Sinning Chritian's moral code as "irrational" as an atheists code

[Trantor]

For the sake of concretness consider a Christian who believes that there is an Absolute Morality as defined by God and revealed to Man in whatever way the particular sect of his/her faith believes..the literal word of God as expressed in the Bible, a variation on it, whatever.

Consider also an atheist who believes there is no Absolute Moral code.

It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)

Now consider the Chritian. Humans sin, in their belief, because that is the nature of Man. No one is perfect but they believe one should aspire to follow the absolute Moral code of Christianity. But human are weak, frail etc and do sin.

Consider then the sinning Christian. Aware of the sin, knowing they sin. They will not disobey all the moral laws of their religion but will sin nonetheless..some big some small. Assume all are truly sorry and confess, repent whatever. I am not talking about hypocrosy, just human fallibilty.

While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

So the ACTUAL moral code of Christian sinners is not the Absolute code. They somehow pick out a subset of laws they are prepared to follow(albeit reluctantly, perhaps). The set of non-absolute laws followed by the inevitably-sinning Christian has no more a basis in God than the set of non-absolute laws followed adopted by the atheist.

Why, then, do the irrational, no meaning arguments not apply to sinning Christians?

[chomsky53]

you say this "It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)" what does that mean i don't understand
"it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially" i think there is some sort of typo. given that what do you think falls out of your argument (the whole thign not just the quoted part) if it goes off?

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
you say this "It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)" what does that mean i don't understand

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry..very slapdash.

It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code (God given). Because it is irrational it is then said to be worthless. Incomprehension is then expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists in view the worthlessness of their non-absolute code. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)"

[purnell]

I think you've done it. Now we can get on with... whatever it is we're doing.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've done it. Now we can get on with... whatever it is we're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are clearly attempting to span all dementia. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm not buying.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm not buying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the part(s) do you not agree with?

1)While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in...

Don't Christians believe all Man is fallible..original sin and all that?

2)... but will be breaking some laws..

Those laws that aren't obeyed are surely broken?

3) ..there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

???

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
)While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in...

Don't Christians believe all Man is fallible..original sin and all that?

2)... but will be breaking some laws..

Those laws that aren't obeyed are surely broken?

3) ..there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't get to #3 from #1. Just because someone doesn't live up to a set moral code doesn't mean that code is non-existant. No moral codes should be broken, the fact that they are is not the codes fault. It's not the fault of whomever set the codes-it's the fault of who's not following them.

[bearly]

yes, there are a lot of questions being begged in (what i think to be ) the op's exposition...............b

[purnell]

It is impossible to live "without sin". That means it is impossible to adhere to God's Absolute Morality. So what are christians to do? Why, they follow their own relative moral compass, and then beg forgiveness for the times when their own moral judgement differs from The Word. But they still follow their own moral judgement in their actions, just like an atheist or a wiccan.

Funny, this is almost like responding to "no god = murder is ok" with "possibility of redemption = murder is ok".