Printable View
If that's the case, then what basis do athiests have for a moral objection to anyone drinking alcohol? Sure an athiest could choose to abstain from it, but they have no authority to claim that it is wrong for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
morals aren't defined purely by god. There's also no requirement of authority for someone to believe it's wrong for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Morals don't need to be defined by God, but an athiest claiming the existance of an absolute moral has no backing. A claim like that is just as true as a claim by any other athiest that says it's wrong to not drink. Your definition of sXe is messed up.
A christian claiming the existance of an absolute moral has the same amount of backing. Your concept is that because it comes from a religion that it somehow is more absolute or true than any other source, and that's just not true. And if you want to go down that road, then which religion would be able to claim absolute moralities? A religious person has the backings of writings from another religious person. That doesn't translate to "authority".Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
What does that have to do with my definition of sXe though? And how is it messed up?
I have a reason for believing what I do. That reason is my belief in God. An athiest does not believe God or gods exist; any moral they believe in does not come from anything but thier own mind, or the minds of other humans who influenced them. They can have thier own beliefs about what is good and what is bad, but those beliefs have no spiritual significance, and are only based on emotional or logical premises. Does this make sense?
You say that a Christian cannot be sXe because they do not believe that all drinking is wrong. Then I say that athiests can't be sXe because thier morals are based only in what they know, and they cannot know absolute truth. Any "morals" they have against drinking are invalid because they are really just opinions.
And yours doesn't come from anything better than what's dictated to you by other people. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. So I'm supposed to believe that morality determined by a persons experiences are somehow less valid than ones dictated to them by religious materials and people? That logic has no place in determining morality?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
no I'm saying you can't be straight edge if you don't think drinking is wrong. And you can't think drinking is wrong if you're christian. The whole point is that straight edge as a subculture and a movement is extremely clearly anti drinking. Now if you disagree then why do you? What makes you think you can be straight edge and not be against drinking?Quote:
You say that a Christian cannot be sXe because they do not believe that all drinking is wrong. Then I say that athiests can't be sXe because thier morals are based only in what they know, and they cannot know absolute truth. Any "morals" they have against drinking are invalid because they are really just opinions.
Also what makes your version of absolute truth better than my verson of absolute truth? You don't know god. You have faith, but you don't have absolute knowledge. If you did, then everyone would believe as you do. But they don't.
Aristotle taught that there were three means of persuasion. These are logos, or logical; pathos, or emotional; and ethos, or ethical. Morals fall under an ethical form of persuasion. They deal with good and evil, and beliefs of a more spiritual nature. I claim that Athiests cannot argue for thier beliefs with moral arguments because they deny the existance of a god to base thier spiritual beliefs in. Logic is an entireley different catagory.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I would consider them beliefs rather than morals. Beliefs that a person develops from personal experience are most often either emotional or logical. If you see someone you love become an alcoholic, and decide not to drink based on that, then that is a predominatley emotional argument for your belief that drinking is wrong. If you don't drink because you know it will cause problems for you (work problems, health problems, relationship problems, etc.) then that is a belief based on a logical argument. If I were to not drink because I believed that God did not want me to, it would be a belief based on an ethical argument, and therefore a moral. These are just a few examples of how these types of arguments work to form beliefs that can cause a person to become straight edge, and are by no means comprehensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Here's the tricky part.I do think drinking is wrong (in a non-ethical way), and I am a Christian. My arguments for my beliefs against drinking are both emotional and logical. Christianity does not condemn drinking, and therefore Christians do not have to. Jesus did drink wine, but he did not have the same logical and emotional considerations I do. I do not think it was a sin for Jesus to drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I didn't think athiests had an absolute truth. How can you be sure of anything when all you have to rely on are human experiences? I have faith in God. That means that I can trust that he is there and that he is an eternal source of good and truth. Anything opposed to that is evil. I don't have absolute knowledge, but I know that absolute truth exists. I don't know it because I'm not perfect. My job as a Christian is to interpret that truth. If I had absolute knowledge, I would not need faith, and you're right, everyone would believe as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I'm sorry if I've sounded pushy, I'm only trying to express my beliefs. I don't mean to sound disrespectful.
Dusty, you guys should make a new shirt design which says "jesus was anti-edge" i'd buy one
Maybe non-edge. I don't think Jesus would be against abstaining from sex, drugs, tobacco and alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtD
sex has no relation to sxe.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
jesus encouraged people to drink, and made them drink.
here's the tricky part. you just think you are better than god. that's the whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I heard that staying away from promiscuous sex was a large part of sXe, but then again I also heard that I'm not sXe, so how much could I know?Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtD
If Jesus, in thier time and culture, telling his disciples to drink the wine that they were already drinking as a remembrance of him at the last supper before he was to be crucified qualifies Jesus as being opposed to a lifestyle that parallels the lifestyle his teachings would have us embrace, then I guess you can call him anti-edge.
you are clearly misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
his teachings aren't parallel to straight edge at all though!Quote:
If Jesus, in thier time and culture, telling his disciples to drink the wine that they were already drinking as a remembrance of him at the last supper before he was to be crucified qualifies Jesus as being opposed to a lifestyle that parallels the lifestyle his teachings would have us embrace, then I guess you can call him anti-edge.
Ethos meant character, ethikos refered to ethical.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
why do you need to believe in gods to have beliefs of wrong and right, i mean if you are an athiest its because you think its right so it negates your idea straight away. Just because an athiest doesn't act out of fear of eternal damnation doesn't mean they can't act. I mean medical science and past experiences don't equate to god, why can't that mold ethical thoughts of right and wrong?
But an athiest can believe things are morally wrong, morals aren't restricted to god and moral philoshophy is found at the base of biology, ecology, social science, law, politics etc. At that base level its about a rather logical process called meta-ethics, its at this point you could argue that nothing is ever right or wrong and its all relative to your individual, cultural or historical viewpoint - so it would be possible for you to say your gods wishes for you are not right or wrong but this would negate your religion. Of course instead of being realtive it could be argued that its absolute. To say its absolute is like the ideas of god creating the universe where god dictates right and wrong or philisophical naturalism where there is no bend in the idea that humanity is a natural phenomena that evolved naturally and where "good and evil are regarded as labels placed on how well individual behaviour conforms to societal expectations, and is the result of our psychology and socialization."Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
From this we have different roots of ethics or morals, absolutists will say that war, dictatorship and child abuse are inherently immoral regardless of intent. Of course when its moral relativism is in place its not necessary to reflect absoloute truths and there is in fact no need to contend opposing moral beliefs as they have no truth or value. It all becomes rather subjective and is still that there are no single source by which to judge moral truths and that it all comes down to societal convention and personal preference. Now obviously you being a christian are an absoloutist and like most christians its a graded absoloutism. Meaning that above all you serve a duty to god above your duty to fellow humans - now whilst that works fine in a moral heirachy to some it may seem etically unsound especially when they have no belief in your god but the point i'd like to make is that regarless of the morals being relative or absolute the morals dictated by god can only be absoloute yet for a moral to be absoloute it doesn't need to be dictated by god. For instance the human rights theory is a form of moral absoloutism based on human nature and its essence.
So its possible for a non drinking moral to be had both relatively and absoloutely, the reasons behind the moral are more than likely going to be relative in the first instance but as straight edge has become an established entity it is similar to the absoloute idea of human rights in which whilst the abstinance begins as a personal and relative choice you then claim to be a part of a more absoloute label in which you can't choose to change its inherent structure. I.e the idea of it being inherently tied to hardcore.
I don't think its a sin for jesus to drink either, in fact its quite clear that christianity is not against drinking but however you say that god has told you to not drink - thats a matter of your belief i don't really see how you have communicated with god but thats irrelevent. The point is you are no posting at a site which supports the condemnation of drinking so if christianity does not condemn drinking and you are a christian why are you at a site which catagorically states that its against drinking alcohol and believes it to be wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
But how is god any more substantial, its based on faith in other words a hope that he is right or a hope that he will guide you. Your faith is only based on human experiences, you trust he is there based only on experiences of other humans. It would seem that you are missing the point that the truth you hold is only relative within your absoloute moral framework, you are blinded to see that the idea of atheism and that its based on truths that are relative to itself, athiests aren't tied to one belief structure but the basis they have for denying the existance of god . There is no absoloute truth that god exists thus it cannot be anymore absoloute than a truth that says otherwise. What you have is faith based on human experiences not an absoloute truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
No you don't you just have faith that it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
If everyone knew that to be an absoloute truth everyone would believe it though but you do not know it to be absoloute truth at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 21:34(NIV)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 13:13,14(NIV)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatians 5:21
How is this so far from straight edge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 14:21