tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8364226782823543868..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Christians Have No Ultimate Standard of Morality!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17920307642858781202008-08-20T22:05:00.000-04:002008-08-20T22:05:00.000-04:00Here is a partial response.<A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/most-asinine-christian-argument-ive.html" REL="nofollow">Here is a partial response</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76506827058298888122008-08-20T20:37:00.000-04:002008-08-20T20:37:00.000-04:00Drew has recently posted an article related to thi...Drew has recently posted an article related to this topic and the problem of evil in general. He would love for some of the philosophers over here to interact, but so far he has been largely ignored when commenting at DC.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://beginningwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/08/problem-of-evil-part-2.html" REL="nofollow">Beginning Wisdom - The Problem of Evil part 2</A>davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22182971203377846202007-07-02T06:13:00.000-04:002007-07-02T06:13:00.000-04:00--But if there is such a standard, then God must a...--But if there is such a standard, then God must abide by that standard just as surely as we must. Two other things follow; 1) We can be moral without God; and 2) We can judge any purported actions by God based upon that standard.<BR/><BR/>Points one and two obviously don't follow at all. We might be incapable of them.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, don't confuse what a Christian says with Christianity. God IS the definition of good in any religion. Just ask Job.<BR/><BR/>And the drivel at the top about "progress" as the march of democracy & acceptance of cultures - that is sublimated Christianity based on a myth of equal, infinitely valued souls. What Saul preached to bring non-Jews into his sect. (Sexual "morality" today is not very pagan either, but more so also an outgrowth of Christian myths of equality. Certainly feminism and gay rights are as they appeal to equal "human rights.")<BR/><BR/>--Right and wrong are purely products of evolution?<BR/><BR/>Morality is about Right, and the body is never Right or Wrong. Only our understanding of it can be so.<BR/><BR/><BR/>--Christians are wrong in thinking that all atheists have no base for morality<BR/><BR/>They are very right because we don't. And neither do they. Neither do cockroaches, rats, monkeys, or anything else. That doesn't mean all these species are not occasionally kind and helpful amongst themselves.<BR/><BR/>The sad fact is, after reading blogs like this and Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, most so-called atheists today are really just smug Christians hiding behind some two-bit logic. You want to take the sponge and wipe away the horizon then pretend you know which way to go?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81109305050518349572007-05-14T17:30:00.000-04:002007-05-14T17:30:00.000-04:00What is "secular ethic code"? Whatever it is, I c...What is "secular ethic code"? Whatever it is, I can guarantee you it isn't love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, or self control.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand, at all, how you consider Christianity immoral.<BR/><BR/>By the way, my view of secular ethics would be Rosie O'Donnel. Someone who is "tolerant" and is full of hate and bitterness.<BR/><BR/>I guess people being more comfortable is more important than another life.<BR/><BR/>Well, the bible basically predicted that this would happen, so I am not too suprised. But it is troubling to see so many people build their lives on sand and just how shallow their lives really are. You are fat and happy and think you have the world on your finger, and know just how to live in the world. The fact is, you don't want to believe in God. You don't want to fear God. You want to live life just as you think you should, and that your own wisdom is supreme. This will lead to destruction, and, as you should know, life is very short. Eternity is, well, eternity.<BR/><BR/>I just ask you to look at the love of God. Not at other Christians, not at "morality", not at how the earth came to be, but rather at the love of God. How deep and how wide is his love! How fathomless and priceless is his unfailing love! There is nothing better in life. Not sex, not food, not books, not wisdom. Knowing Jesus Christ and being loved by God is the best thing there is. You know that God died for you so that you could live eternal life, what else do you want? Him to be with you and help you for a short time here on earth? He is! He is living within us! I can feel him in every being of my body, in the center of my bones. It is your choice. I am not here to condenm you, the bible isn't here to condemn you, Jesus didn't come to judge you. I, it, and he are here to show you love. That all of your wrongdoings can be forgiven. That you can be a NEW creation in Christ, that you can live ETERNAL life. For it is by grace we have been saved, through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God! Not by works so that no one may boast.<BR/><BR/>I yearn so much for you to see this. May God bless you and the grace of God be with you.<BR/><BR/>Live-n-graceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73134844611403706422007-05-13T20:53:00.000-04:002007-05-13T20:53:00.000-04:00Live-n-grace:I guess I am a complete idiot, then, ...Live-n-grace:<BR/>I guess I am a complete idiot, then, because in Part III and IV of my series -- it may be a couple of weeks before I get them up -- I'll be <B>demonstrating</B> the contradictions, absurdities, impracticalities, and yes, immoralities in the Christian moral code, and then demonstrating how the basic ethical philosophy behind Christianity is not merely counter-productive but leads to more immoral behavior -- and yes, behavior you would consider immoral as well as I -- than does a secular ethical code and philosophy.<BR/><BR/>As for the 'suggestions' you make, gay bars on every corner would be economically impractical -- there aren't THAT many gays, bis or bi-curious people around -- but they'd show an improvement in morals since they would mean an end to the hypocrisy of the closet and the bigotry of homophobia. (There is absolutely nothing immoral per se in gay sex.)<BR/><BR/>I find strip clubs tacky and sad (as well as absurdly overpriced -- but then I go to neither gay bars nor strip clubs). It is sad that we are so repressed sexually that we are willing to pay ridiculous amounts to see a woman naked. But immoral, no. (And, btw, anyone involved in the sex industry will tell you that their profits will go way up when a convention of evangelicals are in town.)<BR/><BR/>As for abortion, I'm one of those who believes, with Gov. Cuomo, that they should be 'safe, legal, and rare.' If we had a sensible sexual morality, decent sex education -- including teaching people how to have sex ethically and responsibly -- whether they were married or not -- and better access to birth control, abortions would be just that.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67351441904277854782007-05-13T20:38:00.000-04:002007-05-13T20:38:00.000-04:00Live-n-grace:If America has 'gone downhill' morall...Live-n-grace:<BR/>If America has 'gone downhill' morally, there must have been a time when it was at the top of that hill. When do you imagine that time to have been? Was it the 50s -- when I grew up? That's usually the time people look back to, the "Happy Days."<BR/><BR/>The time of 'Ozzie and Harriet' -- and PAYTON PLACE. The time of legal racial segregation, and George Wallace and Orval Faubus. The time of McCarthy's lies, and the John Birch Society. The time of the Cold War when a substantial part of the populace was hoping for a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. with the cry "Better Dead than Red." The time when three of the most powerful (and evil) Americans were closeted homosexuals, Cardinal Spellman, J. Edgar Hoover, and Roy Cohn -- probably McCarthy as well, but I'm not absolutely sure of him. <BR/><BR/>But yes, America has gone incredibly downhill morally over the past six years, accepting torture, accepting the most corrupt Congress in history, accepting an attack on habeas corpus and a President who -- with his signing statements -- has decared the right to ignore laws of Congress, etc. And the responsibility for those immoralities is our 'born again' President and the evangelical voters who have been his strongest supporters.<BR/><BR/>More in a second comment.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91643366738084242632007-05-13T13:08:00.000-04:002007-05-13T13:08:00.000-04:00Prup, classic: "what is right in your own eyes." ...Prup, classic: "what is right in your own eyes." I see America going down the drain as Christian values and morals are leaving the mainstream. <BR/>I am sorry but this argument is complete foolishness. That Christianity is not morally perfect is complete idiocy. It's the people that fail, we are the ones who stumble because we are still sinners.<BR/><BR/>I have an idea! Open strip clubs for all! Gay clubs on every corner! Free abortions right in your own home!<BR/><BR/>HA! Morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2951799133930812052007-05-13T12:39:00.000-04:002007-05-13T12:39:00.000-04:00L.K.You say "As for the issue of the morality acce...L.K.<BR/>You say "As for the issue of the morality accepted by historical Christians changing through time: If no Christian were to hold the correct morality, ever, this would not contradict Christian doctrine, which is that we are all sinful. I know you've heard it before: "Not perfect, just forgiven."<BR/><BR/>But that's not my point at all. My point is not just that Christian morality is <B>not</B> a perfect one, but that secular morality has far surpassed Christian morality, and that Christians have been desperately seeking ways to find these new ideas buried in their own sacred texts.<BR/><BR/>As for the idea that 'we all are sinful,' I would say, rather, that all of us have tendencies towards selfishness and blind self-centeredness and lack of empathy that cause us to act unethically. And also that one major weakness of Christian (psuedo-)morality is that it exacerbates these tendencies. (This will be one of my points in Part IV.)<BR/><BR/>Yes, "That the Universal God should give particular laws to particular people" is a paradox -- and as a reader of G.K. Chesterton I don't necessarily have problems with paradox. But that the 'perfectly moral' Universal God should give blatantly immoral laws to particular people is not a paradox, it is an absurdity.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31478978999897439342007-05-12T13:03:00.000-04:002007-05-12T13:03:00.000-04:00L.K.:John made a point to you that you didn't resp...L.K.:<BR/>John made a point to you that you didn't respond to, except indirectly in a comment to me. Let me repeat it even more strongly.<BR/><BR/><B>The only 'limitation' that any theistic religion places on God is that he <I>tells the truth</I>.</B><BR/><BR/>If God can lie to us we need not believe, we cannot believe him in anything. (For the sake of this, I will even grant you your 'holy spirit,' as the actual communicator of God's word -- with all the problems this will lead you into if challenged.)<BR/><BR/>If God can lie to us, then we have no way of knowing, in a hypothetical 'post-death' meeting with him, if he won't explain that he created us for his own amusement, seeing how absurdly he could get us to act, with our silly costumes, absurd attitudes towards sex and other pleasures, and the battles we fought in his name. 'Oh, and by the way, that nonsense about eternal life? That was a lie too.' *Poof*<BR/><BR/>(I referred to examples of 'popular culture' that I found useful in my previous post, but one of the best discussions of the possible evil of religion has been carried out through the ten years of the tv show, STARGATE SG-1. -- <B>not</B> STARGATE ATLANTIS, an absymal show by the same people. The two groups of villains in the show both use religion as their weapon against humanity. The first were the Go'a'uld, parasitic aliens who used human bodies who were the reality behind the pagan gods of the Egyptians and others, using their technology to get the humans to worship them and thus provide slave labor and other benefits.<BR/><BR/>The second villains were the Ori, 'ascended beings' who, through the use of their sacred 'Book of Origen' and the powers held by their emmisaries, the Priors, attempted to convert the whole galaxy to worship them and follow their book, promising them that they too will 'become ascended' through the Book. But, as we discover, the promise is a sham, the Ori in fact gain strength and power from the worship they receive. power they hope to use in a battle against another group of ascended beings, and their followers receive none of the promised rewards. (A nice touch is that the Priors are unaware if the fraud, and lead their flocks -- frequently through horrible actions -- in all honesty.)<BR/><BR/>More later on your misunderstanding of my point on Christian morality having changed, since your response is totally away from what I am saying.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9374083690297439622007-05-12T12:06:00.000-04:002007-05-12T12:06:00.000-04:00Well, let's hope the various comments in this thre...Well, let's hope the various comments in this thread give me the push to overcome the small writer's block I've been in. They seem to be likely to fill the bill.<BR/><BR/>I'll try to take the comments by each poster rather than do them chronologically. And lets start with L.K.<BR/><BR/>First: granting your proposition for the moment that a god exists who created the ultimate standard of morality for the Universe (the 'u.s.m. god') what is the relationship between this god and the 'god of the Testaments' who has decreed certain commandments and made various moral judgments?<BR/><BR/>One position is that the Testaments are not, in fact, reporting of actual events, or written, 'inspired' or 'guaranteed' by the god they write about, but are instead stories revealing humanity's growth in understanding of the divine, of 'adventures with the divine.' That is an understandable position, -- and one probably taken by the majority of Christians and Jews, but it leads to a major problem for them.<BR/><BR/>We have any number of plays written by the early Greek authors which use the Pantheon as characters in order to teach moral lessons. We can read them and gain benefit from them without feeling that they attest to gods that have any basis in reality, and we cannot be sure if the authors, in fact, accepted the reality of these gods, or if they merely used the mythology of their time to frame their discussion of strictly human matters.<BR/><BR/>We also have many later works that are unabashedly fiction, but which teach us much about both humanity and ethics, from writers such as Shakespeare and Cervantes to modern writers such as Rex Stout, Louis Auchincloss, G.K Chesterton, Robert Heinlein and Charles Schulz -- to pick some of my favorites of the hundreds of examples I could have chosen. <BR/><BR/>If we accept the Testaments as 'human documents' how do they differ from the books and plays I have mentioned? We can read them, and learn much from them, without ever accepting the reality of either the characters in them, or the 'main character' of God. <BR/><BR/>Or we can consider them as 'non-fiction.' But then we have to look at the relationship between the god of the Testaments and the 'u.s.m. god.' From this approach, we can make only three conclusions -- and for now I will speak only of the Old Testament God who is ratified by the New.<BR/><BR/>a) The OT God is not the same as the 'u.s.m. God.'<BR/><BR/>b) The OT God IS the same as the 'u.s.m. God,' and all his pronouncements on moral issues are to be taken as reflections of the 'u.s.m. God' and where our morals differ from these pronouncements, it is we who are wrong.<BR/><BR/>c) The OT God is the same as the u.s.m. God, but he made pronouncements in the OT that do not reflect this u.s.m. God's views. <BR/><BR/>The trouble with this position is that by making such pronouncements and telling such stories, the OT god did not just 'accept immorality' but -- because he knew his pronouncements would be followed -- 'caused immoral acts.' Examples can and will be found in my series -- yes, Part II B is late, but it will appear soon. But someone who defends this possibility must explain this and defend it.<BR/><BR/>(Okay, this post merely restates what I have written elsewhere, but I believe it does so in a discussable form. More to L.K. in the next post.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5614941127069856582007-05-11T21:14:00.000-04:002007-05-11T21:14:00.000-04:00Prup,I'm not talking about Bible belt, I'm not sur...Prup,<BR/>I'm not talking about Bible belt, I'm not sure I'd make it there because they are extremely fundamental. I am just learning about fundamentalism as a form of the Christian religion, so I don't know too much about it, but here I am talking about God's ideals.<BR/><BR/>I'm only addressing the morals found in the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Do not steal. I dare you, in a nice way, to find a Muslim country where the Muslims do not steal from one another. In Iraq, they throw their trash into the neighbor's yard and the neighbors do it right back.<BR/><BR/>Do not lie. Again, find me a Muslim country where you can depend on a person's word, or at least they would attain to that standard. <BR/><BR/>Stalin was hardly operating under the spirit of God's morals. I'm not talking about denominations or Orthodoxy...which I see some problems with as well. All religion has problems, all people have problems.<BR/><BR/>I think if you visit Russia today and visit a Christian church the first thing you will notice is their joy. In a culture where domestic abuse is rampant, hospitals are run on the ability to pay for services and comfort, and wealth is the goal, I think you will find a huge difference between those who say they know Jesus and those who simply claim to go to church. I think you'll find that here.<BR/><BR/>If you can show me that there was not a thread of Christianity that promoted charity, grace, love and peace all through the centuries I might give some more consideration to your argument that the principles I celebrate are a result of the Enlightenment. I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>Of course Islam bases some of their ethical code on the Old Testament. I stronly disagree, depending on which group of Muslim's you are talking about, that they base any of their ethics on the New. They are descendants of Ishmael, according to the Bible they are also sons of Abraham but as the rejected son, they have a different view of God. They believe in god who cannot see across the ocean.<BR/>I could go on for a long time about Islam, but I love Muslims as people and I don't want to attack them.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't mind living in Japan, as an American. To adopt the belief system would be another matter. Same with China. What a person believes is everything.<BR/><BR/>In what countries did the Enlightenment begin? What was it in the minds of the people that caused them to think in terms of being enlightened? It was not from Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, or any other ism. You know that enlightenment did not sprout overnight, it grew and had many steps along the way. <BR/><BR/>So I ask you to defend the thought processes involved that did not stem from any form of the Mosaic law. The ten.<BR/><BR/>I think it's safe to say that if God is the author of those commandments, which He would rather write on the heart than on stone tablets, and if He was truly the beginning of all things, any other form of them would be copying His original idea. So any form of the Mosaic law, or laws of common sense and benefit, is there because it always has been...just not always written down.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Calvin,<BR/>I'm glad that's more complete! I am adding that while pursuing pleasure without God may not be sinful in His eyes, it is not as fulfilling in all aspects as pleasure with Him. I love the story of the Israelites eating in God's presence. It's too bad they seemed to miss the point of His invitation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86532422131815406462007-05-11T18:20:00.000-04:002007-05-11T18:20:00.000-04:00OneWave: Oh, this is going to be fun. You say "Go...OneWave: Oh, this is going to be fun. You say "Go live in a country that has no trace of biblical ethics and then come back and tell us how we have no standard for morality." But what countries are you thinking of? Japan? Not, perhaps my favorite country, but one I think I could live in. India? Some problems with the extreme puritanism that comes from the British conquest, but still livable unless the Shiv Sena gets too much power. (I'll let Troy discuss China, since he DOES live there.)<BR/><BR/>The Muslim countries? But Islam is very much based on the Old and New Testaments, and their ethical code is much closer to the Testaments than is ours. (The Qur'an accepts the entire Creation story in Genesis, considers Adam, Moses, Noah and Jesus as prophets, and almost every story in it comes from the Bible except for a story about a 'hamstrung she-camel' that no Muslim I have corresponded with understands.)<BR/><BR/>In fact, it is very easy to see that the Muslim countries have ethics based on the Bible without the Enlightenment, which is their problem.<BR/><BR/>Russia? The culture, even during the Stalinist era of nominal atheism, was based in the principles of Russian Orthodox Christianity, as was the Russia of the Tsars. The same with Serbia, the most barbarous of European countries.<BR/><BR/>The principles you so celebrate are, in fact, products of the Enlightenment. I can't point you to Rushdoony's works without having read them, but you might study some of the ideas of his followers to see how they argue against just these principles in their attempt to re-create America in the mold of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Societies that have been declaredly based on the Bible in recent history -- I won't go back to medieval times -- include Calvin's Geneva, Puritan New England -- though they had the escape clause that people like Roger Williams could use to simply move away -- and apartheid South Africa.<BR/><BR/>As for societies with 'post-Christian' ethics, I would very much enjoy living in Scandinavia (except for the climate), England and the Netherlands. And a comparison of regions of America show me that areas such as the wonderful mosaic of cultures that is New York City -- and especially the Brooklyn that I call home -- is much more livable than areas in the 'Bible Belt.' (If you are going to mention crime, don't. The crime rate in NYC was, at its worst, never as high as in cities in Texas or Detroit, and it is currently the safest large city in America -- despite the opening to SNL.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28087983576348472602007-05-11T13:56:00.000-04:002007-05-11T13:56:00.000-04:00Yes. That's sounds perfect!Yes. That's sounds perfect!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50406941252223749712007-05-11T11:15:00.000-04:002007-05-11T11:15:00.000-04:00Yes, Calvin, I should have added 'sinful' in there...Yes, Calvin, I should have added 'sinful' in there. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you completely. Pleasure is good and created by God. <BR/><BR/>Sinful pleasure would be that which exploits, uses or hurts another to gain pleasure for one's self. Or, pleasure which is derived from misuse of the body as it is designed.<BR/><BR/>Does that sound more complete?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15047170074591233602007-05-10T22:35:00.000-04:002007-05-10T22:35:00.000-04:00One Wave,Do you mean pursuing your own sinful plea...One Wave,<BR/><BR/>Do you mean pursuing your own sinful pleasure?<BR/><BR/>Disintrested benevolence toward God is evil. It would be silly indeed to come before God and say I love you disinterestedly. The only way to glorify the all sufficiency of God in worship is to come to Him because in His presence there is fullness of joy; at His right hand are pleasures forevermore. The persuit of pleasure is not just tolerable; it is mandatory: Delight yourself in the Lord! The persuit of pleasure is proper and mandatory for every kind of love that pleases God. The pursuit of pleasure is an essential motive for every good deed. If you aim to abandon the persuit of full and lasting pleasure, you cannot love people or please God. Love doesn't seek it's own private limited joy but instead seeks it's joy in the good of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82815247243512166192007-05-10T21:44:00.000-04:002007-05-10T21:44:00.000-04:00John,Another point here:"A baby cannot rebel. It d...John,<BR/>Another point here:<BR/><BR/>"A baby cannot rebel. It doesn't have the ability to think coherently yet in order to rebel."<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, but I observe in myself and others that we would rather be the leader in our own sphere than to follow the dictates or preferences of another. Whether benevolent or otherwise, the desire to rule is evident in most people, or so I observe. <BR/><BR/>That is how I think God perceives rebellion.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible is true and people had a choice from the beginning to follow God out of love instead of pursuing their own pleasures, I believe we would be in a utopia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52059096399459365862007-05-10T20:45:00.000-04:002007-05-10T20:45:00.000-04:00If moral standards are to have meaning then we nee...If moral standards are to have meaning then we need justice. If crime ultimately pays then there is no practical reason to be virtuous. Since justice isn't dispensed perfectly in this life, it must be dooled out perfectly in a state beyond this life. In order for perfect justice to be dispensed after this life then you need a morally perfect Judge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8807079902605067442007-05-10T17:18:00.000-04:002007-05-10T17:18:00.000-04:00First of all,Clap,clap,clap...standing ovation for...First of all,<BR/><BR/>Clap,clap,clap...standing ovation for logismous kathairountes...outstanding!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now my gloves are off, respectfully.<BR/><BR/>John said:<BR/>"We who live in democratic free lands disagree on everything...everything."<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is nice to live where we have the time to disagree and have civil discussions about it.<BR/><BR/>Not everyone has that luxury and for them, the difference between Christians and the rest is real and obvious.<BR/><BR/>Being born and raised in a culture dominated by Christian morals is inseparable to your psyche.<BR/><BR/>Go live in a country that has no trace of biblical ethics and then come back and tell us how we have no standard for morality. <BR/><BR/>If you are reading the Bible as a textbook or religious guide then of course you would come up short. God is living. The Being He is cannot be contained in the Bible any more than your being can be contained in the letters you have written or the blog you are operating.<BR/>You are alive, and your actions may change depending upon situations, your writing may not reflect your entire person. In order for me to really know you, I must meet you and see you live day to day, listen to what you say, watch what you do and ask questions.<BR/><BR/>Logismous,<BR/><BR/>I still think I know you ;)<BR/><BR/>The only point I am at odds with you about is that God created physics and logic along with the universe....<BR/>From my perspective, these are things that we give names to in order to make sense out of what we see. I believe that God created all of space and all it contains just as He Himself is. The universe and all that is, simply is the way He made it and continues through His command.<BR/>All that we learn about it is like preschool and as we learn about realities we were unaware of before, we give those realities or concepts names and think we are smart.<BR/><BR/>The universe is a paradox in itself and that's one reason I don't understand this notion that God must be all we think He should be when the world around us itself is not exactly what we expect it should be.<BR/><BR/>What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30568198562312887562007-05-10T16:33:00.000-04:002007-05-10T16:33:00.000-04:00Christians are different from the rest of you. Fin...<I>Christians are different from the rest of you. Find out what Jesus meant when He said that we must be born again. Converts are not merely 'converted'. The old person is killed (this is baptism) and recreated. In Christ I am a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come.</I><BR/><BR/>I used to be a "born-again Christian." Now I am an atheist. How do you account for this?<BR/><BR/>By the way, you can't tell me I was "never really a Christian." I was just as much a Christian as any church-reared, devout young lady could be. Otherwise you are going to have to tell me how you can tell the difference between someone who believes that she is a Christian and is right, and someone who believes she is a Christian and is wrong, at a point in their lives before either of them leaves the faith.Speedwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03183564986255249281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10305999151676400042007-05-09T16:45:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:45:00.000-04:00Prup:I'll check out your series when I get time. ...Prup:<BR/><BR/>I'll check out your series when I get time. For now I'll address your comment.<BR/><BR/>I would reject that 'double faith' theory. How do we know God's will except through His commands? Recall that all earthly communication is untrustworthy, in that words change meanings, and each person has different ideas of what a word means: So it's a paradox for God (Who is unchanging - Universal) to issue commands as words (which change - Particular). The solution to this paradox is the Holy Spirit - Who is a spirit in common to all believers. Here's how we know what God's commands are, when we do happen to know what they are (sometimes we don't): We have His Spirit.<BR/><BR/>As for the issue of the morality accepted by historical Christians changing through time: If no Christian were to hold the correct morality, ever, this would not contradict Christian doctrine, which is that we are all sinful. I know you've heard it before: "Not perfect, just forgiven."<BR/><BR/>But besides that, there's "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard." Sometimes God gives different laws to different people. This is part of the paradox I mentioned above - That the Universal God should give particular laws to particular people. It's a paradox that is solved by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, by which we can discern what God wants for us individually.<BR/><BR/>Christians <I>are</I> different from the rest of you. Find out what Jesus meant when He said that we must be born again. Converts are not merely 'converted'. The old person is killed (this is baptism) and recreated. In Christ I am a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come. Thanks be to God!<BR/><BR/>The fact that a person can be killed and recreated is another central paradox of Christianity, which does not come about by any earthly power, but which God does even though it's paradoxical. He can do things that are impossible because He's omnipotent - That's what it means to be omnipotent, and it's why atheists don't think that an omnipotent being can exist.<BR/><BR/>Every miracle is such a paradox - For instance, the bush that burns and is not consumed, or the water that turns instantly into wine - Which is why atheists don't believe in miracles.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we're going to have a sticking point about paradox. I'll sum up what I think: When God created the universe, He created physics and logic along with it. Physics says how things happen in the universe. But sometimes, God decides that some particular thing should be done a different way - And when I believe in both physics and logic and in God's power, I believe in a paradox.<BR/><BR/>I understand that you might not believe in anything beyond physics and logic, and so for you, paradox = wrong. Since I believe that physics and logic were made by God, paradox = wrong is a special case which only applies in things that don't have anything to do with God.Logismous Kathairounteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05146359028263232218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35718202398435302682007-05-09T15:56:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:56:00.000-04:00Lindsey, I was making the argument that if either ...Lindsey, I was making the argument that if either one of these atheistic ethical positions obtains, then we have good reasons to be moral without settling that dispute. There are two possible ways for atheists to justify their morals, okay? Christians cannot justify their morals in an ultimate standard. So we are all in the same boat, trying to justify morality. Again I offered two possible ways for an atheist to do this. My argument was that Christians have no way to do this.<BR/><BR/>Besides, if moral relativism isn't logically inconsistent, as I think you admitted, then any other reason to reject it by looking at evil acts which we'd all reject as horrific. However, moral relativism is consistent with us all agreeing that these evil acts are indeed evil acts (i.e., torturing a child for the fun of it). Just because we all agree that this is evil doesn't make it objectively wrong, on relativist terms anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36018929184147194942007-05-09T15:39:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:39:00.000-04:00John,I never said moral relativism on its own was ...John,<BR/>I never said moral relativism <I>on its own</I> was logically inconsitent. I have other reasons to believe its false, but that's not the point. The point is, it's logically inconsistent to be both a moral relativist AND a moral objectivist. This is clearly true, and there's no getting around it. The inconsitency I saw in your argument was that you appealed to BOTH, but you must pick one. So which will it be? <BR/><BR/>The deacon has a post on this, and the comments are insightfull. Timmo quoted Russell: <BR/>"I am accused of inconsistency, perhaps justly, because although I hold ultimate ethical valuations to be subjective, I nevertheless allow myself empathic opinions on ethical questions. If there is any inconsistency, it is one that I cannot get rid of without insincerity." Unquestionably, Russell is persuaded in the existence of objective, moral values. He is caught in an intellectual bind between his deep seated intuitions about morality and his philosophical views about logic and language.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth...Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25967436690687220752007-05-09T08:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T08:27:00.000-04:00Lindsey, for the sake of argument let's say that e...Lindsey, for the sake of argument let's say that everything [EVERYTHING] we believe is based upon our genes and social environment, okay, which isn't what I'm arguing, although there is a real force to such an argument. Think about this. What if relativism is the case? Again, what if everything we believe is because of when and where we are born? It could be, couldn't it? <BR/><BR/>Now exactly how is this assertion logically inconsistent? By claiming this someone is claiming to know something that is objectively true, which he cannot say unless he gives up the notion that everything we belive is relative and "determined." So what? It could still be the case. And if he affirms relativism, he may just get lucky to be right about it, even though his belief in relativism is based upon his social conditions, and even if he has no other objective reasons for this claim. Again, it could be the case. <BR/><BR/>I don't think relativism can be refuted, do you now see why? Again, just because someone might believe everything is relative does not render his belief in relativism inconsistent or logically contradictory in any way. It could still be the case regardless of his socially and genetically caused reasons for believing it. <BR/><BR/>However, if relativism is the case, then by claiming it's logically inconsistent to affirm relativism you may exclude as impossible what might still be the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57889931531982614172007-05-08T22:56:00.000-04:002007-05-08T22:56:00.000-04:00Sorry for the horrible grammatical errors. And fy...Sorry for the horrible grammatical errors. And fyi, I go to one of the largest most liberal secular universities in the country. Shocker I know! Maybe after exams I'll hunt the book down.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79288907686667164902007-05-08T22:53:00.000-04:002007-05-08T22:53:00.000-04:00Prup,I appreciate your honesty in saying that "per...Prup,<BR/>I appreciate your honesty in saying that "perhaps there could be another world where such acts as [I] mention could be moral." That's really what I was getting at with the contingency stuff. It seemed to me (and all I really wanted was clarification) that John was arguing that his moral intuitions were correct, and would under other circumstances still be correct. In other words, in no possible world would child prostitution (let's say) be moral. That makes his moral truth claim necessary (which by definition means it couldn't be any other way no matter the circumstance). That leads straight to there being at least *some* necessary moral truths (evolution is contingent, so they'd have to be independant of that). But if you think they really could be otherwise (though I don't think that's very rationally persuasive for some moral claims, including child prostitution), then you are free to believe in moral relativism consistently. In which case, go for it, though I won't jump on that boat. But if you want to make concrete (non-relative) moral judgements, then you can't go that route.<BR/><BR/>For example, how can you call the immoral acts of the OT immoral if what we believe to be moral <I>today</I> is going to change tomorrow? I know you don't think it's likely to head that way, but let's just say it did. Then you're critique is without a solid base. (I'm less certain of this then the prior paragraph)<BR/><BR/>John, I just wanted to know if you were fully committed to moral relativism. If you are, then there are some serious problems that ensue (as far as what could possible have been considered moral). But if you're not, then you have to deal with the Plato-esque moral standard. That's all. I just couldn't read all of your responses without seeing you appeal to both, which of course is contradictory. But maybe I just read them wrong.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.com