- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do American Christians support Israel?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:45 pm to TK421
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:45 pm to TK421
quote:It's neither unconvincing (generally speaking) nor sophomoric. It recognizes the truth that God is the only possible source for objective moral reasoning, and that if you reject that God, you are left with subjective moral reasoning, which when applied consistently, is nothing more than personal opinions and preferences.
This whole argument is unconvincing and sophomoric. As a Christian myself, I really hate Christians sometimes.
0
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:51 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Actually, I would assert that atheism has no rational basis for objective moral reasoning, and logically speaking, it's true.quote:
Atheism has no morals, it's true.
According to who? This sounds like a FMC assertion wherein he presupposes everything necessary to proclaim some alleged truth as irrefutable....but it’s actually just his preferred interpretation of a given principle.
Objective moral reasoning requires a standard that originates outside of the human experience, and for the atheist, there is no such standard. For those that believe in the biblical God, God is that standard. Therefore, if you reject the biblical God, you reject the basis for objective moral reasoning. Morality by necessity becomes nothing more than the opinions and preferences of individuals, just like a favorite flavor of ice cream. Except we don't lock people away or kill people for having a disagreement on ice cream flavors.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:53 pm to TK421
quote:
This whole argument is unconvincing and sophomoric. As a Christian myself, I really hate Christians sometimes.
It’s actually quite logical and accepted by a fair number of atheists, including some in this thread.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Mainstream Christian apologetics is almost entirely an argument AGAINST unbelief as opposed to an argument FOR the faith.
Eh, I'd say the heavy hitters like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright make arguments for faith.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:09 pm to Craig86
You went to a university and you expect to know the truth without having knowledge of the Bible?
Also Palestine is not a real place and Palestinians never existed before Arabs invaded Israel.
Also Palestine is not a real place and Palestinians never existed before Arabs invaded Israel.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Actually, I would assert that atheism has no rational basis for objective moral reasoning, and logically speaking, it's true.
While I agree, I think it’s important to distinguish true objective/universal morality from the perception of such morality. Most humans operate under the perception of a universal moral code (even most of those who violate it regularly) and some of us choose to believe that it actually is as it appears. Yes, that includes many atheists and I consider their arguments logically inconsistent.
The reason for the distinction is because, in practice, most of us have a similar moral framework and just differ on where it comes from and whether or not it is truly a code ordained by a higher authority. And because this is what we would expect to see (as our society wouldn’t exist without such widespread perceptions) it’s not a particularly convincing argument for God. What we see is what we MUST see in order for us to have the ability to have the discussion at all.
The absence of a universal moral code doesn’t preclude the perception and practice of such a code. And in fact, we couldn’t exist as an integrated society without one. And if we believe that society as constructed is a bette remand of propagating the species than blind amoral anarchy (and the evidence is overwhelming that it is) then it would stand to reason our evolutionary history has selected for traits and cognitive pathways conducive to the current behaviors we define as moral. In that scenario, no objective universal code is needed to explain why we think and behave as if there is one. In this scenario blindly murdering children is always wrong in practice if not in theory, and we still have a basis for punishing those who do so. The only difference is no universal judgement awaits any of us, which I understand is very disconcerting on some level. It’s disheartening to believe Adolf Hitler “got away with it” so to speak. But that may just be the way it is.
This post was edited on 5/19/21 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:51 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
Also Palestine is not a real place and Palestinians never existed before Arabs invaded Israel.
What?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:56 pm to TK421
quote:
Eh, I'd say the heavy hitters like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright make arguments for faith.
And not coincidentally these are the ones that openly struggle with their faith the most. CS Lewis openly admitted to spending large portions of his life believing only for the sake of believing, and often had to convince himself of the theology of Christianity.
Run of the mill mainstream Christian apologetics in the 21st century rarely ventured into the realm of specific theology. Most arguments center around the misplaced idea that the universe could not exist as it does if not for God, essentially just making it an argument for theism and against atheism.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:The perception of a universal moral code that doesn't exist is incoherence. The point of calling out the lack of objective moral reasoning apart from God is precisely to demonstrate the incoherence of a worldview that demands people live as if one exists while not providing the basis for it to exist in the first place.
While I agree, I think it’s important to distinguish true objective/universal morality from the perception of such morality. Most humans operate under the perception of a universal moral code (even most of those who violate it regularly) and some of us choose to believe that it actually is as it appears. Yes, that includes many atheists and I consider their arguments logically inconsistent.
The argument is that the Christian worldview is to be preferred because it provides a rational and consistent basis for the universal moral code that people perceive to exist.
quote:I agree that what we see is what we must see in order for us to have the ability to have the discussion, but the distinction between the perception and the reality is important. Basically you're saying that atheists don't have to be logically consistent with their worldviews because we, as a society, must still live as if there is a universal moral imperative. This is exactly why some of us say that atheists have to borrow from a Christian worldview in order to justify themselves. They live and act as if morality is objective yet reject the only basis for that moral objectivity in God.
The reason for the distinction is because, in practice, most of us have a similar moral framework and just differ on where it comes from and whether or not it is truly a code ordained by a higher authority. And because this is what we would expect to see (as our society wouldn’t exist without such widespread perceptions) it’s not a particularly convincing argument for God. What we see is what we MUST see in order for us to have the ability to have the discussion at all.
quote:This is more support for the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview that rejects the source of objective morality. You admit that people have to live as if morality is objective and universally applicable yet provide no basis for why it is that way, but to the contrary, appear to be agreeing that there are no moral absolutes in such a worldview.
The absence of a universal moral code doesn’t preclude the perception and practice of such a code. And in fact, we couldn’t exist as an integrated society without one. And if we believe that society as constructed is a bette remand of propagating the species than blind amoral anarchy (and the evidence is overwhelming that it is) then it would stand to reason our evolutionary history has selected for traits and cognitive pathways conducive to the current behaviors we define as moral. In that scenario, no objective universal code is needed to explain why we think and behave as if there is one.
I believe it's evidence that God exists, His moral law is written on the hearts of mankind, and Romans 1 is right when it says that everyone knows there's a God yet reject Him and suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It's evident by the fact that people are desperate for objective morality to exist but have no way to justify its existence apart from the God they reject. It results in an incoherent and irrational worldview and proves that the fool says in his heart, "there is no God". You have to be a fool to reject the only source for the thing you desperately cling to.
This post was edited on 5/19/21 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Just geology and biology then. It must be nice to just pick and choose
I don't reject "science" at all.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:35 pm to AlxTgr
quote:I'm not rejecting entire disciplines just because I reject certain conclusions or interpretations of the evidence.
Just geology and biology then. It must be nice to just pick and choose
Posted on 5/19/21 at 3:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:The list of things you reject from those two must be staggering. How can you trust science on the rest? I mean, they get some of this amazing shite right, and some wrong?
I'm not rejecting entire disciplines just because I reject certain conclusions or interpretations of the evidence.
You can't truly believe this way. You know deep down all mammals evolved from synapsids.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 4:05 pm to AlxTgr
quote:There is a big difference between observational science and historical science. One can be tested, repeated, and falsified, while the other? Not so much.
The list of things you reject from those two must be staggering. How can you trust science on the rest? I mean, they get some of this amazing shite right, and some wrong?
quote:I believe this way, and no, I don't know deep down that all mammals evolved from synapsids. I believe that all living things share a common designer but I believe they were all created separately. I'm not a deist that believes a god spun everything up and let it go on its own, including evolution of life. I believe in purposeful, intentional design, not life by chance and time.
You can't truly believe this way. You know deep down all mammals evolved from synapsids.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 4:13 pm to Craig86
do you realize the bible is 85% old testament? both christians and jews share that
Posted on 5/19/21 at 5:32 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
This is how you ignore the behemoth of Job 40.
So you’re one of those crazies that think humans lived with dinosaurs?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 7:54 pm to Craig86
Why do most leftists support the raghead terrorists?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 8:19 pm to Craig86
God had a plan. To have his son die for our sins. Who else was gonna have him crucified to make it happen? Maybe we should thank the Jews for making it possible for us to know Jesus and his teachings and make it to heaven.
Posted on 5/20/21 at 5:43 am to OleWar
quote:
Modern American Christians who have no grasp of history or Church Tradition and then given a large amount of propaganda paid for by Israel directly to their ministers, to also mobilize them to support Republicans in the 1980s.
This is so ignorant and false, it's laughable.
Posted on 5/20/21 at 6:38 am to bayoumuscle21
quote:
Modern American Christians who have no grasp of history or Church Tradition and then given a large amount of propaganda paid for by Israel directly to their ministers, to also mobilize them to support Republicans in the 1980s.
The person with no grasp of history, is the author of this tripe.
Posted on 5/20/21 at 7:23 am to bluedragon
quote:
he person with no grasp of history, is the author of this tripe.
It's true though.
Page 16 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News