J
jam070406
Guest
How is it irrelevant?No, your example not only irrelevant, but also possible to perform.
How is it irrelevant?No, your example not only irrelevant, but also possible to perform.
I wouldn’t expect an atheist to say anything otherwise. But you are still wrong, sorry.
No, pseudo-morality that has nothing to do with protecting real people is considered invalid. Having (safe) sex is not harmful, and therefore not immoral. Just like being gay, working at a landfill, or anything else that makes you say “eww” is not immoral.
Like having sex with whomever you want, even if married?Once again, Hitchens didn’t say him personally would perform this, he implied that morality is innate in humanity regrdless of their religion.
Because you put it to hitchens personally when his statement did not imply that.How is it irrelevant?
The practice of chastity and obedience is a Christian virtue. Hence, can an atheist live up to these Christian standards? Heck, can an atheist live out in totality the Christian/Catholic moral code? He is stating that they can, and I state no they can’t (not without the grace of God working through them).And those examples are irrelevant, because becoming a monk is not a moral question.
Well, he said athiests (which would include him) could do anything morally that a Christian could. But I doubt he would even take the challenge of his own statement so who cares what that dude says?Because you put it to hitchens personally when his statement did not imply that.
No, I didn’t mean what you imply.You also didn’t qualify the statement…by your statement I read that all sex is immoral. is that right? Even sex between a married coulpe? hmmm…just some observations.
But Christopher Hitchens is comparing himself/atheists to Christians, i.e., Christian morality. So whether you agree with that morality or not is of no import (because that was not relevant to the statement he made).
No, pseudo-morality that has nothing to do with protecting real people is considered invalid. Having (safe) sex is not harmful, and therefore not immoral. Just like being gay, working at a landfill, or anything else that makes you say “eww” is not immoral.
About this statement above, Didn’t god perceive slavery as OK since the beginning of civilizations, if you read the bible ?People perceived slavery as acceptable 250 years ago, that doesn’t mean God did.
And the time has come, sigh.About this statement above, Didn’t god perceive slavery as OK since the beginning of civilizations, if you read the bible ?![]()
I dunno, a slave is a slave.And the time has come, sigh.
Yes, but are you speaking of slavery in the time of Moses or slavery in the time of persecution of blacks? Very different form of slavery. Again, morals don’t change, people’s perception of them does. Case in point.
I dunno, a slave is a slave.
Well, that’s a good way to oversimplify it and reiterating what I noted. The subject has already been traversed in this forum and I’m sure there are others here who are better at debating slavery in antiquity with you.from where I sit, at one time god condoned it and later he (or his people actually interpreting things differently) condems it.
Furthermore, I think people were perceiving slavery itself much different than God did. Once again proving that perception evolves, not the basic right or wrong.About this statement above, Didn’t god perceive slavery as OK since the beginning of civilizations, if you read the bible ?![]()
Okay, I’ll try to find it in this forum when I have some time (I’m at work, and while it’s relatively easy to reply on the last few posts of a thread, searching will take some time.)Well, that’s a good way to oversimplify it and reiterating what I noted. The subject has already been traversed in this forum and I’m sure there are others here who are better at debating slavery in antiquity with you.
PM sings: “You are not alone…I am here with you…”I seem to be alone.![]()
I will offer this (however from a Christian POV), take the Hebrews who were delivered from “slavery” by the Romans in Exodus. If God had intended the persecution of humans in this manner, then He wouldn’t have freed them from it.Okay, I’ll try to find it in this forum when I have some time (I’m at work, and while it’s relatively easy to reply on the last few posts of a thread, searching will take some time.)
PM sings: “You are not alone…I am here with you…”
Too soon?![]()
![]()
![]()
Moral: [Good or right in conduct or character]How is adoring his creator moral?![]()
When we get down to it, faith is the basis for everyone, not just Theists. In real life, you have to make a value judgment for actions. That value is based on something you cannot prove beyond a doubt, therefore you base it on faith.The key word here is still faith![]()
So is a lack of one. It amazes me that people who appreciate science and reason so much would come to the conclusion that there is no meaning to the order that they see or nothing which gave them the ability to see that order in the first place. Instead, they loop around into their own causal framework, which is far more easier to disprove as the creator of the universe.Since “Creator” is still unproven, there are some problems with this statement.