I don't think I did that. I said that I am the measure of what is moral for myself just as you are for yourself.
I do not agree with that view. I accept that I have limitations, and I am very flawed. From observation, all humans are, as is demonstrated.
I do not think more of myself than I ought to. Or think that I know all there is to be known about life, and the result of our actions.
I am the not the measure of what is moral for myself.
If I judged a distance to be say, 10 meters, and someone took a measuring line, and measured the distance at 8 meters, I would accept the measure of the measuring line, as what is the correct distance.
In the same way, I may have a view based on my own thoughts, ideas, etc. However, I would change that view to fit the measure of what is moral from the measuring line of God's word.
We all do. You do as well.
That's not true. Have you asked everyone? Perhaps try it. You might be surprised.
Or are you just making a claim. Can you support such a claim?
If not, I would suggest you speak for yourself, and not assume to be a spokesman for everyone on this.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but when you advocate for Christian morals, you are judging it as morally excellent.
You are right. I do not realize it, because I do not hold to your view on this.
I am agreeing to what is considered moral excellence, by the one with that right. I do not consider myself as judging it.
I suppose though, it depends on how we are using the word judging.
From the way you seem to be using it, in one sense, I disagree, but in the other sense, I would agree.
We consider something to be as it is, in light of the results it gives... if that's what you mean.
If you mean however, that we get to judge what is moral excellence, I disagree. i don't do that.
As I said before, I conform to what is considered moral excellence, by the one with the right to decide what is.
So, for example, if God says, it's not a moral excellence, to have sexual intercourse with someone you have sexual desire for, I do not judge that it is right, because there is no harm in doing so.
I disagree. Prove to whom and why?
Those whom you claim yourself morally upright to. Why? Because you claim that to go contrary, is immoral.
An example, is where you claim that the humanist's thinking is moral, in a number of things you mentioned.
I'm not asking you to adopt my moral values. I'm telling you what I believe and why.
Um. you are telling me why the Christian way of life is immoral. You are also asking me to show that it is not.
This is also frequently a sensitive issue with Abrahamic believers, who have been conditioned to have an emotional response to the questioning their god. They see atheism and skepticism as an affront to their god and scriptures, and atheists as undisciplined hedonists trying to hide from gods they actually believe in and usurp their authority. You seem to be offended that I consider myself the moral authority in my life. Isn't that why I'm reading these 'Who do you think you are, upstart?' type of comments?
I'm seeing what you are clearly saying, but trying to hide it in the face of a challenge against it... namely that you cannot demonstrate that you, or any atheist have any claim on what is morally excellent.
I don't believe in an objective morality existing outside of the minds of moral agents, and I don't believe in gods. My moral compass is anchored in compelling and irresistible moral intuition - what feels right. Why?
So your moral compass is based on what feels right to you.
Thank you for that honest confession. I hope that's due to my backing you in that corner.
The others usually run away, rather than come clean.
First, it has served me well to date. Second, I would be its prisoner even were that moral intuition counterproductive, since I suffer shame, guilt, regret, and often remorse when I defy it, and moral satisfaction when I obey it.
Okay. Sounds like a conscience that is being trained, by "what feels right to you".
I suppose that's understandable, if one does not think there is any guide, or instruction manual for human life.
You probably think that's experience. Would I be correct in saying that?
That was in response to, "There are plenty of other good reasons to divorce." Yes, that's my opinion and obviously, many others share it.
Of course.
Many think having an "affair" - an immoral relationship with another's marriage mate is okay, also.
What's your view of that?
So you give yourself permission to assign whatever meaning to the words you like and declare it as fact?
No. I consider the context, rather than ignore it.
OK. That'll be my mindset for the next comment.
Oh dear.
Yes, he did. You didn't understand the scripture properly. I was just being polite when I wrote that Jesus probably meant that you should cut off a hand literally. He definitively meant it literally. Why can I say that? Because those are our rules for interpreting scripture. You established them just now if not earlier. Words mean whatever we declare them to mean. You say he didn't, I say he did. I'm sure that you believe that you special insight thanks to the Holy Spirit, but I have the discernment of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
No. That's just not being reasonable... but can we expect anything different, when as I pointed out to you, earlier...
we know the general response.
the atheist presenting the claim is not listen to anyone but himself.
the atheist never gives a response acknowledging his error, when shown.
it becomes then, a pointless exercise, where we spend precious time, on a finger-tapping exercise.... only to hear what...
I have had this experience numerous times.
And that kind of comment offends many believers as well. How dare I compare the two or profane the Spirit, right? My point is to show that your position is no sounder than mine and mine no less sound than yours. Of course, I probably use different standards to judge such things than you do. There is no emotional component to my analysis. Your opinions don't offend me.
If you read my posts without the real aspect, I pointed out earlier, you would realize, it is not a case of being offended, but pointing out things.
I'm entitled to that as well. Not just the atheist.
The atheist don't seem to like the Christian pointing out anything.
The atheist likes to be the one doing the pointing out. ....and everything is fine.
All appetites and desires are automatic responses. Likewise with esthetic and spiritual experiences. When we are in the presence of that which moves us, we are moved.
Remember, you are basing this on your experience, based on what feels good to you.
So this is not an actual fact. It's rather, your feelings, which you think is normal.
No more than seeing an appealing sandwich and thinking that it would be a good sandwich is either immoral or the same as eating it. Your values were given to you by an ancient religion, values that evolved when life was much different. Life has changed, and many of those rules are now counterproductive. I would call your belief that finding a person sexually appealing is a moral failing immoral. It's irrational and arbitrary, and serves as a source of guilt for those who finds some strangers attractive.
Some people call that being
lickerish.
In part. My words are my thoughts. Your words are yours. This about what we both think.
Is that more of you chiding me for my autonomy and self-determination? I'm getting a Sunday school teacher vibe from you that you want to tell me to stand down and cease asserting myself, to submit to religious dogma.
No. I'm just pointing out what I was telling you from the beginning.
