I wasn't replying to you.

AGC said:

---

I'm not misconstruing anything. I'm taking the theoretical and making it practical; the law informs people whether you want it to function that way or not. If you tell your kid not to run, everything else must be fine, right? Cause if it wasn't, you'd have said 'walk.' That's what the state is doing here.

---

Except it isn't.

What you're saying is that if a parent doesn't say walk or run, somebody that prefers to walk is being oppressed because the parent must be against them or it would have explicitly said "walk".

The state isn't saying you can't act in accordance with the 10 commandments. It isn't saying you can't live out your faith.

It is saying that it will take no position on religion at all. Buddhist & Islamist would be entitled to feel just as "oppressed" as you in this case.

If your stance is that anything not explicitly promoting Christianity is, by its very nature, anti-Christian, then you're basically saying everything defaults to Christianity and that an omission of a pro-Christian viewpoint is an active stance against Christianity. At that point, just call it Christian Nationalism and be done with it.

AGC said:

---

I agree, but I assert that oppression already exists, and 'benefits' you at present. If it's not 'good', you would reject limits on my practice, I imagine. You don't. Perhaps you conceive of it as something that just 'is', and make no value judgment, but I'm not sure that's supported because if I ask for it to be removed, you argue that it should stay. These don't seem like unreasonable conclusions.

---

Oppression already exists both ways. Do you care about oppression toward non-Christians?

AGC said:

---

I wasn't replying to you.

---

fair enough.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

AGC said:

---

I'm not misconstruing anything. I'm taking the theoretical and making it practical; the law informs people whether you want it to function that way or not. If you tell your kid not to run, everything else must be fine, right? Cause if it wasn't, you'd have said 'walk.' That's what the state is doing here.

---

Except it isn't.

What you're saying is that if a parent doesn't say walk or run, somebody that prefers to walk is being oppressed because the parent must be against them or it would have explicitly said "walk".

The state isn't saying you can't act in accordance with the 10 commandments. It isn't saying you can't live out your faith.

It is saying that it will take no position on religion at all. Buddhist & Islamist would be entitled to feel just as "oppressed" as you in this case.

If your stance is that anything not explicitly promoting Christianity is, by its very nature, anti-Christian, then you're basically saying everything defaults to Christianity and that an omission of a pro-Christian viewpoint is an active stance against Christianity. At that point, just call it Christian Nationalism and be done with it.

---

No. If you say, 'don't run,' you're ok with skipping, crawling, jogging (depending on how technical the child is) or walking. That's how the law informs morality. Your kids know this without being taught.

They also demand equal treatment, so you've undoubtedly denied everyone something even though some kids could handle it but others couldn't. That's where you start to get into oppression. Restricting practice, not because ours is 'bad', but out of some blind loyalty to an external idea of 'equality' (external to Christianity too, I might add) is oppressing our practice. Your Christianity doesn't seem to have many problems with that, I get it, I have a lot of friends in that camp.

Nice bogeyman of Christian nationalism. If Christianity isn't an objective good, one that that you want our government run by, are you sure it's worth believing in?

What is even being "restricted" - in your view - if we do not legally compel schools to post the 10 commandments?

And I think the teachings of Christ are a great foundation for the country. I also have seen how people weaponize it and use it as a bludgeon against people they don't like/agree with.

The fact is, despite the absurd examples cited in this thread, way more people have been raped, killed and abused by people claiming to be Christians than by people claiming to be satanic cannibals.

Some of the most depraved people I've ever known wore their faith on their sleeve, so forgive me if I don't trust people like that to run the country in a way that is reflective of Christ's actual teachings.

Sorry if I don't get giddy at the idea of people like Ken Paxton deciding what is and isn't appropriately "Christian", and opening up this sort of power to the government is a small step away from that.

You're lost in this thread. It doesn't need to be objective to be coherent. The problem with secularism is that it is rooted in nothing, not that it isn't objective. It can't object to anything because it has no basis.

Zobel said:

---

You're lost in this thread. It doesn't need to be objective to be coherent. The problem with secularism is that it is rooted in nothing, not that it isn't objective. It can't object to anything because it has no basis.

---

People can agree that something is bad for society without having to cite religious texts as their reason for that belief.

The idea that folks cannot exist with a moral compass short of religion (and not just religion, but your specific faith) is as absurd as the notion that people of a certain faith are guaranteed to have a moral compass.

Quote:

---

You just said it doesn't need to be objective to be coherent. Who cares what humanism or secularism are "based in" so long as they are coherent? You have no basis aside from "tradition" and belief by your own admission. Humanism has a history and tradition and a logical coherence.

---

"majority rules" is not coherent, which is as far as i can tell the only actual mechanism at play here.

Quote:

---

People can agree that something is bad for society without having to cite religious texts as their reason for that belief.

---

bad begs definition.


but since that's the nth time this has been pointed out and somehow people don't seem to understand that value judgments don't come from nowhere, i'm going to let y'all carry on.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

What is even being "restricted" - in your view - if we do not legally compel schools to post the 10 commandments?

And I think the teachings of Christ are a great foundation for the country. I also have seen how people weaponize it and use it as a bludgeon against people they don't like/agree with.

The fact is, despite the absurd examples cited in this thread, way more people have been raped, killed and abused by people claiming to be Christians than by people claiming to be satanic cannibals.

Some of the most depraved people I've ever known wore their faith on their sleeve, so forgive me if I don't trust people like that to run the country in a way that is reflective of Christ's actual teachings.

Sorry if I don't get giddy at the idea of people like Ken Paxton deciding what is and isn't appropriately "Christian", and opening up this sort of power to the government is a small step away from that.

---

I haven't argued those things, but this fear of government and desire for unmoored freedom is something I don't understand. It's not preached by Christ. We can look to the martyrs to see that government power against us is empty (Athanasius talks about how they went to their deaths knowing death was defeated and not something to fear). Why do you fear it? Is it the confort and freedom of others you seek, or your own?

As it says in Timothy, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Does your fear of sinful man dictate that it be hidden from others? Do you not write it on your doorposts and gates? Would you educate your own children in it, but not desire the same for all?

I don't understand this timid Christianity.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You have zero proof any of these things are true. You assert them and then claim to hold to a true moral standard because an unproven entity you choose to worship told you they are true. That's not an objective morality. That's an assumption.

---

yes. exactly. they're true because they're good, and they're good because God is good and He showed us what good looks like.

they're values from my tradition, and they're rooted in faith claims, not nowhere. they belong to the tradition that received them from God.

if you want to be secular and neutral, you don't get them. you don't get to assume them. you have to show your work.

---

You don't get to assume they must be true because that's what your tradition claims to be true. That's ridiculous. That's not an objective truth or morality. That's a punt.

---

This is why Jesus is so important. IF He was God and IF He left a church behind to spread His message and He gave those followers His power to bind and loose what is and isn't moral, then it isn't a punt at all. We're simply doing what the creator of the universe told us to do. I understand that you won't find this convincing, but we're being logically consistent.

This is why the historicity of Jesus is so important.

AGC said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

What is even being "restricted" - in your view - if we do not legally compel schools to post the 10 commandments?

And I think the teachings of Christ are a great foundation for the country. I also have seen how people weaponize it and use it as a bludgeon against people they don't like/agree with.

The fact is, despite the absurd examples cited in this thread, way more people have been raped, killed and abused by people claiming to be Christians than by people claiming to be satanic cannibals.

Some of the most depraved people I've ever known wore their faith on their sleeve, so forgive me if I don't trust people like that to run the country in a way that is reflective of Christ's actual teachings.

Sorry if I don't get giddy at the idea of people like Ken Paxton deciding what is and isn't appropriately "Christian", and opening up this sort of power to the government is a small step away from that.

---

I haven't argued those things, but this fear of government and desire for unmoored freedom is something I don't understand. It's not preached by Christ. We can look to the martyrs to see that government power against us is empty (Athanasius talks about how they went to their deaths knowing death was defeated and not something to fear). Why do you fear it? Is it the confort and freedom of others you seek, or your own?

As it says in Timothy, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Does your fear of sinful man dictate that it be hidden from others? Do you not write it on your doorposts and gates? Would you educate your own children in it, but not desire the same for all?

I don't understand this timid Christianity.

---

Who desires unmoored freedom?

I don't believe we are asked to compel people to become Christians through legal mechanisms, and I feel this is a terrible first step down that road.

I feel like our country was founded understanding that power can easily corrupt, and that we should be leery of how much power we put into those in positions of authority, and now it seems like because we have people using faith-based legalism as a shiny object to gain favor with the evangelical voting block, we've decided that it's okay. Right now you're okay with the idea that YOUR faith can be legally compelled of others, but that easily leads to a tomorrow where suddenly it's somebody else's version of "faith" that gets to make those rules. I have no fear of man's government in an eternal sense, but that doesn't mean I should actively support things that will put me in a position to rely on that. The same way I wouldn't willingly put myself in harms way simply because I believe my salvation is secure.

I absolutely teach it to my kids. The problem is, if you break this separation you don't just break it for your faith. You break it for any faith that gains political power. My guess is you wouldn't be okay with the idea of another religion putting up a list of things they believe in, even if there was mostly overlap with your beliefs.

I just don't read the bible and see Jesus telling us to take over the levers of government and force people to consume his word.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

AGC said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

What is even being "restricted" - in your view - if we do not legally compel schools to post the 10 commandments?

And I think the teachings of Christ are a great foundation for the country. I also have seen how people weaponize it and use it as a bludgeon against people they don't like/agree with.

The fact is, despite the absurd examples cited in this thread, way more people have been raped, killed and abused by people claiming to be Christians than by people claiming to be satanic cannibals.

Some of the most depraved people I've ever known wore their faith on their sleeve, so forgive me if I don't trust people like that to run the country in a way that is reflective of Christ's actual teachings.

Sorry if I don't get giddy at the idea of people like Ken Paxton deciding what is and isn't appropriately "Christian", and opening up this sort of power to the government is a small step away from that.

---

I haven't argued those things, but this fear of government and desire for unmoored freedom is something I don't understand. It's not preached by Christ. We can look to the martyrs to see that government power against us is empty (Athanasius talks about how they went to their deaths knowing death was defeated and not something to fear). Why do you fear it? Is it the confort and freedom of others you seek, or your own?

As it says in Timothy, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Does your fear of sinful man dictate that it be hidden from others? Do you not write it on your doorposts and gates? Would you educate your own children in it, but not desire the same for all?

I don't understand this timid Christianity.

---

Who desires unmoored freedom?

I don't believe we are asked to compel people to become Christians through legal mechanisms, and I feel this is a terrible first step down that road.

I feel like our country was founded understanding that power can easily corrupt, and that we should be leery of how much power we put into those in positions of authority, and now it seems like because we have people using faith-based legalism as a shiny object to gain favor with the evangelical voting block, we've decided that it's okay. Right now you're okay with the idea that YOUR faith can be legally compelled of others, but that easily leads to a tomorrow where suddenly it's somebody else's version of "faith" that gets to make those rules. I have no fear of man's government in an eternal sense, but that doesn't mean I should actively support things that will put me in a position to rely on that. The same way I wouldn't willingly put myself in harms way simply because I believe my salvation is secure.

I absolutely teach it to my kids. The problem is, if you break this separation you don't just break it for your faith. You break it for any faith that gains political power. My guess is you wouldn't be okay with the idea of another religion putting up a list of things they believe in, even if there was mostly overlap with your beliefs.

I just don't read the bible and see Jesus telling us to take over the levers of government and force people to consume his word.

---

Look, this whole 'someone else could govern' thing seems to be a really big deal for you, to which I say, this Christianity you proclaim is built on the bodies and blood of martyrs who lived under worse oppression than you're imagining. And the Christianized west? The conversion of emperors and clan chiefs who compelled it throughout their lands. We should long to see our society transformed wholesale, not piecemeal.

Our founders feared a national government. They had state religions, though, that was not a concern for them. They also saw the need for moral men to sustain their project. Of course, to them, this moral man would know Christianity. He wouldn't be a Buddhist or Hindu. American values are not the same as Christian virtue.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You just said it doesn't need to be objective to be coherent. Who cares what humanism or secularism are "based in" so long as they are coherent? You have no basis aside from "tradition" and belief by your own admission. Humanism has a history and tradition and a logical coherence.

---

"majority rules" is not coherent, which is as far as i can tell the only actual mechanism at play here.

---

Majority rules isn't the basis of humanism as a philosophy. But even if it were, it's no less a consistent and coherent basis than using "tradition" as a bedrock.

Quote:

---

This is not correct. I have a moral framework to argue against slavery, you may just not recognize it or you may think less of it because I source it differently.

---

Unfortunately you don't. You have said there is no objective good or bad, right or wrong. Historically morality has been defined as how man is supposed to act. Maybe it was grounded in nature itself, or maybe it was grounded in God, but the fact remained that there was an objective truth that was being sought. The second you take that away, your not dealing with morality proper. I understand some philosophers still call it "morality", but in order to do so they've just changed the definition of morality. If we can change definitions to suit our personal opinions and saying we've solved the problem, what's the point in even discussing it?

Now I'm not saying that you are an amoral monster or anything like that. You're clearly seeking to do what is best for humans, but to be accurate, it's better to call it what it is: guidelines based on opinion.

Quote:

---

Scenario B has more laws. Therefore it is less neutral, right? Is scenario B more restrictive? On one hand, you can say that Scenario B still demonstrates that the government has the power to pass laws related to the treatment of Christians. . . . but, do you feel that both scenarios result in the same exercise of power by the government over its people?

---

Neither side is neutral. Neutral is to have no laws at all and provide ultimate freedom for all to choose their own path. It also would destroy civilization, which is why we don't do that.

Quote:

---

If California passed a law invalidating Christian marriages, would that be an issue of escalation? If yes, then shouldn't a state law against same sex marriage be worthy of escalation to the federal level as well? What I'm challenging you on here is the idea that secularists are escalating issues to the federal level that Christians would not escalate if they were in the other position. I'm sure there could be some examples. But, what I think is happening is that Christians and conservatives like the idea of states rights when the state can be used to advantage themselves and disadvantage 'others'. But, when states use state rights to disadvantage Christians, then its okay to make it a federal issue.

---

This isn't a problem for me. We're both realizing that governmental power is being used, regardless of direction. There is no neutral. So then we have to ask ourselves: what goal are we shooting for and why are we shooting for it? If I have a Christian goal and you have secular goal, we're competing for the power to enforce it. If we have the same goal of making America an objectively more moral place, then we're working together to see what policies might make that work. If we don't have an objective goal, it's all preference from there. We're right back to impinging on certain people's desires because they don't align with the desires of those in power for no other reason than because the powers that be say so. Every law is now arbitrary in it's foundation, even if it's helpful in it's practice. The view that we should help society thrive has no more value or merit than an anarchist's view that society should burn or the extinctionist who thinks humans should remove themselves from existence through sterility. You just happen to have more people agree with you than the other two, currently.

Quote:

---

Lastly, should it be the government's responsibility for defining and maintaining Christian values in America? Or are American Christians responsible?

---

American Christians have worked very hard at maintaining Christian values in America. However, when the SC reinterprets the constitution in order to defy the will of the majority and remove the people's ability to maintain them, then the responsibility shifts to the government to fix it's own mistakes. If the alcoholic has to take responsibility for his actions, part of that is avoiding near occasions to relapse. Forcing an alcoholic to go to a bar every single day forever and then blaming him for an eventual relapse would hardly be fair. Forcibly removing Christian values from the public square and then blaming Christians for not being able to keep them front an center in society is an equally unfair ask.

Quote:

---

The moment someone with a different value lives according to that different value and participating in society, then its an issue. Christians want Christianity in school, but any other value being represented in schools is an attack on Christianity. Christians want Christmas to be a national holiday, but any recognition of LGBTQ persons is an attack on Christianity

---

Society consists of a group of people that have sort of norms for how we should act. If someone wants to change the values of the pre-established society, then it is by definition an attack of the values of that society. America was clearly established with Christianity as the norm across all 13 states. Any changes to this is an attack.

This doesn't always have to be a bad thing. Jesus obviously sought to change and/or elevate the values of society. The Church attempts to do that in un-Christian areas. Forcing certain Native American groups to cease child sacrifice was an attack on their society.

So the question loops back to: what is best for society and how can we know it? Can we "know" it at all?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why Jesus is so important. IF He was God and IF He left a church behind to spread His message and He gave those followers His power to bind and loose what is and isn't moral, then it isn't a punt at all. We're simply doing what the creator of the universe told us to do. I understand that you won't find this convincing, but we're being logically consistent.

This is why the historicity of Jesus is so important.

---

Of what value is being logically consistent when we are permitted our own unjustified presuppositions? Given some time, I can create a logically consistent philosophy surrounding secularism, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or for cannibalistic murder cults.

To me, recognizing inconsistency and flaws and gray areas in my own thinking is a reminder that I am not God and that my knowledge is not perfect.

---

Again, why the historicity of Jesus is so important. You can say Jesus is just as "unjustified" as the flying spaghetti monster, but hardly an atheist historian left thinks He didn't actually live. We believe He was God, so following His commands leads us to objective morality. You believe He was not God. That's a simple enough difference for us to discuss and both of us could "justify" our conclusions.

the whole flying spaghetti monster this is used as an attempt to undercut that we do have strong metaphysical and historical reasons for approaching the question of morality like we do. We have good reasons to believe Romans created an incredible empire. If I say a flying spaghetti monster actually created the roman empire and act as if this is an equally valid claim, i'd get laughed out of the building and rightfully so.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

People can agree that something is bad for society without having to cite religious texts as their reason for that belief.

---

bad begs definition.


but since that's the nth time this has been pointed out and somehow people don't seem to understand that value judgments don't come from nowhere, i'm going to let y'all carry on.

---

Good and bad ideas and actions are defined by their relationship to human well being and suffering. Good actions and intentions being those that promote well being, health, less suffering, and justice. Bad being those that cause unnecessary harm, suffering, or injustice. And these ideas can be derived from human reason, empathy, social contract, cultural values and other ideas. And they can be informed by formal systems of human ethics and morality like utilitarianism, humanism, deontology, or other ideas.

The problem isn't an unwillingness to define good or bad. The problem is that you will take those definitions and note that they are not tied to moral absolutes and are therefore subject to opinion and culture and other factors which makes claims about objective right and wrong difficult or impossible. And then someone else will point out that presupposing the existence of objective standards from an infinitely complex supernatural God does not make it so - and actually might suggest an impossibility that subjective beings can understand or apply those objective standards without an equal dose of subjectivity and cultural influence and other factors.

No one is saying value judgements come from nowhere. You simply reject the validity of where we pull them from. And I, and others, reject where you pull yours from.

My potentially unfair criticism of the some of the Christians here is this: I think the secularists here understand the limitations of our value judgements and have humility enough to not present our views as though we speak for the universe's definition of objective truth. And many of the Christians here believe that they own a monopoly on understanding of morality and ethics and lack the humility to admit any possibility that they could be mistaken.

And so we continually reach this same impasse over and over. I don't think its likely that anyone here is going to be radically swayed by anything anyone else says. That doesn't mean we can't learn from each other and about each other. Instead, what I think happens, is that you all presuppose secularism as nonsensical and then complain that our positions are nonsensical to you. Well, duh.

---

I don't think you get the problem from our point of view. No matter how you derive the definitions, it is always arbitrary, and thus always majority rule / might makes right. Everything that you claim informs your morality has no meaningful expectation of agreement; two humans can use the same process and arrive at different conclusions (discussed earlier), solved only by will to power. That is the established order of secular society. But that's ok, insomuch as the established society isn't Christian, because you don't want to live in that society. It's a bit of a quandary.

If you and the secularists understood your limitations, you wouldn't claim that you could construct a coherent system (your spaghetti monster), because coherence is a ghost. It doesn't exist to find in a secular world. It would necessitate order and objectivity beyond yourself. Who cares if two people agree that rape is wrong? It doesn't mean anything to call it wrong, other than to mean you won't let someone do it if it's in your power.

Power is what we keep harping on because it's all that's left when you reject these things. The post structuralists / post modernists / critical theorists all get this and have been there a long time.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

People can agree that something is bad for society without having to cite religious texts as their reason for that belief.

---

bad begs definition.


but since that's the nth time this has been pointed out and somehow people don't seem to understand that value judgments don't come from nowhere, i'm going to let y'all carry on.

---

Good and bad ideas and actions are defined by their relationship to human well being and suffering. Good actions and intentions being those that promote well being, health, less suffering, and justice. Bad being those that cause unnecessary harm, suffering, or injustice. And these ideas can be derived from human reason, empathy, social contract, cultural values and other ideas. And they can be informed by formal systems of human ethics and morality like utilitarianism, humanism, deontology, or other ideas.

The problem isn't an unwillingness to define good or bad. The problem is that you will take those definitions and note that they are not tied to moral absolutes and are therefore subject to opinion and culture and other factors which makes claims about objective right and wrong difficult or impossible. And then someone else will point out that presupposing the existence of objective standards from an infinitely complex supernatural God does not make it so - and actually might suggest an impossibility that subjective beings can understand or apply those objective standards without an equal dose of subjectivity and cultural influence and other factors.

No one is saying value judgements come from nowhere. You simply reject the validity of where we pull them from. And I, and others, reject where you pull yours from.

My potentially unfair criticism of the some of the Christians here is this: I think the secularists here understand the limitations of our value judgements and have humility enough to not present our views as though we speak for the universe's definition of objective truth. And many of the Christians here believe that they own a monopoly on understanding of morality and ethics and lack the humility to admit any possibility that they could be mistaken.

And so we continually reach this same impasse over and over. I don't think its likely that anyone here is going to be radically swayed by anything anyone else says. That doesn't mean we can't learn from each other and about each other. Instead, what I think happens, is that you all presuppose secularism as nonsensical and then complain that our positions are nonsensical to you. Well, duh.

---

I don't think you get the problem from our point of view. No matter how you derive the definitions, it is always arbitrary, and thus always majority rule / might makes right. Everything that you claim informs your morality has no meaningful expectation of agreement; two humans can use the same process and arrive at different conclusions (discussed earlier), solved only by will to power. That is the established order of secular society. But that's ok, insomuch as the established society isn't Christian, because you don't want to live in that society. It's a bit of a quandary.

If you and the secularists understood your limitations, you wouldn't claim that you could construct a coherent system (your spaghetti monster), because coherence is a ghost. It doesn't exist to find in a secular world. It would necessitate order and objectivity beyond yourself. Who cares if two people agree that rape is wrong? It doesn't mean anything to call it wrong, other than to mean you won't let someone do it if it's in your power.

Power is what we keep harping on because it's all that's left when you reject these things. The post structuralists / post modernists / critical theorists all get this and have been there a long time.

---

Well said. I want to add in response to the bolded:

It may come across this way because so many of the things you listed under "good" are co-opted from Christianity, but then you remove Christ. I'll be a bit melodramatic in saying that you're essentially stealing intellectual property. You act as if these are clearly good things, but don't acknowledge that the vast majority of humanity prior to Christ didn't agree with you. The only civilizations that held values remotely close to the same view of the dignity of the human person (the Greeks, Buddhist India, Confucian China, etc) didn't spark a fraction of the social progress made by Christianity, and even they relied on some sort of eternal and objective "good". So when you agree with a certain set of values that we hold and then say you don't need our claimed source in order to hold those values, we tend to reassert where those values came from to begin with.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately you don't. You have said there is no objective good or bad, right or wrong. Historically morality has been defined as how man is supposed to act. Maybe it was grounded in nature itself, or maybe it was grounded in God, but the fact remained that there was an objective truth that was being sought. The second you take that away, your not dealing with morality proper. I understand some philosophers still call it "morality", but in order to do so they've just changed the definition of morality. If we can change definitions to suit our personal opinions and saying we've solved the problem, what's the point in even discussing it?

Now I'm not saying that you are an amoral monster or anything like that. You're clearly seeking to do what is best for humans, but to be accurate, it's better to call it what it is: guidelines based on opinion.

---

Call it whatever you want; guidelines based on opinion, subjective morality, whatever. The point that no one on your side of this debate wants to engage with, despite the fact that its been brought up constantly, is that your claim to have rooted your morality in the objective will of God is completely unverifiable. I could claim to you that God had revealed to me objective truth and that I understand true objective morality. And what would that be worth to you? An unverifiable, unproveable claim of divine knowledge from an infinite supernatural being, but filtered through my own subjective perception that you don't get access to and have to simply accept. I made that claim, you'd call it BS and you'd be right to. But, I'm supposed to assign credibility to Christian morality when its claims are based on the same thing.

And we continue to gloss over the fact that the objective standard that Christians believe today and have believed over the last 2000 years has been all over the map. How can people all appealing to the same objective standard arrive at wildly different conclusions? The answer is that regardless of whether objective morality exists, Christianity is affectively changing guidelines based on the opinion of the day.

The short answer here is that the basis of your morality is just as subjective and arbitrary as mine.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Scenario B has more laws. Therefore it is less neutral, right? Is scenario B more restrictive? On one hand, you can say that Scenario B still demonstrates that the government has the power to pass laws related to the treatment of Christians. . . . but, do you feel that both scenarios result in the same exercise of power by the government over its people?

---

Neither side is neutral. Neutral is to have no laws at all and provide ultimate freedom for all to choose their own path. It also would destroy civilization, which is why we don't do that.

---

What I'm trying to do here is point out that not all set of laws results in the same level of government power or oppression. Yes, we've established that neither side is neutral. What we continue to fail to agree on is that there are degrees of separation from neutrality. Some laws introduce more oppression than others. Once we establish that, we can ask questions about whether we should aim to maximize oppression or minimize it.

Quote:

---

This isn't a problem for me. We're both realizing that governmental power is being used, regardless of direction. There is no neutral. So then we have to ask ourselves: what goal are we shooting for and why are we shooting for it? If I have a Christian goal and you have secular goal, we're competing for the power to enforce it. If we have the same goal of making America an objectively more moral place, then we're working together to see what policies might make that work. If we don't have an objective goal, it's all preference from there. We're right back to impinging on certain people's desires because they don't align with the desires of those in power for no other reason than because the powers that be say so. Every law is now arbitrary in it's foundation, even if it's helpful in it's practice. The view that we should help society thrive has no more value or merit than an anarchist's view that society should burn or the extinctionist who thinks humans should remove themselves from existence through sterility. You just happen to have more people agree with you than the other two, currently.

---

I want to try again to suggest that the degree to which secular goals disagree with Christian goals can vary.

Secularist 'A's goal is to impose secular humanism values on all citizens and eradicate Christianity.

Secularist 'B's goal is to limit which values can be imposed on citizens regarding which moral and ethical values should be followed. This isn't a neutral position. And its still not oppression-free.

But. . . do you recognize a difference in the goals between A and B?

Quote:

---

American Christians have worked very hard at maintaining Christian values in America. However, when the SC reinterprets the constitution in order to defy the will of the majority and remove the people's ability to maintain them, then the responsibility shifts to the government to fix it's own mistakes. If the alcoholic has to take responsibility for his actions, part of that is avoiding near occasions to relapse. Forcing an alcoholic to go to a bar every single day forever and then blaming him for an eventual relapse would hardly be fair. Forcibly removing Christian values from the public square and then blaming Christians for not being able to keep them front an center in society is an equally unfair ask.

---

Can you provide examples of where your ability to practice your religion has been infringed? I'm not going argue that those examples don't exist. But, I'd like to make sure that our government isn't seeking out Christians and shooting them in the streets. Because thats what it sounds like. It sounds like your oppression is so severe that you have no ability to practice your faith. And if thats the case, then thats a problem and I'm there for you.

But, if your example of where your ability to practice your religion is that one time a baker got sued for not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding and then ultimately won the suit. . . . then Boo F#@#%ing Hoo. I'm sorry to be dismissive or callous, but we all face oppression. Its simply a reality of any society today or that has ever existed. That doesn't mean oppression is 'good'. It just means that I'm not going to stop to tend to my neighbor's papercut on the way toward my other neighbor with a life threatening injury.

Quote:

---

So the question loops back to: what is best for society and how can we know it? Can we "know" it at all?

---

Unless someone here is God, then the answer is we can't. Personally, I just try to do my best and have enough humility to consider your best and my neighbor's best. Because pretending that I know it all and that MY version of what best is absolute is to play God. And I'm told Christians frown upon that, right?

The Banned said:

---

Again, why the historicity of Jesus is so important. You can say Jesus is just as "unjustified" as the flying spaghetti monster, but hardly an atheist historian left thinks He didn't actually live. We believe He was God, so following His commands leads us to objective morality. You believe He was not God. That's a simple enough difference for us to discuss and both of us could "justify" our conclusions.

the whole flying spaghetti monster this is used as an attempt to undercut that we do have strong metaphysical and historical reasons for approaching the question of morality like we do. We have good reasons to believe Romans created an incredible empire. If I say a flying spaghetti monster actually created the roman empire and act as if this is an equally valid claim, i'd get laughed out of the building and rightfully so.

---

They FSM is an attempt to demonstrate the hyprocrisy of demanding legal preference for one unverifiable supernatural idea while demanding legal disregard for another unverifiable supernatural idea.

Christianity is not the belief that a man existed 2000 years ago and was a religious teacher. Christianity hinges on the idea that this person was the son of God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. And to those claims, the fact that Jesus most likely existed is next to zero worth. Mohammad existed, that doesn't make Islam true.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Again, why the historicity of Jesus is so important. You can say Jesus is just as "unjustified" as the flying spaghetti monster, but hardly an atheist historian left thinks He didn't actually live. We believe He was God, so following His commands leads us to objective morality. You believe He was not God. That's a simple enough difference for us to discuss and both of us could "justify" our conclusions.

the whole flying spaghetti monster this is used as an attempt to undercut that we do have strong metaphysical and historical reasons for approaching the question of morality like we do. We have good reasons to believe Romans created an incredible empire. If I say a flying spaghetti monster actually created the roman empire and act as if this is an equally valid claim, i'd get laughed out of the building and rightfully so.

---

They FSM is an attempt to demonstrate the hyprocrisy of demanding legal preference for one unverifiable supernatural idea while demanding legal disregard for another unverifiable supernatural idea.

Christianity is not the belief that a man existed 2000 years ago and was a religious teacher. Christianity hinges on the idea that this person was the son of God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. And to those claims, the fact that Jesus most likely existed is next to zero worth. Mohammad existed, that doesn't make Islam true.

---

The fact that Jesus existed means we can actually attempt to look at the claims made about Him. We may arrive at different conclusion, but we can wrestle with actual facts and data, which I know is important to you.

Mohammed also existed and left behind teachings we can examine to see if they are true. The Islamic Dilemma is a great example of this.

The FSM offers none of this and is a poor comparison for that reason.

Quote:

---

we can wrestle with actual facts and data

---

We can wrestle with narratives constructed around him. Actual facts beyond the bare minimum of his existence and likely his execution are not easy to come by.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I don't think you get the problem from our point of view. No matter how you derive the definitions, it is always arbitrary, and thus always majority rule / might makes right. Everything that you claim informs your morality has no meaningful expectation of agreement; two humans can use the same process and arrive at different conclusions (discussed earlier), solved only by will to power. That is the established order of secular society. But that's ok, insomuch as the established society isn't Christian, because you don't want to live in that society. It's a bit of a quandary.

If you and the secularists understood your limitations, you wouldn't claim that you could construct a coherent system (your spaghetti monster), because coherence is a ghost. It doesn't exist to find in a secular world. It would necessitate order and objectivity beyond yourself. Who cares if two people agree that rape is wrong? It doesn't mean anything to call it wrong, other than to mean you won't let someone do it if it's in your power.

Power is what we keep harping on because it's all that's left when you reject these things. The post structuralists / post modernists / critical theorists all get this and have been there a long time.

---

I completely see the problem frm your point of view. And it is a completely valid concern. I have repeatedly recognized the limitations of secular morality, its difficulty with declaring things good or bad, and I do not object to these things.

What is happening here is that you all cannot see the problem of your so called 'objective morals' from my side. You can claim that your system of morality is rooted in objective standard. I can claim that I'm a horse. Claiming something doesn't make it true. And just as two humans using the same process can arrive at different conclusions solved only by will to power, two Christians can use the same process and standards and arrive at different conclusions solved only by will to power.

My goal is not to construct a coherent system that is false. My goal is to search for what is true and I would rather say 'I don't know' than believe in something that is false for the sake of the uneasy feeling of having an incomplete or incoherent world view. And right now, neither of us can demonstrate that we know what is true. And, in my opinion, one of us has the humility to admit it.

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

Quote:

---

The point that no one on your side of this debate wants to engage with, despite the fact that its been brought up constantly, is that your claim to have rooted your morality in the objective will of God is completely unverifiable.

---

That has been engaged with. Your claim that it is unverifiable is equally unverifiable. We're just pulling at the threads of reality itself if we go this way. Nothing can be definitively proven because there is no test to prove "definitively proven" is a thing. We all have a faith leap to make, but you seem to believe only one of us does.

Quote:

---

An unverifiable, unproveable claim of divine knowledge from an infinite supernatural being, but filtered through my own subjective perception that you don't get access to and have to simply accept

---

We have an actual, documented, historical lineage. I'm not just pulling this crap out of my butt. Jesus (if He is God) left his apostles who left their successors for this very reason. I get that from your formerly protestant lens it all looks like we're making it up as we go along, because that's exactly what many protestant denoms and non-denoms do. The historical Church's claim is that God gave His power to the Church, as is spelled out in the bible. Again, I know this won't move the needle for you, but your mischaracterizing our position when you say things like this.

Quote:

---

And we continue to gloss over the fact that the objective standard that Christians believe today and have believed over the last 2000 years has been all over the map.

---

I don't think I glossed over this. Objective morality is spelled out. Applications can change based on the realities of the world at that time. You didn't like that answer, but it's true. Imagine trying to detail what a moral amount of work hours is or a moral wage 1000 years ago when the concept of money, industrial revolution and so much more has changed the concept of work so drastically. I gave the example of the death penalty and the incapacity for permanent incarceration back in the day. There is a moral constant, but it must wrestle with the material facts of the day. Morality itself is not subjective. Application is. In application both sides are the same. In standard we are not.

Quote:

---

What we continue to fail to agree on is that there are degrees of separation from neutrality. Some laws introduce more oppression than others. Once we establish that, we can ask questions about whether we should aim to maximize oppression or minimize it.

---

I'll agree that there are degrees of separation from neutrality in your worldview, but it is only based on number of people affected. When less people are affected, it feels more neutral, but that's only a feeling if we don't have a standard by which to judge it. You have a standard, which I acknowledge. But others have opposite standards and you just sort of waive those away as if they have less standing. That's why it can feel more neutral

Quote:

---

But. . . do you recognize a difference in the goals between A and B?

---

I certainly recognize the difference in goals. I would obviously agree more with B than A. So together you and I will work together to suppress the desires of A because we have the numbers. But not because A is objectively wrong, if we're using your view.

Quote:

---

Can you provide examples of where your ability to practice your religion has been infringed? I'm not going argue that those examples don't exist. But, I'd like to make sure that our government isn't seeking out Christians and shooting them in the streets. Because thats what it sounds like. It sounds like your oppression is so severe that you have no ability to practice your faith. And if thats the case, then thats a problem and I'm there for you.

---

I've never once argued that we're oppressed and don't have the ability to practice my faith here in America, but it happens quite frequently in Canada and Europe. Praying silently in front of an abortion clinic is now a crime. Saying homosexuality is a sin is now a crime. Forgive me, but I'd rather not wait for that to happen here before speaking up. Maybe you'd come to my defense then, but it's clear the secular population in these other countries are perfectly fine watching it happen.

Quote:

---

Unless someone here is God, then the answer is we can't. Personally, I just try to do my best and have enough humility to consider your best and my neighbor's best.

---

I don't mean to come across as cocky, and I try to stay as humble as I can. I know for a fact I have many flaws and failures. I have no belief that I alone am able to come up with all these answers. I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us through the moral issues of the day. I only have to answer two questions: Was Jesus God? Did He leave a Church? Maybe I've answered them incorrectly, but I don't think assuming I've answered two whole questions correctly makes me God.

I think if we were in person, we'd get along quite well. I apologize if any of this came across with a harsh tone. Just trying to get out of the office and back home, so didn't take much time to edit for tone.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

we can wrestle with actual facts and data

---

We can wrestle with narratives constructed around him. Actual facts beyond the bare minimum of his existence and likely his execution are not easy to come by.

---

We have a solid number of writings from early believers saying what they believed. I guess you can call that a narrative, but for every other subject from back then we just call it "history".

The Banned said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

we can wrestle with actual facts and data

---

We can wrestle with narratives constructed around him. Actual facts beyond the bare minimum of his existence and likely his execution are not easy to come by.

---

We have a solid number of writings from early believers saying what they believed. I guess you can call that a narrative, but for every other subject from back then we just call it "history".

---

No we don't. There's varying levels of reliability in historical documents and historians of the ancient world are pretty forthcoming about the limitations of their work. What you're describing regarding the documents from early Christians are a narrative. We don't have anything preserved from the era from dissenting groups, groups that may disagree with later orthodoxy, and we don't have independent attestation of any claims aside from the existence and death of Jesus.

---

This isn't true. We have Jewish writings from the years 200-500 that explicitly deny Jesus was the messiah, that he was God and said He was a false prophet and his miracles were just sorcery. Why bother to write about it if it isn't a problem you're seeing?

We have gnostic gospels that teach heterodoxy. These start in the early 100s. For comparison, we have non-biblical texts going back to 70 or so calling Jesus God, so we're seeing deviations within 50 years or so.

There are other heretical sects that are quoted in the early Church fathers when writing against their heresies. Unfortunately their entire texts aren't kept, but it's not out of the ordinary for writings that no one cares about to be preserved.

I'll agree we can't prove He rose from the dead through these texts, but we can prove there was a major movement created around the idea that He did. It's more circumstantial from there, I'll agree. This is why an understanding of metaphysics is important as well. They fuse together to give the closest thing there is to "proof". But there will always be a gap we simply have to accept, no different than your side.

---

If I may add on: writing was expensive at the time. Of course Christians would expend great sums for scribes and materials to write these things down, and to have physical copies if they could afford it. Why would anyone else do that?

It's like the argument against Pilate. 'There are no other records of him so we're not sure he existed or was a governor.' 'How many other Roman governors can you name?' 'That's not the point!'