Famous People Who You've Changed Your Opinion On

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It’s not about what would or wouldn’t have happened without religion. It’s a logical conclusion that if there are absolute standards there is an absolute standard. You agree with the first part but not the second so it’s for you to show why there are absolute standards but no absolute standard since your worldview diverts logic here. 

At the risk of further ruining everyone's day what do you mean by absolute standard(/s)? And why the existence of one necessarily prove the existence of God as described in the Bible?

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

At the risk of further ruining everyone's day what do you mean by absolute standard(/s)? And why the existence of one necessarily prove the existence of God as described in the Bible?

[CosbehFox]

Captain Tom Moore has played a blinder. 
 

Raised millions for NHS and now he’s fcuked off to Barbados 

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

At the risk of further ruining everyone's day what do you mean by absolute standard(/s)? And why the existence of one necessarily prove the existence of God as described in the Bible?

If objective morality exists, it follows logically that an objective standard exists. By objective I mean an absolute, for example if something is always wrong, there must be a transcendent reason for that otherwise it’s subjective to each person or

culture. 

I don’t believe it’s possible for their to be an absolute set of standards if there isn’t an author of those standards. 

Therefore to reject God in my opinion, you’d need to either accept that there isn’t such a thing as a universal right or wrong or have a good explanation for how it’s possible for something to always be wrong without an absolute standard of right and wrong. 
 

Granted this argument is for any monotheistic God, not necessarily the Christian one. 
 

just a side note, as I don’t want unfair resentment from

folk in here for “spouting my religious nonsense” as some have put it in the past. I didn’t start this and every single one of my posts pertaining to this matter is in direct response to someone engaging me. 

[Scotch]

48 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If objective morality exists, it follows logically that an objective standard exists. By objective I mean an absolute, for example if something is always wrong, there must be a transcendent reason for that otherwise it’s subjective to each person or

culture. 

I don’t believe it’s possible for their to be an absolute set of standards if there isn’t an author of those standards. 

Therefore to reject God in my opinion, you’d need to either accept that there isn’t such a thing as a universal right or wrong or have a good explanation for how it’s possible for something to always be wrong without an absolute standard of right and wrong. 
 

There ISN'T a universal set of morals though, in my opinion ofcourse, but rather cultural morality. 

 

For example... I have never met a Christian who isn't fundamentally against slavery or the idea that woman are unequal to men yet there is no moral objection to either in the Bible which is supposedly the word of god. This is quite clearly because the Bible was transcribed by people from an entirely different culture from the one that I or any Christian I know lives. 

Interestingly, many of the people who DO still live in middle eastern culture (Christian or not) do still live by morals featured in the Bible  like their attitudes towards the opposite sex, slavery and the death penalty for example. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Bible had been written by those of a different culture, the morality of its teachings would be different which points to the fact that there CAN'T be a universal set of principles. 

 

[Benguin]

14 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

There ISN'T a universal set of morals though, in my opinion ofcourse, but rather cultural morality. 

 

For example... I have never met a Christian who isn't fundamentally against slavery or the idea that woman are unequal to men yet there is no moral objection to either in the Bible which is supposedly the word of god. This is quite clearly because the Bible was transcribed by people from an entirely different culture from the one that I or any Christian I know lives. 

Interestingly, many of the people who DO still live in middle eastern culture (Christian or not) do still live by morals featured in the Bible  like their attitudes towards the opposite sex, slavery and the death penalty for example. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Bible had been written by those of a different culture, the morality of its teachings would be different which points to the fact that there CAN'T be a universal set of principles. 

 

Do you think that someone who murders babies is evil or just behaving contrary to how society would desire? 

[Scotch]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Do you think that someone who murders babies is evil or just behaving contrary to how society would desire? 

There are certain things that transcend cultural differences in morality, absolutely but similarly there are many things that don't. Surely if there was a singular author of morality, it wouldnt just include SOME things but rather ALL things. 

[Scotch]

26 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Do you think that someone who murders babies is evil or just behaving contrary to how society would desire? 

Interestingly though, your point about killing children. This is an act that has been endorsed in the Bible but is clearly opposed by Christian beliefs so my question is.... Why was it ok then but not now? I'm assuming that God hasn't had a change of heart on the matter so what has changed?....Other than society ofcourse. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Benguin said:

If objective morality exists, it follows logically that an objective standard exists. By objective I mean an absolute, for example if something is always wrong, there must be a transcendent reason for that otherwise it’s subjective to each person or

culture. 

I don’t believe it’s possible for their to be an absolute set of standards if there isn’t an author of those standards. 

Therefore to reject God in my opinion, you’d need to either accept that there isn’t such a thing as a universal right or wrong or have a good explanation for how it’s possible for something to always be wrong without an absolute standard of right and wrong. 
 

Granted this argument is for any monotheistic God, not necessarily the Christian one. 
 

just a side note, as I don’t want unfair resentment from

folk in here for “spouting my religious nonsense” as some have put it in the past. I didn’t start this and every single one of my posts pertaining to this matter is in direct response to someone engaging me. 

You obviously believe in an objective moral code.  What is that objective code?  What are the standards?  Just please give us the link to where they're clearly defined, it's hard to have a discussion about them when I don't even understand the base theory you're taking as a given in all your comments.

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

There are certain things that transcend cultural differences in morality, absolutely but similarly there are many things that don't. Surely if there was a singular author of morality, it wouldnt just include SOME things but rather ALL things. 

So you’re saying that there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong except when it’s something you can’t bring yourself to admit is not evil? 

[Benguin]

46 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You obviously believe in an objective moral code.  What is that objective code?  What are the standards?  Just please give us the link to where they're clearly defined, it's hard to have a discussion about them when I don't even understand the base theory you're taking as a given in all your comments.

I believe the objective code is written on our hearts by God. When we sin against others or God we are convicted of this if we walk with Jesus or we are condemned if we walk with the enemy. 
 

As for the standards, these are unattainable to us. Only God, the author of morality being morally perfect himself, can hit the standards because he IS the standards.  As Jesus said to those that follow the law, “hypocrites.” It is written that one must not commit adultery but Jesus says “if you look with lust on another, you have committed adultery in your heart already.”

 

But my beliefs are based on Christianity. On a broader note it is not an argument about a particular set of rules dictated by a particular religion but rather an observation that if there are things we know to be absolutely wrong then it follows logically that there is an absolute standard. If you think something else follows logically, I’d love to hear it. 

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Interestingly though, your point about killing children. This is an act that has been endorsed in the Bible but is clearly opposed by Christian beliefs so my question is.... Why was it ok then but not now? I'm assuming that God hasn't had a change of heart on the matter so what has changed?....Other than society ofcourse. 

For clarity, are you talking about Exodus with the hardening of Pharoes heart and the plagues, one of which being the death of boys? 
 

This is a very interesting debate in Christianity and I dare say other Abrahamic religions. I can give you my view on this if you’d like but it’s a big digression from what we’re discussing as this is more about the debate over election.

 

To keep it relevant for now though. God cannot murder for a few reasons and so him taking life is not immoral:

 

1. We’re eternal beings, so if God takes away life here on earth he is merely transitioning them from one location to the next.

2. God is the author of life, we are not. If a lady lives a happy life, until they are 100 and then dies peacefully has God not taken them away just as in the case of an infant? 

[Scotch]

49 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So you’re saying that there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong except when it’s something you can’t bring yourself to admit is not evil? 

I'm saying most things that are considered right OR wrong are done so whilst being influenced by culture. 

 

However....

 

There are certain things that ALL cultures agree on. 

 

I have noticed that you have sidestepped every single point I have made. I'll recap.... if one divine entity set the moral standard on what is right and what is wrong..... How come what is morally right now isn't the same as what was morally right when the "word of god" was written down in scripture? Hoe come it changed? Did God change his mind? 

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I'm saying most things that are considered right OR wrong are done so whilst being influenced by culture. 

 

However....

 

There are certain things that ALL cultures agree on. 

 

I have noticed that you have sidestepped every single point I have made. I'll recap.... if one divine entity set the moral standard on what is right and what is wrong..... How come what is morally right now isn't the same as what was morally right when the "word of god" was written down in scripture? Hoe come it changed? Did God change his mind? 

No I don’t think what is absolutely right or wrong has ever changed, I don’t for a minute think white people in the Deep South a 100 years ago thought Slavery or lynching was right. I think we as sinners at heart always favour doing evil and they were just able to get away with it back then. 
 

One of the main things that is abundantly clear in the bible (if you read it cover to cover and apply correct context rather than just finding an inflammatory verse) is that the Law of the land and what is right and wrong are two very different things. 
 

Christianity is literally about how God created us to be free. We chose evil. God gave us laws that are simple to follow. We couldn’t follow them. God gave us himself as his son incarnate and crucified on the cross for our sins. We rejected him. 

[Scotch]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No I don’t think what is absolutely right or wrong has ever changed, I don’t for a minute think white people in the Deep South a 100 years ago thought Slavery or lynching was right. I think we as sinners at heart always favour doing evil and they were just able to get away with it back then. 
 

One of the main things that is abundantly clear in the bible (if you read it cover to cover and apply correct context rather than just finding an inflammatory verse) is that the Law of the land and what is right and wrong are two very different things. 
 

Christianity is literally about how God created us to be free. We chose evil. God gave us laws that are simple to follow. We couldn’t follow them. God gave us himself as his son incarnate and crucified on the cross for our sins. We rejected him. 

But isn't there guidelines in the bible about how slaves should be treated? Is there not numerous verses that talk about women being inferior to men? (I'm not entirely educated on it, maybe you could correct me, but wasnt the story of how man and woman were created changed so that woman had less of a case on equality? Something about it being changed to woman being made from the ribs of men?).

[Samilktray]

Used to think god was an alright bloke, not really sure anymore 

[Benguin]

22 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

But isn't there guidelines in the bible about how slaves should be treated? Is there not numerous verses that talk about women being inferior to men? (I'm not entirely educated on it, maybe you could correct me, but wasnt the story of how man and woman were created changed so that woman had less of a case on equality? Something about it being changed to woman being made from the ribs of men?).

Yeah, if you cherry pick verses and neglect/ignore context and purpose. There are so many different books in the bible and so many different verses that you could find a verse to affirm any ideology (good or bad) that you want. 
 

1. Telling people to treat their slaves right is not the same as telling people they should keep slaves. Unless you choose to only read that verse and neglect the authors purpose/context.

2. Absolutely, there is lots of talk about how men think women are second class, if you just read those bits and neglect to listen to Jesus. Jesus who called Mary at the empty tomb and whose testimony of this vision of the risen Christ (a testimony worth less than half that of a mans in 1st century Isreal) is one of the foundations of Christianity. 
3. Yes Genesis talks about how God created Man from dust on the ground and Woman from the ribs of man. People certainly choose to interpret that as women being inferior. I don’t myself.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

I believe the objective code is written on our hearts by God. When we sin against others or God we are convicted of this if we walk with Jesus or we are condemned if we walk with the enemy. 
 

As for the standards, these are unattainable to us. Only God, the author of morality being morally perfect himself, can hit the standards because he IS the standards.  As Jesus said to those that follow the law, “hypocrites.” It is written that one must not commit adultery but Jesus says “if you look with lust on another, you have committed adultery in your heart already.”

 

But my beliefs are based on Christianity. On a broader note it is not an argument about a particular set of rules dictated by a particular religion but rather an observation that if there are things we know to be absolutely wrong then it follows logically that there is an absolute standard. If you think something else follows logically, I’d love to hear it. 

So what you're telling me is there isn't one.  If there was an objective moral code it would be definable and quantifiable, there'd be scientific studies, you wouldn't need weasel words like "written on our hearts".  You just believe in your own code wholeheartedly enough to consider it objective.

 

To use an example with a similarly devout individual but from a different faith with different (in your opinion incorrect) moral standards which the individual in question believes to be objective:  If a Sikh converts a non-believer genuinely believing it will help them live a better life, would that be a moral act for trying to help them or would it be immoral because they're condemning them to eternal absence from God in the afterlife?   From his subjective perspective it's objectively moral but from you subjective perspective it's objectively immoral.  Do you see what I mean?

[Nalis]

Boris Johnson. From wan ker to cvnt.

[Durnerz]

Noel Gallagher was one of the coolest people I can remember when I was growing up, love the mans music but he's rapidly turning into an unlikeable dick. 

[Stadt]

I used to be a militant atheist, not even sure why. However I certainly see the appeal in faith, the leap to becoming religious myself is one I doubt I’ll ever make but the ecclesiastical interests me 

[The Blur]

Johnny Vegas-  used to thought he was in Mrs Brown territory but that was mostly due to him being on Benidorm and his surname to be honest.   However I thought he came across very down on earth,  thoughtful and likeable on Taskmaster.  

Edited 20 December 2020 by The Blur

[Nalis]

6 hours ago, Stadt said:

I used to be a militant atheist, not even sure why. However I certainly see the appeal in faith, the leap to becoming religious myself is one I doubt I’ll ever make but the ecclesiastical interests me 

I'm really fickle so as someone who was christened Catholic but very agnostic, I will shamelessly be tempted to roll the dice on my deathbed for lack of anything to lose.

Edited 20 December 2020 by Nalis

[Guest Fktf]

11 hours ago, Benguin said:

What evidence do I need? You’re the one making a positive statement. You are saying there are absolute morale standards but there isn’t an absolute standard. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. 

You cannot argue for your position by pointing out problems with opposing positions.

[ozleicester]

God - He is allowing this shit to go on

Dalai Lama - CIA plant and hypocrite 
Jesus - lazy layabout hasnt done a days work in 2000 years.
Pope - allowing child abuse to flourish + being richest corporation in the world while people are homeless and starving

Edit.. WOW... i wrote this BEFORE i had seen the last page of discussion

Edited 20 December 2020 by ozleicester