How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

[jvol1]

then how would you define good? if there is no God or the Bible (who set the laws of what is good and bad) then we couldn't never question a dictator or murderer. Hitler would have been justified by society for doing what he did.

People know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong. They don't need the threat of a vengeant God to know how to act. I suppose an early 20th century conception of science which tried to view things in a narrow "survival of the fittest" framework might have tried to exclude moral behavior as irrational, but people who don't believe in the metaphysical are as likely to be good as those who go to church.

 

[LouderVol]

What exactly do you think we disagree on?

That secular is ANTI religion. I think it is non-religious or the absence of religion. But not to the point where it is a goal. If the point is no religion its not secularism, imo

 

[Roustabout]

People know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong. They don't need the threat of a vengeant God to know how to act. I suppose an early 20th century conception of science which tried to view things in a narrow "survival of the fittest" framework might have tried to exclude moral behavior as irrational, but people who don't believe in the metaphysical are as likely to be good as those who go to church.

What?
They know in their hearts. What the hell kind of grounding is that?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Only if you ignore the intention of the author. Following that line, I suppose governance isn't intrinsic to the constution, it's just a matter of interpretation?

Forget Islam and look at the old testament. Governance of Israel is intrinsic to the Torah. Interpretation doesn't change the intention of the author. That's the tail wagging the dog.

Intent of the author from someone other than the author him/herself is a matter of interpretation, is it not?

Hilarious you bring up the Constitution. You couldn't have brought up a worst example for your case. If the Constitution was intrinsic, I wonder why there is so much worry over the Supreme Court?

 

[PKT_VOL]

That secular is ANTI religion. I think it is non-religious or the absence of religion. But not to the point where it is a goal. If the point is no religion its not secularism, imo

You are going to have to point to a specific post in which you infer this. I have actually been arguing, repeatedly, for the opposite.

 

[PKT_VOL]

People know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong. They don't need the threat of a vengeant God to know how to act. I suppose an early 20th century conception of science which tried to view things in a narrow "survival of the fittest" framework might have tried to exclude moral behavior as irrational, but people who don't believe in the metaphysical are as likely to be good as those who go to church.

What?
They know in their hearts. What the hell kind of grounding is that?

Agreed. It's just as confusing when theists/divine command theorists use the same reasoning to explain the morality of non-believers and the ignorant.

 

[Roustabout]

Intent of the author from someone other than the author him/herself is a matter of interpretation, is it not?

Hilarious you bring up the Constitution. You couldn't have brought up a worst example for your case. If the Constitution was intrinsic, I wonder why there is so much worry over the Supreme Court?

I expect better from you. You really think the SC is ruling whether the constitution is a document of governence?
Governance is intrinsic to the constitution. Good grief, read article III. You are using an actual branch of government, that recieves its power within the document itself (checks and balances) to say that governance inst intrinsic to the document itself.
Wow!! I can sense the peanut gallery trying to inch away from you unnoticed.

Your first paragraph is nonsense, as it would mean we would have no way to understand what anyone from hostory meant or said.

 

[Roustabout]

Agreed. It's just as confusing when theists/divine command theorists use the same reasoning to explain the morality of non-believers and the ignorant.

Theists and DC theorists are not the same.
Classic theology!!

 

[PKT_VOL]

I expect better from you. You really think the SC is ruling whether the constitution is a document of governence?
Governance is intrinsic to the constitution. Good grief, read article III. You are using an actual branch of government, that recieves its power within the document itself (checks and balances) to say that governance inst intrinsic to the document itself.
Wow!! I can sense the peanut gallery trying to inch away from you unnoticed.

No. It is not.

The Constitution is merely words on a piece of paper. Society, a collection of subjective individuals, must interpret and assent the document in a certain way to give it governence power. Interpretation precedes application.

Your first paragraph is nonsense, as it would mean we would have no way to understand what anyone from hostory meant or said.

Haha. Are you implying that history is intrinsic or objective?

All we have are our best guesses given the evidence (hell, what can even be counted as evidence is objective). There are certainly many different interpretations/versions of history people hold.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Theists and DC theorists are not the same.
Classic theology!!

I didn't say they were. Only that such a concept is found in both camps. Didn't say it was held by everyone in both camps either.

 

[LouderVol]

You are going to have to point to a specific post in which you infer this. I have actually been arguing, repeatedly, for the opposite.

Then why do you keep bringing up force? It was the post where I asked how the two statements made sense

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then why do you keep bringing up force? It was the post where I asked how the two statements made sense

So this post?

This is just false. Secularism is not technocratic or hostile to religion in general. It is merely the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force.

Let me rephrase it.

Secularism is merely the political philosophy of the rejecting the establishment of religion or religious doctrine via force (providing that there is a vehicle of force).

So, if no vehicle of force (government), secularism doesn't really come into play (practically but one can still hold it abstractly). Essentially, there is nothing to reject. If, however, there is a vehicle of force, secularism maintains that such a vehicle ought to not establish religion or religious doctrine. Essentially, such ought to be a private matter (a matter not handled by whatever the vehicle of force is).

A religious or non-religious person and either a statist or non-statist can be secular. This is due to secularism, statism, and religiousness being wholly separate concepts.

I'm pretty sure we are on the same side. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding. :hi:

 

[Roustabout]

No. It is not.

The Constitution is merely words on a piece of paper. Society, a collection of subjective individuals, must interpret and assent the document in a certain way to give it governence power. Interpretation precedes application.



Haha. Are you implying that history is intrinsic or objective?

All we have are our best guesses given the evidence (hell, what can even be counted as evidence is objective). There are certainly many different interpretations/versions of history people hold.

The above is merely words.