This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

After many years, I've decided that debating the attributes of the Christian god

#41TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/5/2012 12:31:04 PM
Far421 posted...
Edit: I note that there is a big difference between arguing that moral compasses are derived from god's nature and defining it to be so or flatly stating that it is with no backup. You are doing the latter, and thereby changing the term.


I have been explaining my beliefs from the beginning of this thread, which was about my beliefs. I have never said and would never say that I know my beliefs to be true for a fact or that I can prove it to you. I am simply defending my theology because that is what this thread has been about (as I was the person the TC was talking to).
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#42TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/5/2012 12:35:03 PM
In fact, arguing that moral compasses are derived from God's nature is exactly what I have been doing O.o
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#43Far421Posted 12/5/2012 2:17:42 PM(edited)
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Far421 posted...
Edit: I note that there is a big difference between arguing that moral compasses are derived from god's nature and defining it to be so or flatly stating that it is with no backup. You are doing the latter, and thereby changing the term.


I have been explaining my beliefs from the beginning of this thread, which was about my beliefs. I have never said and would never say that I know my beliefs to be true for a fact or that I can prove it to you. I am simply defending my theology because that is what this thread has been about (as I was the person the TC was talking to).


What I'm more concerned about is the claim made in the title of the thread. Your defenses seem to largely consist of playing with words and making assumptions/suppositions that aren't even Biblically supported, as far as I can tell. These sort of antics render the discussion pointless because things in philosophy are never so well defined that you can't be sneaky and make a loophole.

The whole moral compass discussion seems to have gone nowhere. If I understand, you want to explain moral compasses as being derived from wanting to be like god, thereby making the urges it represents in line with your definition of objective goodness. (An aside: I still disagree that that is in line with the normal use of the term. Discussions of moral compasses are a red herring because you're defining those differently, too, so that any relation between the words using the "usual" definitions need not be preserved.) However, I believe that there are studies showing that what one would call a "moral compass" is something that is built up in a nurture type fashion. Some people are inclined to feel morally obligated to do things that your version of god would discourage because of their upbringing and the like.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#44TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/5/2012 2:09:46 PM
Far421 posted...
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Far421 posted...
Edit: I note that there is a big difference between arguing that moral compasses are derived from god's nature and defining it to be so or flatly stating that it is with no backup. You are doing the latter, and thereby changing the term.


I have been explaining my beliefs from the beginning of this thread, which was about my beliefs. I have never said and would never say that I know my beliefs to be true for a fact or that I can prove it to you. I am simply defending my theology because that is what this thread has been about (as I was the person the TC was talking to).


What I'm more concerned about is the claim made in the title of the thread. Your defenses seem to largely consist of playing with words and making assumptions/suppositions that aren't even Biblically supported, as far as I can tell. These sort of antics render the discussion pointless because things in philosophy are never so well defined that you can't be sneaky and make a loophole.

To be edited...


I havent played with words at all O.o I have just laid out logical truths for my, yes, Biblically founded theology. If you think it was just playing with words, I suspect you havent been reading very thoroughly. Nothing sneaky about it. Just pushing an interpretation of the universe.
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#45Far421Posted 12/5/2012 2:29:45 PM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Far421 posted...
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Far421 posted...
Edit: I note that there is a big difference between arguing that moral compasses are derived from god's nature and defining it to be so or flatly stating that it is with no backup. You are doing the latter, and thereby changing the term.


I have been explaining my beliefs from the beginning of this thread, which was about my beliefs. I have never said and would never say that I know my beliefs to be true for a fact or that I can prove it to you. I am simply defending my theology because that is what this thread has been about (as I was the person the TC was talking to).


What I'm more concerned about is the claim made in the title of the thread. Your defenses seem to largely consist of playing with words and making assumptions/suppositions that aren't even Biblically supported, as far as I can tell. These sort of antics render the discussion pointless because things in philosophy are never so well defined that you can't be sneaky and make a loophole.

To be edited...


I havent played with words at all O.o I have just laid out logical truths for my, yes, Biblically founded theology. If you think it was just playing with words, I suspect you havent been reading very thoroughly. Nothing sneaky about it. Just pushing an interpretation of the universe.


You've played with words a lot in your discussion with me.

Now, I don't claim to be super well read on the Bible, but can you provide passages that clearly state the following?

1. God's morality is objectively correct, not merely one that we should follow to avoid his wrath/punishment/something like that.

2.Our innate feelings about morality are driven by wanting to be like god, even if we don't believe in god.

3. Morality is something god is, not merely something he imposes.

If not, you're just making stuff up.

Also, the whole god-is-infinite-and-doesn't-care-about-finite-things bit is clearly wrong according to the Bible, because he makes it clear that he cares a lot in there.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#46gamesrgreatPosted 12/6/2012 3:27:22 AM
I basically agree TC. I've debated that kind of thing before and while I respect the people and the logic of their positions I find that to me the method makes the discussion somewhat pointless. It feels like there are too many unjustified assumptions and it is almost as one poster suggested where one can make up whatever they like about god to make things make sense.
---
D-Jesus, Christ Bosh, King James 3:16
The Miami Heat 2012 Champs- Miller Time