-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sirk, if I give you a label, the first thing you will do with it is review the opinions of any person even remotely linked with that label, scrutinize them brutishly and bring forth some outlandish claim that I'm the same as they are. Labelling me is the principle of your inquiry, and at its outcome I will no doubt become another generalization in your discriminatory armoury.
I'm not going to dignify stereotypical perspectives by adding more beans to your proverbial boilerplate. If you want my character, it'll be much easier to find it in the words I say than in the attributes you can ascribe to me by false association.
As for your typecasting on Hamas and Israel, let me give you some feedback on how to argue more credibly.
''Some Israeli pilots are firing missiles at rocket stores that Hamas have reportedly hidden in UN designated safe zones and Palestinian homes which are full of civilians. It has been claimed that these civilians do not leave threatened areas because Hamas are forcing those civilians to stay indoors so that they may use the death toll for propagandising against Israel, however these claims are widely criticized by UN representatives in Palestine and by Palestinian civilians on the ground who report no knowledge of such rocket stores and who have told reporters that they have repeatedly made Israeli authorities aware of the geographic locations of said safe zones''.
That's a balanced argument, you should try it.
I'm not going to dignify stereotypical perspectives by adding more beans to your proverbial boilerplate. If you want my character, it'll be much easier to find it in the words I say than in the attributes you can ascribe to me by false association.
As for your typecasting on Hamas and Israel, let me give you some feedback on how to argue more credibly.
''Some Israeli pilots are firing missiles at rocket stores that Hamas have reportedly hidden in UN designated safe zones and Palestinian homes which are full of civilians. It has been claimed that these civilians do not leave threatened areas because Hamas are forcing those civilians to stay indoors so that they may use the death toll for propagandising against Israel, however these claims are widely criticized by UN representatives in Palestine and by Palestinian civilians on the ground who report no knowledge of such rocket stores and who have told reporters that they have repeatedly made Israeli authorities aware of the geographic locations of said safe zones''.
That's a balanced argument, you should try it.
Last edited:
P
Well Esanta, we meet again how are you keeping?
firstly if natural selection is a purely physical concept then where do emotions come from? In an "Atheist worldview" are emotions not simply chemical triggers which randomly found their way into the consciousness of this coincidentally naturally occurring group of chemicals which were originally randomly arranged by chance? Only asking!
I don't accept that "It could be said that the concept of guilt can be applied by atheists in the same manner in which a Christian might apply it. I as AChristian accepts morality on the basis that God is the ultimate Omniscient giver of morality. It is He who decides in His wisdom what is good and pleasing and acceptable not mankind. I do not accept that this mandate is an option for an Atheist ( except for one minor detail and that is that all men are created in the image of God and like Him, as His image bearers, have a God given knowledge of ultimate truth...right and wrong!)
for the Atheist I do question the concept of guilt and innocence. I personally get it, I understand it and I don't think I am as ignorant as you would like to portray me, but I ask the question of the Atheist....where does their concept of guilt / innocence come from I'm talking about ultimate guilt not simply guilt as in "you did it, I saw you do it" type of guilt. I'm not talking about guilty of a physical act, rather about guilt as in " on the wrong side of morally wrong".
as for the issue you raise about the Palestinian plight....this is not the subject of this thread.....however it is a very good point for discussion.....on another thread please....there are many available.
firstly if natural selection is a purely physical concept then where do emotions come from? In an "Atheist worldview" are emotions not simply chemical triggers which randomly found their way into the consciousness of this coincidentally naturally occurring group of chemicals which were originally randomly arranged by chance? Only asking!
I don't accept that "It could be said that the concept of guilt can be applied by atheists in the same manner in which a Christian might apply it. I as AChristian accepts morality on the basis that God is the ultimate Omniscient giver of morality. It is He who decides in His wisdom what is good and pleasing and acceptable not mankind. I do not accept that this mandate is an option for an Atheist ( except for one minor detail and that is that all men are created in the image of God and like Him, as His image bearers, have a God given knowledge of ultimate truth...right and wrong!)
for the Atheist I do question the concept of guilt and innocence. I personally get it, I understand it and I don't think I am as ignorant as you would like to portray me, but I ask the question of the Atheist....where does their concept of guilt / innocence come from I'm talking about ultimate guilt not simply guilt as in "you did it, I saw you do it" type of guilt. I'm not talking about guilty of a physical act, rather about guilt as in " on the wrong side of morally wrong".
as for the issue you raise about the Palestinian plight....this is not the subject of this thread.....however it is a very good point for discussion.....on another thread please....there are many available.
Doesn't this thread prove that seculars/atheists have no idea what justice is?
Most are so ignorant they believe the Iraq war was about wmd.
To imagine if their country was under missile fire and would do nothing is...absurd.
To illustrate clear cut murder and mayhem and call it.....what do you call what Hamas is doing? Terrorism? Geneocide? Bigotry? Hatred? Or is it justice? To lob missiles into civilian areas solely to kill civilians....vs....trying to protect your civilian population by taking out missile sights in schools ( ya know those places that kids spend a lot of time at? ) and neighborhoods.......
PURPOSELY TO DRUM UP SYMPATHY.
To support this blatant plan to kill children for a political statement is abhorent, the exact opposite of justice and lunacy.
Those who support Hamas need to be in a hospital for the insane.
Most are so ignorant they believe the Iraq war was about wmd.
To imagine if their country was under missile fire and would do nothing is...absurd.
To illustrate clear cut murder and mayhem and call it.....what do you call what Hamas is doing? Terrorism? Geneocide? Bigotry? Hatred? Or is it justice? To lob missiles into civilian areas solely to kill civilians....vs....trying to protect your civilian population by taking out missile sights in schools ( ya know those places that kids spend a lot of time at? ) and neighborhoods.......
PURPOSELY TO DRUM UP SYMPATHY.
To support this blatant plan to kill children for a political statement is abhorent, the exact opposite of justice and lunacy.
Those who support Hamas need to be in a hospital for the insane.
Again, you are the one requiring originating external justification for justice - you ask 'who made it', and without an answer to that question you consider justice unjustified, which itself is an oxymoron, and a problem that you and I do not share.
If we say 'the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that molecular mutations give either advantage or disadvantage to the survival of an organism' it is simply an explanation of the physical properties developing in species. Of course that does not adequately explain the concept of justice for you but then you are the person looking to the physical mechanics of the development of cells for justification for morality, which is in itself dependent on cognitive factors rather than strictly physical factors.
Guilt for a physical act exists. That is my position. We are beings of senses - sight, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, all controlled by cognition, and a foul odour offends the senses much like a foul act offends them.
Tell me, without the knowledge of God, as a young child, would you find the image of a woman lying dead with severed limbs offensive? I would, and the reason for that is because I imagine myself in another human being's shoes.
Is it not justifiable to find atrocity offensive naturally? Or are only those who require an originating source for moral justification, morally justified? Is a young child for instance, not understanding God, unjustified in finding such scenery offensive? Of course not.
Morality does not come about naturally by following external rules and laws, morality comes naturally by observing a complex interdependent world of circumstance, cause and effect and asking questions of oneself. If an external source says to you, 'stone that woman to death, it is the moral law', do you simply agree with that command's moral validity or do you question it with your own empathetic sensibilities? Do you not ask, 'does the crime justify the punishment?' And 'is violence a solution to the problem?' And 'is the cause's effect the only viable outcome?' And 'can I take another human life?' And 'is stoning not painful?' And 'how would I feel in that woman's shoes?' And 'is there a solution that better remedies this situation?' And 'what good comes from stoning this woman?' You say you follow and inescapable, totally objective moral code, a deontological morality, but you don't really, because totally objective, universal commands don't exist for every situation a Christian finds themselves in, thus some Christians respond differently to certain circumstance than others. So even if a complete deontological moral code does exist, it is not in full effect nor in unanimous consensus. And I don't believe that it can be, certainly not presently.
Morality, at least for me, comes from mindful, observant examination of my motives, and from a sense that my own motives, thoughts and actions are the only motives, thoughts and actions which I am in full control of. My conclusion is, I will not stone the woman, because;
1. I am not her, and thus I have no right to decide over her life and death; I do not know her intentions, her thoughts, her circumstances, her conditions.
2. I would not like to be stoned. Stoning would be much worse than being a victim of adultery.
3. I do not think death can be a justifiable punishment for adultery, since to take life removes all possibility of life itself, which is just as important to her as it is to me, more-so than the ownership of my partner might be.
4. Stoning this woman is motivated by my own fear of consequence, not by compassion.
5. I have made mistakes in my life, and under different laws, I might also be stoned.
As for your last questions, about being 'the wrong side of morally wrong', that's an attitude of a person who looks for a condemnation or a sentence, not a person who looks for a compassionate outlook and holds forgiveness as a higher form of personally justifiable justice than duality and penalty.
I may be subject to the laws of my land, and I may be incarcerated for offending them, but I also have a personal choice to penalize others for offences against me, or to forgive them for offences against me. My personal justification for an empathetic, forgiving attitude toward those who have physically offended me stems from the realization that forgiveness towards others serves peace better than perpetual retribution.
There is no justification in my moral code for causing others to suffer because of that moral code. Harm, in our society, is synonymous with 'justice'. We say 'eye for eye', or at least 'finger for hand'. This harm is usually justified by saying either 'it deters others', 'punishment does not harm offenders, it reforms them', or 'harming offenders is good because it recompenses the crime'.
The first justification, 'it deters others', is essentially harming someone in the hope of changing the behaviour of someone else, but if harming someone truly deters others, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, also continue to have one of the highest overall crime rates? And if it is because people are continually more violent, then surely incarcerating more people does not make the country less violent.
The second argument, 'harming others reforms them', is essentially harming a person into changing their own personality. If harming a prisoner changed their personality, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, have one of the worst rates of recidivism? Prison is not reformatory in such a place, but rather it is dehumanizing - an exacerbation of wrong thought patterns, wrought with temptations, rather than a place for penitance and mindful examination of ones' crime and victims.
The third argument, 'harming offenders recompenses the crime' is blatant revenge based on a deontological perspective that says 'there is an absolute, equal moral law that God commands'. If that is the case, then surely God, who says 'revenge is mine' does not require our help to facilitate that objective, inescapable moral law.
There are just a few examples of why our 'sin, judgement, punishment' approach to legality, ethics, morality and justice is not only evidence of an utter failure to encourage perspectives that work toward our larger social vision for what humanity should be, but also a representation of our inability to recognize the breadth of our possibilities at all.
And that question, 'what should a human be', is one I consider better to ask than 'what external, originating, objecitve source do you have for your morality'. Look around you, man.
If we say 'the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that molecular mutations give either advantage or disadvantage to the survival of an organism' it is simply an explanation of the physical properties developing in species. Of course that does not adequately explain the concept of justice for you but then you are the person looking to the physical mechanics of the development of cells for justification for morality, which is in itself dependent on cognitive factors rather than strictly physical factors.
Guilt for a physical act exists. That is my position. We are beings of senses - sight, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, all controlled by cognition, and a foul odour offends the senses much like a foul act offends them.
Tell me, without the knowledge of God, as a young child, would you find the image of a woman lying dead with severed limbs offensive? I would, and the reason for that is because I imagine myself in another human being's shoes.
Is it not justifiable to find atrocity offensive naturally? Or are only those who require an originating source for moral justification, morally justified? Is a young child for instance, not understanding God, unjustified in finding such scenery offensive? Of course not.
Morality does not come about naturally by following external rules and laws, morality comes naturally by observing a complex interdependent world of circumstance, cause and effect and asking questions of oneself. If an external source says to you, 'stone that woman to death, it is the moral law', do you simply agree with that command's moral validity or do you question it with your own empathetic sensibilities? Do you not ask, 'does the crime justify the punishment?' And 'is violence a solution to the problem?' And 'is the cause's effect the only viable outcome?' And 'can I take another human life?' And 'is stoning not painful?' And 'how would I feel in that woman's shoes?' And 'is there a solution that better remedies this situation?' And 'what good comes from stoning this woman?' You say you follow and inescapable, totally objective moral code, a deontological morality, but you don't really, because totally objective, universal commands don't exist for every situation a Christian finds themselves in, thus some Christians respond differently to certain circumstance than others. So even if a complete deontological moral code does exist, it is not in full effect nor in unanimous consensus. And I don't believe that it can be, certainly not presently.
Morality, at least for me, comes from mindful, observant examination of my motives, and from a sense that my own motives, thoughts and actions are the only motives, thoughts and actions which I am in full control of. My conclusion is, I will not stone the woman, because;
1. I am not her, and thus I have no right to decide over her life and death; I do not know her intentions, her thoughts, her circumstances, her conditions.
2. I would not like to be stoned. Stoning would be much worse than being a victim of adultery.
3. I do not think death can be a justifiable punishment for adultery, since to take life removes all possibility of life itself, which is just as important to her as it is to me, more-so than the ownership of my partner might be.
4. Stoning this woman is motivated by my own fear of consequence, not by compassion.
5. I have made mistakes in my life, and under different laws, I might also be stoned.
As for your last questions, about being 'the wrong side of morally wrong', that's an attitude of a person who looks for a condemnation or a sentence, not a person who looks for a compassionate outlook and holds forgiveness as a higher form of personally justifiable justice than duality and penalty.
I may be subject to the laws of my land, and I may be incarcerated for offending them, but I also have a personal choice to penalize others for offences against me, or to forgive them for offences against me. My personal justification for an empathetic, forgiving attitude toward those who have physically offended me stems from the realization that forgiveness towards others serves peace better than perpetual retribution.
There is no justification in my moral code for causing others to suffer because of that moral code. Harm, in our society, is synonymous with 'justice'. We say 'eye for eye', or at least 'finger for hand'. This harm is usually justified by saying either 'it deters others', 'punishment does not harm offenders, it reforms them', or 'harming offenders is good because it recompenses the crime'.
The first justification, 'it deters others', is essentially harming someone in the hope of changing the behaviour of someone else, but if harming someone truly deters others, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, also continue to have one of the highest overall crime rates? And if it is because people are continually more violent, then surely incarcerating more people does not make the country less violent.
The second argument, 'harming others reforms them', is essentially harming a person into changing their own personality. If harming a prisoner changed their personality, then why does the country with the highest rates of incarceration, the USA, have one of the worst rates of recidivism? Prison is not reformatory in such a place, but rather it is dehumanizing - an exacerbation of wrong thought patterns, wrought with temptations, rather than a place for penitance and mindful examination of ones' crime and victims.
The third argument, 'harming offenders recompenses the crime' is blatant revenge based on a deontological perspective that says 'there is an absolute, equal moral law that God commands'. If that is the case, then surely God, who says 'revenge is mine' does not require our help to facilitate that objective, inescapable moral law.
There are just a few examples of why our 'sin, judgement, punishment' approach to legality, ethics, morality and justice is not only evidence of an utter failure to encourage perspectives that work toward our larger social vision for what humanity should be, but also a representation of our inability to recognize the breadth of our possibilities at all.
And that question, 'what should a human be', is one I consider better to ask than 'what external, originating, objecitve source do you have for your morality'. Look around you, man.
S
The problem with your argument is that for the Jihadist there can never be enough revenge....because it is not about revenge. It is about a worldwide caliphate and the ushering in of the 12th Imam. No thanks on that. As far as revenge for 1982...apparently this wasn't enough???
Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing Fast Facts - CNN.com
Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing Fast Facts - CNN.com
Trying to find a deeper understanding of cause, effect, circumstance and conditioning with a view to more amicable, positive, comprehensive solutions than blame, indictment and perpetuation of conflict is not support nor justification, and simplifying extremely complex scenarios to irreducible one-liners devoid of any viable connection between cause and effect serves a singular, ignorant purpose; binary factionalism. It's a totalitarian fundamentalist's best friend. So of course you think 'sympathy' is an evil word. It's also one you continue to confuse with 'empathy', which might as well be an evil one too.
Honestly, if you can't muster up a willingness to fathom a greater humanity than what warmongering tribesmen can offer then you yourself are by the power of logic a perpetual ally of the very mayhem you oppose.
Honestly, if you can't muster up a willingness to fathom a greater humanity than what warmongering tribesmen can offer then you yourself are by the power of logic a perpetual ally of the very mayhem you oppose.
S
How bout this for a perspective...If I walked into a neighborhood in gaza they would kidnap me...use me for media fodder and then probably behead me on camera. If a Middle Eastern person came into my neighborhood he would pass by unmolested...unless of course he was acting suspicious which then the police would be called and he would be questioned as to his motivation. All your high minded prose and obfuscation doesn't change that fact and it won't change my mind that Islam is a religion that is an enemy of humanity and of decency.
K
How about this; is the world heading back to OT times of punishment ?
[h=2]Women Stoned To Death In Syria For Adultery[/h]
Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post/2014/08/09/women-stoned-adultery-syria_n...
Aug 09, 2014 · Fears Remain For Yazidis Still Trapped In Mountains Emrah Yorulmaz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images; Tracing Ebola's Breakout To An
[h=2]Women Stoned To Death In Syria For Adultery[/h]
Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post/2014/08/09/women-stoned-adultery-syria_n...
Aug 09, 2014 · Fears Remain For Yazidis Still Trapped In Mountains Emrah Yorulmaz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images; Tracing Ebola's Breakout To An
Right, but you of all people should recognize what simmers and festers in so many nations against what you promote, what you incite and with what you justify your perspective; they can't all be wrong. I wouldn't condone tarring you with the same brush as a Christian terrorist, cause you've never committed a terrorist act, but you don't even have that courtesy to show.
It's that ignorance I oppose, not your country or your religion or your race.
It's that ignorance I oppose, not your country or your religion or your race.
Last edited:
S
You can put a stake in the moral high ground but it doesn't mean anything and it doesn't change the fact that Islam wants to come to my town and kill me and convert me. If the truth be told, I'm of the George Washington perspective in that he advised to avoid foreign entanglements. I wish we kick the environmentalists here to the curb, drill our own oil, grow our own food and pull out of that cesspool of fundamentalism in the Middle East.....but unfortunately we have been taken over by the almighty corporate interest. You are far more right in your own eyes than I will ever be in mine.
The majority of europe is against Israel.
Bigotry.
That does not make Israel wrong. Its perfect proof that socialism promotes hatred and bigotry.
Hard to find a conservative in europe and its hard to find christians too. It goes hand in hand with socialism, hatred of christians and jews.
The facts support Israel to the point that any other consideration is pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.
The good thing about this entire conflict is that bigots are being defined and exposed.
Bigotry.
That does not make Israel wrong. Its perfect proof that socialism promotes hatred and bigotry.
Hard to find a conservative in europe and its hard to find christians too. It goes hand in hand with socialism, hatred of christians and jews.
The facts support Israel to the point that any other consideration is pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.
The good thing about this entire conflict is that bigots are being defined and exposed.