Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:39 am

Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy.
or not

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:14 am

Skip wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:39 am
Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy.
or not
Have you ever said "You're right!" ? If so, congratulations; you're a philosopher! If not, you're either religious or much smarter than everyone else.

But you're right, it's not fair to say "everyone here", so I'll go with 99% ;) What I should have said is "seemingly everyone" since that's how it seems.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:55 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:14 am
But you're right, it's not fair to say "everyone here", so I'll go with 99% ;) What I should have said is "seemingly everyone" since that's how it seems.
Does it, to you?
I don't come here all that often anymore, so I don't know what the percentages are now. It does seem that there are more theists than there used to be - or at least they're louder - but I'm pretty sure we could scrape up more than 1 non-religious in a 100.


PS I have often agreed with other posters, but never in my life claimed to be a philosopher.
If not, you're either religious or much smarter than everyone else.
I applaud that distinction.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:58 pm

Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
[gratuitous insults deleted]....
Law does not equal social customs.
Shabby treatment is not prescribed by law.
[S - Americans are all the time discriminating against children because of their parentage, whether the parents did anything wrong or not, whether it's legal or not, and they've made plenty of laws from time to time, regarding all of the above. ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive ... Order_9066
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 07.00315.x
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics ... index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_ ... dy_defined
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -separated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... s_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
I give it to you, Skip, these laws do support your argument that Americans at one time or antoher (war times, for instance, or in pre-civic rights movement time) did pass laws that made discrimination law.
Those laws have been mainly stricken. I am not going to support my argument (that old-time discriminatory laws have been reversed or stricken) with examples, so you have the right to claim I was wrong. Or else you can research how Jim Crow laws, WWII anti-Japanese laws, etc. are no longer in effect.
-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:23 pm
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
That's not a blood-line; that's the entire species.
An entire species IS a blood line. All people are descendant of Adam and Eve, according to Christian faith.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
Were descended, up to the bifurcations where some lines became Jews, while others became Canaanites, Moabites, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc. Those are thenceforward treated as distinct bloodlines - and that's how the notion of bloodlines began. Jehovah didn't concern himself with those other peoples, except as they interacted with His own chosen people.
That distinction is still very much in evidence, not only in various laws and ideologies, but also within any single nation, where the racial divides are further subdivided into castes and family pedigrees. If it unified the human race, there would be no need for the concept at all.
I claim you are mistaken in understanding the concept "bloodline". I go out on a limb and I won't even check a dictionary, so you can prove me wrong again.

A bloodline is all the descendants of a couple. Put another way, a blood line is a continuous line of descending from a forefather, male or female or a couple.

A bloodline can be as short as two generations, and as long, as thousands of generations, as long as the people who are in the bloodline are descendants of a person or of a couple.

You may come back with a dictionary definition which proves me wrong, but I'm quite sure I'm right.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
This is a philosophy site, not a Christian theological website.
Mythology and religion owe no debt to logic. The text is available for all to read. If the subject were forbidden here, the thread would have been closed immediately upon its inception.
You are talking hot air. I never suggested you can't talk about this subject. For god's sake, the sub-forum is even called 'philosophy of religion." You are saying something but why? For what reason? To mean what? You are not making sense.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
Here, arguments based on logic win.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
When is the trophy to be presented?
If you are waiting for the presentation of the trophy, you have a long time to wait. But wait; you ARE used to waiting. Christians have been waiting for a promised action for two thousand years, which was promised to happen within two generations.

I actually don't buy your explanation that Eve and Adam did not make a mistake by eating the forbidden apple.

You, Skip, said:
"Taking a calculated risk on sound intelligence is not a mistake."
You also said:
"Sometimes the mistake is acting on incorrect information"

The point is that you clearly said, "It is a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing" and you said, in the same argument, "it is not a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing". You make bizarre arguments, and your arguments are resting on self-contradictory statements, therefore your argument is invalid.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
Yes, Adam and Eve made a mistake, and we are paying for it, according to Christian myth,
Post-Roman Christian dogma. Not the original myth.
That does not make a difference whether it's original or a later addition. It IS part of the Christian myth. Your argument is false, wrong.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm
If you classify as mistakes all actions that don't result in the best possible outcome in retrospect, you'll have to pardon all crime.
No, you don't have to pardon all crime with that condition in place. Your logic is not reasonable.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:10 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:24 am

I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.
There is a difference between potentiality and eventuality. If you can't see that, then you are logically blind, so to speak.

If potentiality IS INDEED EQUAL to eventuality, then we are, each of us individually and not collectively, all murderers, fathers, mothers, gays, straights, doctors, janitors, stonemasons, weightlifters, patients lying in coma, dying of malnutrition, romancing all blondes that come our way, like Hugh Heffner.

But obviously these POTENTIALITES are not EVENTUALITIES in human beings.

So your insight of not seeing a difference between potentiality and eventuality is wrong, very wrong ("wrong" in the logical sense, not in some religious or ethical sense.)

-------------

Your wrong opinion, "potentialities = eventualities" is borne out of the argument that was necessitated by the logical error in Christian dogma, which was presented by the OP. Your argument was easily shown to be wrong. The OP was right.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:21 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:31 am
Anyway, have you ever seen anyone change their mind? Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy.
I don't need you to change your mind. One or both of these two things is enough for me:

1. Your admitting that you are logically wrong, and your faith is based on ill, nonsensical, unreasonable logic. This you can give me, without changing your mind.

2. My having satisfactorily proven to those who are philosophers, and not only blind and devoted believers in some barbaric, outdated, ancient faith, that the said faith has been once again proven to be logically wrong.

There is another mistake you just made in your question. To you Christianity and atheism are both dogmas. No, that is not true. Christianity is dogma; atheism is not.

In a philosophical sense, the existence of god can't be proven or disproven conclusively. So a belief in god is NOT dogma, and a belief that there is no god is also not dogma. The dogma enters the sphere of our conversation when it is applied to a faith-based system that has obviously impossible things which it demands people believe. Christianity would not be dogma if they were not replete with logically impossible tenets. But they are. Whereas atheism contains not one, not one single self-contradiction. Atheists' faith is not self-contradictory, it contains no logical impossibilities, and therefore it is not a dogmatic faith.

You wrote "Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy." This claim by you is utterly wrong.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:38 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:58 pm
I give it to you, Skip, these laws do support your argument that Americans at one time or antoher (war times, for instance, or in pre-civic rights movement time) did pass laws that made discrimination law.
And therefore, Americans would not be appalled at such a practice; indeed, three of those laws are current, and there is clamour for more and stricter laws against various groups.
I claim you are mistaken in understanding the concept "bloodline".
You claim all you like.
A .. blood line is a continuous line of descending from a forefather, male or female or a couple. A bloodline can be as short as two generations
Not if every member of a species belongs to the same one. In that case, it began on the mythical sixth day and ends when the last human dies.

You are talking hot air. You are not making sense.
The point is that you clearly said, "It is a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing"
but not when you deliberately omit information in your possession.
and you said, in the same argument, "it is not a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing".
I don't think I said that, no.
God told A&E: Do not eat the fruit of that tree, lest you die.
The serpent told Eve: He won't kill you.
God didn't kill them.
[Post-Roman Christian dogma. Not the original myth. ]
That does not make a difference whether it's original or a later addition. It IS part of the Christian myth. Your argument is false, wrong.
No, the Christian version is wrong. Not by mistake, but by deliberate falsification.

Your logic is not reasonable.
Nor are your facts factual.
"At least there's symmetry."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:05 pm

Skip wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:38 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:58 pm
I claim you are mistaken in understanding the concept "bloodline".
You claim all you like.
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:58 pm
A .. blood line is a continuous line of descending from a forefather, male or female or a couple. A bloodline can be as short as two generations
Not if every member of a species belongs to the same one. In that case, it began on the mythical sixth day and ends when the last human dies.

You are talking hot air. You are not making sense.
You made it even more obvious that you don't understand the concept of "bloodline".

A bloodline can be a proper subset of another bloodline.

Peter Jones is the son of Paul Jones. This bloodline contains two generations.

Peter Jones is the father of John Jones, and the son of Paul Jones. This blood line contains three generations, while it contains two bloodlines of two generations each.

All three bloodlines are a proper subset of the human bloodline, created by Eve and Adam, according to Christian myth.

I hope this makes you properly understand the expression "bloodline".

The relevance of this educational exercise was to show you how you erroneously rejected the actually true argument, which said, "Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:10 pm

Skip wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:38 pm
You are talking hot air. You are not making sense.
The point is that you clearly said, "It is a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing"
but not when you deliberately omit information in your possession.
and you said, in the same argument, "it is not a mistake to make a decision while some information is missing".
I don't think I said that, no.
God told A&E: Do not eat the fruit of that tree, lest you die.
The serpent told Eve: He won't kill you.
God didn't kill them.
[Post-Roman Christian dogma. Not the original myth. ]
That does not make a difference whether it's original or a later addition. It IS part of the Christian myth. Your argument is false, wrong.
No, the Christian version is wrong. Not by mistake, but by deliberate falsification.

Your logic is not reasonable.
Nor are your facts factual.
"At least there's symmetry."
I can't touch this tirade of nonsense, Skip. You must have written it under the influence of anger. Your thoughts are jumbled, not coherent. Your references are not explained. Your quotes do not support your claims, and your claims are not related to the quotes.

Maybe on some level they are, but you are not expressing them properly. I think it would serve the debate better if you simply took some time to cool off and then compose humanly understandable and comprehensible text.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Tue May 01, 2018 1:50 am

The relevance of this educational exercise was to show you how you erroneously rejected the actually true argument, which said, "Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines."
The premise of Christianity is that the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses of sin those who believe on him, accept him as their saviour and renounce Satan and all his works.
This is a barbaric idea, but the blood in question is that of sacrificial victim.

If sin is said to "travel" at all, or to reside in blood, cite the biblical verse in which such a statement is made.

Sin is in the world; daemons, pleasures, craven images and strangers lurk everywhere to snare the unwary. Yet a number of Old Testament personalities were able to evade and overcome these temptations; to remain faithful to their god. The same blood was in Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Job, Esther, Noah, Ruth Joseph, Daniel and many others, including Jesus, yet God did not forsake or reject them because of Eve's and Adam's transgression.

Man is born in sin, not because of moral knowledge, but because he is conceived through carnal knowledge.
This is why Jesus had to be got upon a virgin. Same blood; no sex.

It only seems complicated because all religious belief is full of BS and self-contradiction.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Tue May 01, 2018 4:51 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:10 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:24 am

I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.
There is a difference between potentiality and eventuality. If you can't see that, then you are logically blind, so to speak.

If potentiality IS INDEED EQUAL to eventuality, then we are, each of us individually and not collectively, all murderers, fathers, mothers, gays, straights, doctors, janitors, stonemasons, weightlifters, patients lying in coma, dying of malnutrition, romancing all blondes that come our way, like Hugh Heffner.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Even the minutest transgression labels you a lawbreaker, so you may as well murder as tell a white lie.

Potentiality does indeed translate into eventuality because if you are capable of sinning, then you will sin. No child of Adam can withstand the temptation and deception.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
But obviously these POTENTIALITES are not EVENTUALITIES in human beings.

So your insight of not seeing a difference between potentiality and eventuality is wrong, very wrong ("wrong" in the logical sense, not in some religious or ethical sense.)
Whatever boss man.
Your wrong opinion, "potentialities = eventualities" is borne out of the argument that was necessitated by the logical error in Christian dogma, which was presented by the OP. Your argument was easily shown to be wrong. The OP was right.
It's not my opinion herr genius; it's the perspective of Christianity. Do you want to understand christianity or to you want to continue flattering your prowess of logic?

God has no potential to sin. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... an-god-sin

Those who have potential to sin, will sin. The wages of sin is death, so there is no death until you sin and therefore there is infinite time in which to sin and therefore any probability of sinning will translate into 100% in infinite time.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Tue May 01, 2018 5:19 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:21 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:31 am
Anyway, have you ever seen anyone change their mind? Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy.
I don't need you to change your mind. One or both of these two things is enough for me:

1. Your admitting that you are logically wrong, and your faith is based on ill, nonsensical, unreasonable logic. This you can give me, without changing your mind.

2. My having satisfactorily proven to those who are philosophers, and not only blind and devoted believers in some barbaric, outdated, ancient faith, that the said faith has been once again proven to be logically wrong.

There is another mistake you just made in your question. To you Christianity and atheism are both dogmas. No, that is not true. Christianity is dogma; atheism is not.
You're too hungup on religion and it's causing a myopia. People are dogmatic about everything: Vegans believe abstaining from meat is healthier and nothing nor no one could ever change their mind; flat-earthers will not accept any evidence that contradicts their worldview; everyone has an unsubstantiated opinion on climate that cannot be changed. People are robots and whatever ideology they happen to fall into, they will defend it to the death and even kill their own children on the altar of their dogmas rather than submit to reprogramming.
You wrote "Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy." This claim by you is utterly wrong.
:lol:

Yup, "utterly wrong". :roll:

You remind me of this:

In the future, employers may well begin to start testing these abilities in place of IQ; Google has already announced that it plans to screen candidates for qualities like intellectual humility, rather than sheer cognitive prowess.

The challenge will be getting people to admit their own foibles. If you’ve been able to rest on the laurels of your intelligence all your life, it could be very hard to accept that it has been blinding your judgement. As Socrates had it: the wisest person really may be the one who can admit he knows nothing.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015041 ... ing-clever

This is a good read too http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm ... bad-ideas/ Since you don't read links because you're too proud, I guess you'll not reap the benefits of insight, but those who don't know everything yet are welcome to peruse.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Tue May 01, 2018 5:25 am

Skip wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:55 am
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:14 am
But you're right, it's not fair to say "everyone here", so I'll go with 99% ;) What I should have said is "seemingly everyone" since that's how it seems.
Does it, to you?
I don't come here all that often anymore, so I don't know what the percentages are now.
By "here", do you mean planet earth? Humans are dogmatic... all of them... and nothing could ever change my mind ;)

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Tue May 01, 2018 9:49 am

Serendipper, you are showing that everyone is committed to an ideology; but you make the mistake of equating ideology to dogma.

Ideologies can be dogmatic or non-dogmatic. Yet you insist that all ideologies are dogmatic. You are wrong in this opinion.

Dogmatic means believing in dogmas; and dogmas are unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable ideologies.

Most ideologies can be argued to be dogmatic or not; some can be argued to be entirely non-dogmatic; but there are some ideologies that scream of dogmatism, because they are self-contradictory.

One of such self-contradictory dogmatic ideologies is Christianity. A member here, by the moniker "Serendipper" has set out to use the bible to oppose any selected opinion by others who use bible quote to support their claims on what the bible says. Serendipper is a very learned person, and s/he has performed his stated call very well. Anything that anyone says, and quotes the bible to support his or her view, and the view can be positive (bible-believier's statement) or antagonistic (an atheists' statement, for instance), as long as the user backs up his or her statement with what the bible says, Serendipper will shoot it down with a quote from the bible that says exactly the opposite thing that the other person claimed.

Serendipper, as I've witnessed it, knows the bible inside out, and superbly, and can quote any part without any or without much searching for the right passage.

So this is the folly of Serendipper: to oppose anyone who has any opinion based on the bible, and s/he supports his or her opinion by exact and relevant bible quotes right on the target.

=====================

Serendipper, if this is your life's calling, and admittedly it is; why do you oppose the opinion that the bible is self-contradictory, when in every turn you endeavour to prove the book is self-contradictory? How can you then say that the denial of its message is dogma?

You remind me of the two men who go to their rabbi, to settle a question. "Coen here borrowed ten dollars and hasn't paid me back. Tell him he has to pay me, because it's my money." The rabbi replies, "You're right." The other man pipes up, "Yes, but I haven't paid him back because his geese gave grazed the meadow I kept for my sheep to graze." The rabbi replies, "Yes, you're right." Then the first man pipes up again, "Hey, rabbi, we can't both be right!" The rabbi gets a bit taken aback by surprise, then says, "You're right!"

Your case is the same, except you keep saying, "you're wrong", no matter what people say about the bible.

However, since the bible you yourself have proved self-contradictory, in your opinion must be wrong. If you oppose those who say the bible is wrong,then you're wrong.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Tue May 01, 2018 9:56 am

Serendipper wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:51 am
It's not my opinion herr genius; it's the perspective of Christianity. Do you want to understand christianity or to you want to continue flattering your prowess of logic?
Why be so narrow-minded about this? Can't I do both? Why do you think I can't learn more and more how wrong Christianity is in logical terms, and can't learn at the same time the ideology, facts and descriptions about Christianity?

I am sure it is not impossible to do both.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests