2
   

Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

 
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2007 08:26 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
. . . Thus we see how an amoral A&E confronted a situation that had moral implications: they evaluated it on strictly non-moral grounds. At no time did they think that what they were doing was wrong, they only hesitated because they thought it might be dangerous.
And the fact that it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was irrelevant, eh?

And you are assuming this all took place in a matter of hours - that they really didn't have time to think about it, right?

I realize I have failed to convince the majority. That is my fault, not the fault of the proposition.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2007 11:09 pm
neologist wrote:

I realize I have failed to convince the majority.


Not only that, you have also failed to even address their objections to your argument.

neologist wrote:

That is my fault, not the fault of the proposition.


Perhaps. It is noteworthy that you have neither defined nor given us an example of just what would constitute a "good source of moral guidance".
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2007 11:47 pm
Points noted
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2007 09:15 am
neologist wrote:
And the fact that it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was irrelevant, eh?

To whom? A&E? Of course it was irrelevant to them. Genesis clearly states that they didn't know good and evil until after they ate the fruit from the tree. Before that, the words "good" and "evil" meant nothing to them.

neologist wrote:
And you are assuming this all took place in a matter of hours - that they really didn't have time to think about it, right?

I have no idea how long all of this took. Genesis provides absolutely no evidence on this point. But whether they had minutes or millenia to think about it, A&E most certainly didn't consider the moral implications of their actions.

neologist wrote:
I realize I have failed to convince the majority. That is my fault, not the fault of the proposition.

No, actually it's both.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2007 09:15 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Bingo . . . the Jesuits did not labor in vain.


They rarely do. However we rest confidently knowing you have and will continue to root out whatever defects can be found in their work product.


Or at least attempt to laugh them to scorn.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2007 11:19 am
Third alternative considered and noted.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Do Christians believe in ghosts? - Discussion by chemist
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Superstition and the Internet - Discussion by jespah
Religion in abundence - Discussion by Pharon
Save Craven - Discussion by dan-E
If 'things happen for a reason' - Discussion by bandylu2
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.37 seconds on 11/25/2009 at 03:59:54 Top End