hey athiests! i'm chatting with a person from liberty university on yahoo

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Theologians themselves disagree on this, and they disagree with the priests and ministers, who disagree with each other.
So what's your point?
That is just one of the interpretations. What makes this more correct than other interpretations?

Well, I hate to do the whole Orthodox-in-your-face thing, but we've agreed on pretty much everything I just said from the beginning. It checks out biblically, comes more or less directly from apostolic succession, and actually makes a lot of sense compared to the more Western notion of God as IRS-auditor-in-the-sky. The distortions of heretics aren't really our concern. Every discipline has its lunatic fringe. Ours just happens to be one heckuva big fringe.

[GePap]

And who is we? did I miss the bit about you being a Christian theologian?

Even if the interpretation of hell is what your Christian theologian would say:
1. It does nothing to counter what Nietzsche said, given that under that interpretation the omnipotent being enforces no punishment, (whih is what Nietzsche says they would do)
2. The fact that the percetion of Hell as eternal punishment for sins is central to the perception of hell by the majority of Christians goes along with what he says: that many enjoy the vindictive idea of hell as a ay to get back at those that lsighted them in this life: and thus like hell becuase it will give them vicarous enjoyment through the suffering of otehrs later.

[Elok]

We: the Orthodox Christian Church. On thi board it's just me and Paiktis, but there are a sizable number of us in the world who know what we are talking about. And while I am not a theologian personally, I have read actual, intelligent theological works(i.e. discussions of God by people who actually sat down to think), as opposed to the inane 700 Club babble most of this board is apparently basing its derision on.
And the essence of the Christian faith was, and is, not, repeat NOT, what individual people think. That would be philosophy. For us a single person's ideas are a drop of water that may or may not be worth adding to our pond. So if "most Christians" have a perverted notion of recompense that doesn't mean squat except that they need a talking to. 100 different points of view means a minimum of 99 heresies so far as the hierarchy is concerned. The last one might be wrong too, which is about as far as any right-thinking religion(SAVA: insert snide comment here) will go to embrace the modern concept of moral relativism-a shorthand phrase for "everybody's right, and by right we mean absolutely nothing"-an idea intrinsically antagonistic to any religion. Isn't that the main reason you hate us so much?
And looking at this from a Skinnerian carrot-and-stick point of view is missing the whole point. I don't remember much from my intro to psych course, but one part left a deep impression on me: the bit about moral development in children. Until around six, rules are obeyed for "Pre-conventional" reasons, namely that breaking them may result in punishment. Then comes the conventional phase, where rules are obeyed for their own sake, and then post-conventional around adolescence, wherein the child begins to contemplate the broader and more important reasons behind the law. A religion that works on the mere threat of punishment is therefore, in a sense, infantile. A Christian with discernment understands that vice works to his/her detriment and that of others in life and beyond. I'm not claiming that we Orthodox are the only ones with the sense to see it, but that of all churches we place the most emphasis on teaching the idea. Haven't you realized by this point in your life that the opinions of majorities tend to be misguided?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If that was what God wanted me to do, why would I have a problem with it? Since God obviously has more information than me, and I trust him completely, it will be better for everyone if I do what he commands.

So you are willing to be a mindless automaton? Is that what it takes to go to heaven?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I would take an awful lot of persuading to believe that the command was coming from God though.

A large booming voice in mid-air good enough for you? Or do you prefer having video also?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Think of it this way. Imagine you are in a mall and you see a policeman chasing someone. The policeman has a gun and shouts for everyone to get down; he is going to shoot the guy running away. Do you assualt the policeman because he is going to commit murder, or do you trust the policeman since he has more info than you have?

This doesn't work as an analogy. First of all, the policeman is working in an established frame of law, he cannot create a new frame like your god can. Secondly, each and every policeman is instructed to shoot only at the legs of fleeing suspects, not committing any murders as you said. Thirdly, it is not too difficult for me to find out if there's indeed a fleeing suspect in a mall.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What is your justification for saying that murder is wrong?

Evolutionarily, murder is wrong because we are predisposed genetically to think that way. Any other tribe that did not forbade against murder (inside the tribe) would have been wiped out somewhere along the way. Sociologically, murder is wrong because it destablises the society. If I were an Utilitarian I'd say it reduces overall happiness. Morally, murder is wrong because nobody has a right over another person's life.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Is it wrong because it 'feels' wrong?

Intuition is generally your subconsciousness working. You can arrive at the same conclusion when you sit down and think about it.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Would murdering Hitler 'feel' wrong too?

Please define the context first.

[Godwin's Law, here I come...]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, I hate to do the whole Orthodox-in-your-face thing, but we've agreed on pretty much everything I just said from the beginning.

We as in?

Originally posted by Elok
It checks out biblically, comes more or less directly from apostolic succession

Where in the bible supports your interpretation?

Originally posted by Elok
The distortions of heretics aren't really our concern. Every discipline has its lunatic fringe. Ours just happens to be one heckuva big fringe.

So "we" are a big bunch of heretics?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So you are willing to be a mindless automaton? Is that what it takes to go to heaven?

Why does listening to God's word make me any more of an 'automaton' than your touchy feely 'I feel what is right' morlality? If your morality is set in stone somewhere, or developed by evolution, then your basis is just as arbitrary? Do you like being a slave to your environment?

A large booming voice in mid-air good enough for you? Or do you prefer having video also?

You have a strange idea of God. If I heard 'a large booming voice I think I would probably go see a doctor.

Evolutionarily, murder is wrong because we are predisposed genetically to think that way. Any other tribe that did not forbade against murder (inside the tribe) would have been wiped out somewhere along the way. Sociologically, murder is wrong because it destablises the society. If I were an Utilitarian I'd say it reduces overall happiness.

But not every murder is evolutionarily disadvantageous. In fact, it is probably evolutionarily advantageous to kill the weak and disabled at birth. So why is that not morally correct for you? (or is it? )

Morally, murder is wrong because nobody has a right over another person's life.

You are just basing one moral imperative upon another. In history there are a lot of people who would have said there was nothing imoral about having the 'right over another person's life'.

Intuition is generally your subconsciousness working. You can arrive at the same conclusion when you sit down and think about it.

I hope you are not trying to claim that morality can be proven

[Elok]

No, heresy is a distortion of the faith. I'd say you're more infidels, or heathen.

[Az]

so what sounds more sexy?

[Boris Godunov]

Heathen. Sounds similar to "heaving," as in "heaving chests."

[Az]

I was thinking heathen myself, but that's because infidel reminds me of Castro.

[Elok]

Well, Sava can be apostate...I don't know if the rest of you have sufficient background. Maybe blasphemers. I leave the nomenclature up to you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
I leave the nomenclature up to you.

Okay.

"Right."

[Az]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why does listening to God's word make me any more of an 'automaton' than your touchy feely 'I feel what is right' morlality?

Strawman. Where did I say that?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If your morality is set in stone somewhere, or developed by evolution, then your basis is just as arbitrary?

How so? According to this dictionary, arbitrary is:

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

I would like to see you to show that my basis of a moral code is as arbitrary as yours, which is based on the whim of an unknowable, individual being.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Do you like being a slave to your environment?

Let see. If you can walk through the Sahara desert without a drop of water, we can declare that your environment has little impact to you. So are you better?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You have a strange idea of God. If I heard 'a large booming voice I think I would probably go see a doctor.

That's not my idea. A lot of Christians have said they heard their god talking to them. Scary, I know.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
But not every murder is evolutionarily disadvantageous. In fact, it is probably evolutionarily advantageous to kill the weak and disabled at birth. So why is that not morally correct for you? (or is it? )

Unless you can show that the weak and the disabled could not contribute to the tribe as a whole, killing them would be disavantageous. Besides, in the prehistoric times, they would be weeded out by the environment anyway.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You are just basing one moral imperative upon another.

How so? Maybe mine was a statement of values, but not all statements of values are moral statements.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
In history there are a lot of people who would have said there was nothing imoral about having the 'right over another person's life'.

Most of them were Christians. Hm, this doesn't bode well for you.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I hope you are not trying to claim that morality can be proven

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel


I was thinking heathen myself, but that's because infidel reminds me of Castro.

Why?