Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/26/2002, 23:02:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki: Do you not think that Christians have the capacity for moral reasoning and what difference does it make to you if my moral guidance is outlined in the New Testament? Bob:I was replying based on the above statement. Me: Okay. Bob: If your moral guidance is outlined in the New Testament, then you are not capable of moral reasoning. Me: And I'm still waiting for you to substanciate that claim. Bob: However, you, like all Christians I know, choose to select the scriptures you wish to follow and leave the rest out of your moral reasoning. Me: So, we do have moral reasoning - according to you - though, paradoxically - according to you - we're incapible of the vary feat of moral reasoning, because we are Christian. Bob: You cannot truly say your moral guidance is outlined in the NT. Me: If we accept your implication that 'outline' shall be defined as 'verbatem outline' (as you seem to be want in doing). Then no one I know, theist, or atheist is a law abiding citizen. How many laws on the books do you obey simply because they are 'there, and are literally law'... Bob:In fact, you have your own conscience as your moral guide, and whenever that guide happens to align with NT teachings, you point it out and say you are a Christian. It makes you a hypocrite. Me: Would you make up your mind on the 'moral reasoning' bull sh*t. You say we have it, if it fits your prejudice judgement. You say we don't, if it suits your your prejudice judgement. You are one of the best examples of 'hypocracy in humanism' I've ever seen. You make an emotional judgement and then distort, or omit the facts just so you 'won't be wrong.' Bob:It is not a stereotype, Me: It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... but it isn't a duck... Yeah, I supose you can try to pass off this malarky, because 'Christians, especailly mormons, can't morally reason' - thus how could we be offended? Bob:just a judgment based on something you said [Vicki]. I'm certain there are many Christian stereotypes you do not fit, but my comments are a highly individualized judgment. Me: Grrrreeeaat... I'm glad that your 'highly individualized' judgement can avoid pidgeon-holing Vicki into many stereotypes of Christianity. But we aren't talking about 'many stereo-types'. We're talking about that 'one'. The one that you've shoved all of Christiandom (and all those who have faith in it) into.Yeah, I'm still upset over the fact that you have stated a blanket judgement that had stereo-typed me, and mine - and you don't even know me. You may not have meant to 'stereotype', but you sure didn't say what you meant. I'd personally appreciate it if, a) you rephrase your 'individualized judgement' of Christiandom. or b) substantiate your claim. African Waspi~ Read my
Modified by Waspinatrix at Sat, Jan 26, 2002, 23:18:59
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/27/2002, 16:22:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'll say one thing for you Waspi...I don't know what your religious affiliation is but you sure have chutzpah and the brains and tenacity to back it up! Not from Jersey are ya? LOL! Vicki
|
Posted by: Bob Jack ®
01/28/2002, 16:11:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
So, you agree that moral reasoning does not come from following the NT, but rather from the freedom not to follow it. Thanks,
Bob
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/27/2002, 16:18:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bob Jack: When I replied to you and said that Christians do not have the capacity for moral reasoning, I was replying based on the above statement. If your moral guidance is outlined in the New Testament, then you are not capable of moral reasoning. Vicki: What is the basis for your assumption that Christians, whose guidance is outlined in the NT, are not capable of moral reasoning? Are you familiar with the development of moral reasoning? Ah! Let me clue you in. The capacity for moral reasoning BJ, begins to develop in a child beginning around age 9 having successfully navigated a series of stages from infancy. Moral reasoning is influenced by intrafamilial and extrafamilial(including religious instruction)forces. You capacity for critical thinking (which surely should have developed in you by now) is absent in this assumption.
Bob Jack: However, you, like all Christians I know, choose to select the scriptures you wish to follow and leave the rest out of your moral reasoning. Vicki: Tell me BJ, how would you know how I go about making decisions in my life? Again, you are making assumptions filtered through the monocular lens of your own bigotry!
Bob Jack: You cannot truly say your moral guidance is outlined in the NT. Vicki:
Now you presume to DICTATE to me what I can and cannot claim! What is the basis for YOUR claim here?? Do you DENY that NT is filled with examples of moral guidance? Hey! You might try READING it!
Bob Jack: In fact, you have your own conscience as your moral guide, and whenever that guide happens to align with NT teachings, you point it out and say you are a Christian.
Vicki: Tell me Bob Jack HOW WOULD YOU KNOW HOW I MAKE DECISIONS, WHEN I POINT TO EXAMPLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT OR WHEN I DON'T ? Do you KNOW me? DO you? Or...are you again making false assumptions based on simple bigotry? My guess, since you don't know me nor have you bothered to question me, is a resounding YES! Bob Jack: It makes you a hypocrite. It is not a stereotype, just a judgment based on something you said. I'm certain there are many Christian stereotypes you do not fit, but my comments are a highly individualized judgment. Vicki: Again BJ...what do you base this so called "certainty" on? Tell me the stereotypes I do not fit...those I do fit. You don't even KNOW ME nor have you bothered to QUESTION me in order to make those kinds of judgements about me. You repeatedly make assumptions about me personally based on the group I belong to...in this case my religious group...your statments are based on stereotyping and reveal you to be a garden variety bigot.
|
Posted by: Bob Jack ®
01/27/2002, 20:14:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicky, Please answer the following question: When you make a moral decision, do you take responsibility for that decision individually, or do you base that decision on NT teachings and then give the responsibility for your decision to God? This is the difference between moral reasoning and basing morality on the NT. If a woman speaks in church, then she is responsible for her decision to speak in church and has not yielded her authority to make that decision. If a woman wants to speak in church and does not because of the teachings of the NT, then she has not done any moral reasoning and has let the writers of the NT do so for her. This is just one example... So, am I a bigot? You can say whatever you like about me, believe what you want about me, and call me any names you want. Thanks,
Bob.
|
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/27/2002, 21:00:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
So, am I a bigot? You can say whatever you like about me, believe what you want about me, and call me any names you want. Yes you are, in the dictionary sense... What big nasty thing were you called? By who? Other than yourself... Just because your reasoning is faulty and you do have a tendancy of making irrational assumptions, then waring the martyre mask... It isn't your fault. We all know the input/output rule. Maybe we should blame your parents... I would say 'God bless you.' But you'd probably feel like I spit in your face. Well, how about this... 'Peace be with you...' Read my
|
Posted by: Bob Jack ®
01/28/2002, 14:12:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bigot means someone who is intolerant of anothers beliefs or views. Intolerant is defined as: Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. Jesus is the most intolerant person I can imagine. He doesn't want to include sinners/unsaved people/people who do not believe he is God in heaven. Effectively, he has said to all humankind, if you don't like my game, I will take my ball and go home. How rude. So, I guess I am a bigot, on the basis that I don't want such a selfish dogma imposed on me by people who do not share my belief system. That however, is off topic. The topic is whether a Christian is a Christian if they make their own decisions regardless of what their guiding book, the NT tells them to do. Bob
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/28/2002, 00:25:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicky,
Please answer the following question:
When you make a moral decision, do you take responsibility for that decision individually, or do you base that decision on NT teachings and then give the responsibility for your decision to God?
Vicki: I take full responsibility for my own decisions. Always have, always will.This is the difference between moral reasoning and basing morality on the NT. If a woman speaks in church, then she is responsible for her decision to speak in church and has not yielded her authority to make that decision. If a woman wants to speak in church and does not because of the teachings of the NT, then she has not done any moral reasoning and has let the writers of the NT do so for her. This is just one example...
Vicki: Please point out, because I clearly miss the point, what has this example got to do with moral reasoning? So, am I a bigot? You can say whatever you like about me, believe what you want about me, and call me any names you want. Vicki: Yup, you are. Thanks,
Bob
|
Posted by: Bob Jack ®
01/28/2002, 10:30:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki: I take full responsibility for my own decisions. Always have, always will. You do not base your morality on the NT. You said you did, and asked why we should care. Since you don't base your morality on the NT, but say you do, you are a hypocrite. Bob
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/28/2002, 14:03:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
On your part Bob Jack. I stated that my moral guidance is contained in the New Testament. That in the end I take full responsibility for my choices. Your attempt to twist what I said in order to fit into your own brand of bigotry just doesn't work. Vicki
|
Posted by: Bob Jack ®
01/28/2002, 14:18:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
And you do not have any argument left to make against it. Either your moral reasoning is done by your conscience or by your submitting to the teachings of the NT. Not both. You can, of course, say anything you want about what you believe, how you make decisions and more. After all, this is an interpretive area... However, you cannot accurately say you have it both ways. I believe what you said about being responsible for your own decisions. I do not believe your moral reasoning is contained in the NT. I think if you look at your life, you'll find many examples of moral decisions you have made which contradict teachings in the NT. Your actions, not your words are the test. Bob
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/28/2002, 22:21:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Either your moral reasoning is done by your conscience or by your submitting to the teachings of the NT. Not both. Vicki: Of course it is both!
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/28/2002, 23:26:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki, Since there is considerable disagreement on what the NT teaches, those who claim to follow the NT are subjectively including and excluding. Your “conscience” is a product of your environment and heredity -- your place in history as a person of history. Had you been born 100 years ago, your “conscience” and your interpretations of the NT would be different than they are today...subjective. There is no generalized “the teachings of the NT.” Quakers read the NT and conclude they cannot participate in war. Killing people or training to kill people is morally wrong -- according to the teachings of Jesus. Lutherans read the NT and conclude that there is the “just war.” They can define it or give example of it any why they wish. They read, “Be subject to the higher powers” in Romans as moral requirement to act in accordance with what the “higher powers” (the government) requires. Unlike Quakers, Lutherans join branches of the military, go where they are told and kill the people our government says they should kill. So, what then is the “teaching of the NT”? If the Quakers are correct -- Thou shall not kill, there are no exceptions. They oppose killing and become conscious objectors and serve in non-combatant roles in time of war. Now the NT as a whole teaches nothing that is not a matter of interpretation. Opposite interpretations are evidenced by the response of Christians to the NT. While you are not a young man confronted with “to join or not to join” the army, if you were, how would you solve an conflict of what you believed the NT teaches and what you believe your conscious tells you? You would have to choose. As a cafeteria Christian, you can have either one you wish. But what does the NT teach? That is, on balance with all that is written in the NT, what should a Christian do when confronted with the dilemma of participating in war where he might kill -- be directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of people -- including innocent women and children? If you conclude that “God” is on the side of YOUR country, you may decide to KILL in the name of “God” for your country. If you decide “God” is on the side of humanity and that the life of another is not a life which you should take even IF your government says you should take it -- kill -- then you must conclude the NT teaches “Thou shall not kill” without exceptions which use weasel words such as “except when....” You can fill in that blank with any justification once you interpret that there ARE exceptions to the Commandment -- which makes no exceptions. So what the NT teaches is an illusion. It “teaches” anything you want it to teach. To kill or not to kill -- that is the question for the good and honest Christian. JAK
Modified by JAK at Tue, Jan 29, 2002, 17:14:16
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
01/29/2002, 00:07:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
:=Either your moral reasoning is done by your conscience or by your submitting to the teachings of the NT. Not both.
Vicki: Of course it is both!OK, I can't stand it any longer. I've got to jump in. Vicki, I think you are misunderstanding what Bob Jack's point is. Exactly how can your moral reasoning be done by BOTH your conscience and the NT? It's impossible. It's got to be one or the other. When faced with a dilemma, your final judgement call is based EITHER on 1) what you read in the NT, OR 2) what you reason in your own conscience. This is not to say that while your conscience is debating the problem you may not consult the NT. But in the end, is your final answer based on your reasoning of the evidence at hand, and your experience in interacting with others, etc. OR is it based solely on what you read in the NT. Having it both ways is like having a square circle.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/29/2002, 00:29:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Exactly so, Kevin, and well stated. I would just add to that the fact that the NT has in virtually every combination of readings multiple interpretations. So even if one were to declare that he/she used the NT, just what does that really declare? To pretend there is only ONE interpretation of the whole of the NT is fraudulent. So one is left with the pretense that HIS/HER interpretation is without error. Conscientious objectors follow the NT -- they won’t kill any one. Patriots follow the NT -- they will kill anyone whom the “higher powers” order that they kill. (I wrote a piece on that with regard to interpretations.) Not to detract from your point --- which is fine. JAK
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/29/2002, 18:58:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think you missed most of the discussion here Kevin which began on another thread. I have already answered the question several times over. I originally said (on the original thread) that my moral GUIDANCE is found in the New Testament. Now what kind of problem you have with that is anyone's guess. Bob Jack has already contradicted himself several times on this thread alone. Vicki
|
|
