moral reasoning. My objection is not that Christianity has no means of resolution to moral issues - but rather that it claims to when it does not actually have any more ability to resolve the problems. In the process - it diverts the discussion from true moral reasoning to an discussion on what words in a book mean and how they should be interpreted. That is because, instead of arguing the actual moral merits of one position or another, the attempt is to discern "what god wants."

From my position - you have the added problem that this god doesn't even exist - so attempting to align with a non-existent being is simply the height of folly.

Yes they take that position AGAINST Scripture.

Yes they do, the Biblically illiterate who do not take their faith seriously. No duh...

It's not my argument - so I'm not going to defend it. The fact is there are Christians and Christian sects who take that position, which was my point. You say they are wrong - they say you are wrong - and you have no means for resolving this issue because you begin from different starting places.

This is why I have said, all along, that Christian morality (and theistic morality in general) claims absolutes/objective moral principles and cannot demonstrate the existence of, or individual access to, any of these principles. It is relative/subjective morality wearing an absolute/objective costume.