1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29846
    07 Dec '18 00:34
    @secondson said
    You really ought to let God worry about that and try to respond to the main point being made in any given post.
    I think sonship's "main point" is that his God is going to do something about the medical doctor [while Lemonjello has no such belief] so I am asking sonship to say what - according to his beliefs - he thinks that 'something' is going to be in a case where the said medical doctor believes that Jesus died so that he can be "forgiven".
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29846
    07 Dec '18 00:36
    @secondson said
    Otherwise one might get the idea you're deflecting from the purpose and intent made in the post.
    I am asking sonship directly about the content of his post and how his beliefs apply to the scenario he used in it.
  3. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11952
    07 Dec '18 11:45

    Removed by poster

  4. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11952
    07 Dec '18 11:471 edit
    @fmf said
    Lemonjello has written a considerable amount about his thinking and his mindset. Where as he proposed a default mode of "anything goes"?
    Within a framework of atheism, 'everything goes' according to personal preference as long as you don't get caught, no matter how you try to spin it.
  5. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 14:552 edits
    @divegeester

    There is no evidence that cannibals eat their victims to obtain their “moral higher code”.

    You are making that up.


    I didn't say that. You thought that as you read other words.

    I said some cannibals ate their enemies to obtain their positive character traits.
    Ie. A brave warrior is killed and eaten to obtain the cooked man's good characteristics.
  6. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:021 edit
    @LemonJello

    It is precisely that sort of thinking that is systemically disallowed by many versions of theological voluntarism, and that’s why those versions are inherently childish.


    You really have this "More Grown Up Then Thou" attitude about thiests.

    Somewhere in this thread I asked who in human history would you recommend manifested the most moral maturity in human history.

    Excuse me you answered and I haven't see it yet.
    But valuing moral maturity I'd like to know who you think epitomizes utmost human morality.

    Would you accuse Jesus Christ of being "inherently childish" in this matter?
    Who would you recommend surpasses Jesus of Nazareth in communicating high human ethics?
  7. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:181 edit
    @FMF

    according to his beliefs - he thinks that 'something' is going to be in a case where the said medical doctor believes that Jesus died so that he can be "forgiven".


    The way you frame the question implies that Christ's redemption is not a part of what God would do in the matter of an accounting for every sin.

    The redemption of Christ is a part of God's dealing with actual guilt because of actual wrong doing because of actual true moral OUGHTS about life.

    My point was that God knows when the sinning doctor assumed no one else knew.
    The omniscience of God is related to the reality of a transcendent universal morality and ultimate obligation.
  8. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:201 edit
    - he thinks that 'something' is going to be in a case where the said medical doctor believes that Jesus died so that he can be "forgiven".


    The interesting thing is that many people WANT it that way when THEY are the victims.
    But when they have victimized another, their concern for accountability is less.

    This is called unequal or in-equal. The word INIQUITY carries this meaning - not equal.
    We are not equal.
    God is the ultimate Equalizer.

    But as to your question, the whole plan of Christ's redemption and justification is not separated from the transcendent Governor seeing to the scales of justice. It is a part of it.

    No, "A vindictive God's gonna GET YOU boy!!" was not the sole message of my doctor illustration.
  9. Devonshire
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86911
    07 Dec '18 15:21
    @sonship said
    @divegeester

    There is no evidence that cannibals eat their victims to obtain their “moral higher code”.

    You are making that up.


    I didn't say that. You thought that as you read other words.

    I said some cannibals ate their enemies to obtain their good moral characteristics.
    Ie. A brave warrior is killed and eaten to obtain the cooked man's good characteristics.
    What are you on about now?

    When did I post that LOL....
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:294 edits
    @divegeester said
    What are you on about now?

    When did I post that LOL....
    These are your words

    There is no evidence that cannibals eat their victims to obtain their “moral higher code”.


    I didn't write that cannibals eat their victims to obtain there "moral higher code."
    i wrote that they ate them to obtain their "positive character traits."

    Here it is:
    Let's take cannibalism. I have heard that in some societies cannibalism is a way for the eater to ingest the positive character traits of the person he is eating.


    What I am on about is how you inserted what you thought into what you read.
    Taking just a little more time to be careful, would help this.
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:411 edit

    Removed by poster

  12. Devonshire
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86911
    07 Dec '18 15:46
    @sonship said
    These are your words

    There is no evidence that cannibals eat their victims to obtain their “moral higher code”.


    I didn't write that cannibals eat their victims to obtain there "moral higher code."
    i wrote that they ate them to obtain their "positive character traits."

    Here it is:
    [quote] Let's take cannibalism. I have heard that in some socie ...[text shortened]... what you thought into what you read.
    Taking just a little more time to be careful, would help this.
    When was this?

    What are you a grave-digger?
  13. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8842
    07 Dec '18 15:591 edit
    @divegeester

    Do you object to a moral argument for God's existence in one form or another?
    Or are you just looking to be a comedian needling a Christian around for some entertainment?

    Would it surprise you that even cannibals have some sense of negative and positive character traits?
  14. Devonshire
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86911
    07 Dec '18 16:16
    @sonship said
    @divegeester

    Do you object to a moral argument for God's existence in one form or another?
    Or are you just looking to be a comedian needling a Christian around for some entertainment?

    Would it surprise you that even cannibals have some sense of negative and positive character traits?
    Why have you dug up this old post sonship?

    You ignored it for what, weeks...
  15. Standard membercaissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    San Antonio, Texas
    Joined
    08 Mar '04
    Moves
    615724
    07 Dec '18 16:40
    @dj2becker said
    The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argum ...[text shortened]... a real standard of good does exist to make "doing good" possible.

    https://carm.org/moral-argument
    The Abrahamic believers are certain that the belief in the existence of a singular god means that their god is THAT one. They are deluded.
    The Abrahamic religions are manmade.
    Their god was nowhere to be found for over 4 billion years. Their god didn't even exist 6000 years ago. Then they claim he showed up 2000 years ago and disappeared, never to appear again.
    Morality has nothing to do with any god, it is a purely a human belief. Associating morality with any singular god divides humanity, not unites it.
Back to Top