Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
I'm going to leave it to you. If you can show where I made that claim or assertion, by all means show it. Otherwise - you're just trolling.
You are welcome to your position, Sparko. And I don't believe I said anything about "biblical inaccuracy." Again - you have misrepresented what I have actually said. I have no idea if you do this intentionally. But if you disagree - by all means point to the post where I said "the bible is not accurate."
What we can show is that no original copies exist, so what we have is the output of unknown copyists in multiple fragments. What we can show is that the original writings were in ancient Aramiac and ancient Hebrew, so the versions we have have also been through the hands of multiple translators - and the outputs of these translators are not 100% aligned (which is normal for translations) and subject to the subjective selection of particular words or phrases when two languages do not 100% align (which they never do)
My moral claims are my moral conclusions are about my moral process. The claims about the meta-ethical issues are about objective reality.
It's neither "good" nor "bad" - it merely is. Wanting it to be different is irrelevant. Morality is what it is.
Yes - they have. I am one of them - for the most part. But I think highly of Jesus because of his moral positions - I don't think highly of Jesus' moral positions because Jesus reputedly said them.
Yes - they have. Out of curiosity, can you point, exactly, to where Jesus is documented as saying "reject the homosexual - for they are sinful and their actions immoral?"
No. My morals were originally taught in a Christian context, that is true. My morals are influenced by the Christian context, that is true. But my morals are not "based" on Christian morals - and I have explicitly rejected "Christian morals" that I have found to be immoral.
Then by all means follow the herd, Sparko. I have not said "don't follow the herd." I have said "engaging in a rational discussion about moral conclusions with a 'follow-the-herd' moralist is a pointless exercise - rationality is not their basis for moral conclusions. 'What the herd thinks' is."
I don't believe I have ever said "Sparko should care about what Michel thinks, so I have no response.
[
No. I said that my first moral codes were accepted on the basis of authority.
That is what a child does. Then, as we learn to reason, some of us change. Some people simply keep transferring their moral framework to other authorities - which is basically what you and Seer apparently do. Some of us begin examining our moral conclusions critically, retaining those that make sense and rejecting those that do not.
Here's the deal, Sparko. A small boy may be made to memorize the multiplication tables. They simply memorize it because they are told to. Then, as they gain skill in mathematics, they learn the theory that underlies the table, and begin to be able to expand on that fundamental to more complicated math. But initially, it was just rote memorization because "the teacher said so." Their understanding of math grows and becomes their own. They go beyond rote - and begin to think for themselves.
You and Seer are kind of stuck in "rote." You cannot determine if X or Y is moral without looking it up in the book. You cannot discuss the merits - or the consequences - or the rational alignment of this moral conclusion with that one. All you can do is check to see "what does the book say?"
You and Seer are kind of stuck in "rote." You cannot determine if X or Y is moral without looking it up in the book. You cannot discuss the merits - or the consequences - or the rational alignment of this moral conclusion with that one. All you can do is check to see "what does the book say?"
I'm not sure why you are resistant to this. On one hand you seem to be proud of it. On the other you seem to be fighting that this is the case. You value the book. Embrace it. Own it. If it's what you truly value, then so be it. The only thing it does (for me) is inform me about what kind of discussion is and is not possible. For example, my discussion about genome was a complete waste of time. I should have known better. It was an argument based on consistency between moral positions, and examining the roots of the moral proscription. None of that matters to you, at least as far as I can tell. The ONLY thing that matters is "what does the book say."
Right? A thing is moral if the bible says it is moral - and immoral if the bible says it is immoral. Is that not your position?
Right? A thing is moral if the bible says it is moral - and immoral if the bible says it is immoral. Is that not your position?
Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.
Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.
Please cite the exact place where I said "you shouldn't use god as the basis for your subjective morals."
Please show exactly which part of that paragraph told you what you like and don't like.
Meanwhile, I can show you exactly in this post where you are telling me what I want and don't want. It's the emphasized part. You do this on a regular basis.
Preaching? Sparko - if I tell you "cows are mammals," does that constitute preaching? Morality is subjective/relative. That is its nature. It is for me. It is for you. It is for everyone. Claijing it is otherwise without actually being able to defend that position just seems silly to me.
Comment