How many contradictions in your belief system before you'd leave it?

One of the Saints I love most is Sir Thomas Morus - a humanist and Englishman. He lived 1478-1535. The Secularisation in my country was in 1806. And when I read the book of Mr. Dawkin "The selfish gen" I asked myselve how this man was able to think that matter has any psychological structure. Whatever. His philosophy is in my agnostic eyes a little strange. I don't see any reason why someone tries to make his own personal belief in atheism to a basics of natural science. In the fanatics surround this thoughts I heard even people say they don't like to allow Christians any longer to study sciences in universities.

What you say here is less than intelligent - it shows from my point of view on the world even a bad character and not only a bad knowledge.

No comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEt2XdN_TbQ

 

Allow me to poke a hole in the argument you've just posited. Do you believe morality is subjective or objective? Be careful how you answer this if you consider secular humanism to be reality-based and non-contradictory.

 

How about if we ask you if you ever indulge in situation ethics. Or moral relativism,

 

How about you just answer my question instead of trying to redirect it?

 

You didnt ask me the Q. We all know you, like anyone else, does moral relativism and situation ethics.
Do you know it?

 

Modern Secular Humanism's moral baseline is along the lines of "what's best for humanity?". Religion's moral baseline is basically "what does an ancient barbaric book say to do?" Religious people rarely think for themselves, or of course they'd have improved the Bible/Qur'an every decade without fail. They don't, because they are not as moral as modern Secular Humanists.

 

You still didn't answer my question. I'll ask again. Do you believe morality is subjective or objective? In other words, is there one absolute universal moral truth for everyone? Or does morality differ from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era?

 

Some moralities are better than some other moralities. As we learn more about the world (such as learning that having sex with kids like Mohammad did is not good for the kid), we are able to make more moral decisions, so I believe that the most advanced era (today) would be able to know a better morality than when they, for example, thought that slavery was ok. So Mohammad was immoral, even if it was (just say) moral in his generation....at least TODAY he would not be a good role model.

The Hindu culture devalues the Untouchables and women, of course. It is not a moral as modern Secular Humanism (people like Dawkins) because he's far more fair and compassionate to devalue Untouchables and women, of course. So yes, some cultures are more moral than others. The Nazi culture was not as moral as my morality, for example.

(BTW, Jesus never spoke against slavery, so he's not a good role model for today, even though he saw slavery all around him and claimed to be a moral teacher.)

 

Jesus never spoke about littering or beastiality or cannabilism. Does that mean, ipso facto, he was a supporter of these things?

 

Why do you keep dodging the question? It's very simple. Just choose one. Subjective or objective. You keep bobbing and weaving here without actually answering what I'm asking you. Is it safe to assume that you believe morality is subjective? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying here. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Just clarify for me real quick so I understand your position.

 

In 'Breaking Bad' the Jessie character thought he killed his GF. He went to a touchy-feely secular recovery program to get sober and off drugs. There, instead of invoking a higher power (as in AA) Jesse got told to accept who he really is. Jesse uses secular logic and says: "I learned it in rehab. It's all about accepting who you really are. I accept who I am." Walter says: "And who are you" Jesse says: "Im the bad guy."

There you have it the absolutely perfect secular, morally relevant conclusion. No moral problem there. He's just a bad guy that's all. That's his relative moral position.

 

There are no contradictions in Christianity for Christians. Contradictions only exist to those outside of it, for the minute a person gives their heart to Christ, God reveals Himself to them.

 

Does the smilie indicate sarcasm?
Are you saying truth is relative, one for believers, one for others?

 

I thought that was the Christian position.
Original sin. No one is good, no not one.
Aren't you the bad guy, so you need a savior?

 

Jesus did speak about the issue of cannibalism. He highly recommended it and told his listeners that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood if they wanted to have eternal life. That disgusted a lot of them and they stopped following him.

 

There is some Christian dogma that points to an original sin inherited from Adam who defied God and created the Fall of Man. His sin is inherited by all his descendents (basically everyone) in many Christian sects. Modern Judaism and Islam both teach we are born sin-free and untainted. I would say, however, that negative forces seem to have a greater impact in this world. Baptism is a symbolic ceremony reminding folks that the world is not a positive place overall. We are all born into it. Parents are reminded that they are now responsible for this little soul's introduction in the world.

However, interesting as that was, my post was addressing the more secular view that one needs to accept who they are. There is no moral judgement, just a very logical thought process that one should be sanguine with who they are. If one is a rapist...for instance...then that is who they are. Right? After all, that rapist has their own moral code....right?

 

Oh but it does.
For you.
Unless you are now "secular".

 

Ezekiel tossed the original sin idea in the trash can when he preached that everyone is only responsible for his own sins and no one else's.

 

So what?

 

What is "humanity" for this what you call "modern secular humanism"? Where are existing for example antireligious humanists, who are fighting for unborn human beings and their unalienable human right to live?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpDXKtY-4G4

 

Not only this: we are even eating aborted babies in our church services and we are dying on it.

[video=youtube;Fo5bB0dbc6g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo5bB0dbc6g[/video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1JScWuKnI0

 

As nobody thinks that way, its certainly not a "secular" position, perhaps the thing to do is to just clear up your own misunderstandings.

 

Taking what one thinks he understood from reading the Bible, assuming he knows the whole story back through the middle ages, as representing the whole story would be both childish of him and diametrically opposed to what we can all read, that the book is closed to us.


2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

 

Many things expressed as a metaphor, out of the necessity generated by the ignorance of the actual facts.
When one reads literature, the comprehensive reader is supposed to try an make sense out of what he reads.
If he decides the opposite, and looks to ridicule a metaphor and mock what he reads as nonsense, a whole series of written genre are denied him.

Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels become silly wasted time to either read or write.
But, in no case is the author the ignoramus, but the individual reader.

 

i bet the problem was your poor reading comprehension.