To the editor:
Like far too many theists, Robert Smith, in a recent letter to the editor argues that morality must come from God or else all morality is subjective. However, he fails to see the subjectivity of his own position.
If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good. Is the ancient slaughter of men, women and children in the Old Testament to be considered moral and good just because it was willed by God?
Some, like Richard Smith, might think so, but most of us can agree that it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command. We have a moral compass of our own, separate from God. This morality comes from empathy we all share toward our fellow humans, especially those close to us. We know what causes discomfort and suffering, and we wish to prevent the same suffering to befall those we care about.
As an alternative to God-driven morality, we can use our own reason to observe and determine which acts will cause suffering, and which will relieve suffering. No, we may not be designed by God, but does that make the interactions we have between us any less meaningful? The harm we can choose to inflict on each other any less painful? I think not. We have the same hopes, fears and dreams.
I think that this should be the basis for our morality. Not the subjective whims of some angry, invisible deity.
Kyle Batson,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Souki (anonymous) says…
Ask most believers whether something like, say, murder...
1. Is morally wrong because god says so.
or
2. Is condemned by god because it is morally wrong.
...and they'll pick No. 2. Which proves that the morality of murder exists independently of god.
(Of course, once you've pointed that out, they'll switch their answer to the ridiculous option No. 1.)
gr (anonymous) says…
"If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good. "
I don't know of "heinous" acts "performed" by God.
"Is the ancient slaughter of men, women and children in the Old Testament to be considered moral and good just because it was willed by God?"
Willed? I don't know that any slaughter was ever "willed" by God. God says not to kill each other. Kyle says God did say, kill each other. One needs to sort that out first.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Blah, blah, blah. God is bad and men are good. Same anti-God message but I'm sure Kyle will be applauded all day.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Didn't God have a hand in Soddom and Gomorah?
Which means he can't be too happy about how things are today, unless God is progressive like the rest of us?
gr (anonymous) says…
"Didn't God have a hand in Soddom and Gomorah?"
Or was it that God didn't have a hand in it?
Understand the difference?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Good grief.
SO, who elected God? Who is able to pass judgement upon Him?
Before you can speak about morality and absolute authority, you need to have a little better grasp on the term 'Almighty'.
Just a thought.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
" God says not to kill each other. Kyle says God did say, kill each other. One needs to sort that out first."
Well, it certainly isn't sorted out in the Bible very clearly.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good."
What is the basis for calling something "heinous" in the atheistic view?
"it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command"
So Mr. Batson thinks his standard of morailty is higher than God's.
"our own reason to observe and determine which acts will cause suffering, and which will relieve suffering"
So his basis for determining what is moral is whether or not it causes suffering? What is the basis for using this as the basis? Why is it wrong to cause suffering? Actually, within a purely naturalistic evolutionary view, death and suffering via natural selection are what drives the development of species.
"I think that this should be the basis for our morality. Not the subjective whims of some angry, invisible deity."
So we must accept the subjective whims of every individual instead? One thing not even considered in this letter is the justice of God. An un-just God would not require payment for sin (injustices against Him). We don't like judges who are un-just (and let criminals go on a whim or because of a bribe), so why would we want a God who is un-just? But if God is just, He has every right to punish sin and so there was nothing un-just about His destroying of Sodom & Gomorrah. The love and mercy of God is seen in Jesus in that He has provided a way for both justice to be satisfied and people to experience His love through Christ. God is both just AND the justifier (Romans 3:26)
mick (anonymous) says…
If you had a garden which you wanted to bear fruit, yet it was full of weeds, you would pull up those weeds. Do you think that any of the plants has a comprehension of you as a gardener?
gr (anonymous) says…
"But if God is just, He has every right to punish sin and so there was nothing un-just about His destroying of Sodom & Gomorrah."
Maybe if God was a human judge. However, are God's ways, man's ways?
Was it that God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, or was it that He failed to protect them any more? Failed to protect as in being driven away from them. Even when He went to the last appeal, they fully resisted and shunned that appeal. They had their own basis of what was right and wrong and thought their ideas were as right as God's - therefore, they didn't want Him around and said they could handle their lives just fine without Him and would He please get out of their lives and quit judging them.
What more could He do? While Lot may not have been the best example, how many years did they have his influence and his brother's? Should God continue His presence where it's not wanted?
So He respected their wishes and left them to handle thieir lives themselves.
It appears that they were not so independent from Him as they had thought. There were forces around them they really needed His protection from.
deec (anonymous) says…
Gosh, I think the Book says God destroyed the cities. Also turned Lot's wife into salt for being curious.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
GR-- the Bible is nothing but a collection of parables written by people. Any morality derived from them is a morality devised by people-- not God.
gr (anonymous) says…
Well, if someone was in the position to protect something and didn't, isn't that the same as destroying it? Well, God is willing to take the blame for it, but that's different than actually personally doing it.
Actually, "she became a pillar of salt." Quite different than saying God turned her into a pillar of salt.
Lot's wife was no longer protected as she longed for "the stores" or whatever. As the rest of the city was no longer protected for placing themselves outside of God, so was his wife for longing for what she was missing out on. Didn't angels have to drag them out? Didn't they say, "Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!" Therefore, she no longer had protection from chunks of salt, rocks, nor molten lava raining down on the area.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus: That's the best post of the day! It's too bad that trying to use intelligence and reason will get you "condemned" by someone in the the name of the almighty something.
gr (anonymous) says…
So, if the Bible is just a collection of parables, would you say it has no future predictive capabilities? Or do you say some things are true in it. If so, how do you determine which is which?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
It has some value as a historical record, and even more value as a record of the religious beliefs of the culture(s) who wrote it. It has absolutely no predictive value.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
Genesis 19:22 - "'Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.' Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar."
Genesis 19:24-25 - "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground."
mick (anonymous) says…
"Faith is a higher faculty than reason."
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Manhattie,
There is no ultimate justice or judge here. The bible does not give us our moral code. The bible is about obedience to a despot. That is all it is. You talk about justice and the ultimate judge but that is extremely misleading. Some finite being is going to be punished eternally for some finite act? There is no justice in that. How is that just? There is no reason in it either. Punishment by definition is a finite act. You can't have infinte punishment. You either obey or you are destroyed. There is no free will there. That isn't even a choice. You are using a secular moral code that has a system of punishment already set up with it and then you apply some kind od "god threats" on top of it. If you live in the United States and you follow this country's law, you are living your life according to a secular moral code. There is no need to bring God into this. I think it is a much stronger position morally speaking to be motivated internally in the absence of any fear-driven directives rather than have to rely on some external imaginary force that uses threats of destruction if you don't OBEY. Do you agree that ALL sins are equivalent? Our own justice system doesn't think so. Does a person have any value onto him or herself? Can a person be a moral agent? We live in a society where we do anticipate others will be moral, we do expect people to be responsible. We live in a society where you are not automatically assumed to be guilty and evil (concept of original sin). You are not born a sinner! Heck even the bible says that you cannot be saved by your works which would mean that it wouldn't matter if you were moral or not. The bible undermines morality.
gr (anonymous) says…
bozo,
I had in mind, Daniel and the image.
Manhattanite,
Isa 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
When one tries to make man's thoughts as God's thoughts, then we have a strange and fickle God. One who says, don't kill but I'll kill - like a dictator. Like I said before, if God was preventing fire and brimstone from raining down, and then He stopped preventing it, isn't that like He did rain it down? But, that's not the same as directly raining it down.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"The bible is about obedience to a despot. That is all it is."
The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being. That is the Christian belief. You can think that it is just about obedience to a despot, but that does not make it that nor does it make it what Christians believe.
"Some finite being is going to be punished eternally for some finite act? There is no justice in that."
The punishment is to be in line with the extent of the offense. If a person steals a cheap watch from another, it would be unjust to require a million $ recompense. Justice would require something on the order of the cost of the watch plus perhaps a little extra for the inconveince. But sin is robbing God of what is His - doing something out of selfish motives rather than out of love for God. It is attempting to steal the glory of God, which is of infinite value. Therefore God is justified in requiring an eternal or infinitely lasting punishment.
"There is no free will there. That isn't even a choice."
What is free will? Do you have the freedom to jump high enough that you will land on the moon?
"I think it is a much stronger position morally speaking to be motivated internally in the absence of any fear-driven directives.."
Where does this internal motivation come from? The fact that you have some sense of right and wrong demonstrates that God exists. Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? What does "wrong" mean?
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"than have to rely on some external imaginary force that uses threats of destruction if you don't OBEY."
The point of the moral commands given in scripture is to show that we CAN'T obey them. We have no ability to do something motivated by love for God, which is what true obedience to God is. We can only change the externals, but have no ability to change the intents and motives of the heart. Only God through His Son can do this.
"Do you agree that ALL sins are equivalent? "
Probably not in the sense you are intending the question. All sin is an attempt to rob God of His glory and so justice against all sin demands the punishment of hell. But some sin begets more sin than other sin. For example, while lust in the heart is against God and deserves hell as its punishment, it may not affect and stir up as much sin as somebody who actually commits adultery physically. Likewise, Jesus said that hating somebody in the heart is akin to murder. While this is true for the individual, for society as a whole and even others, it would be better to hate in the heart than to commit physical murder.
"Heck even the bible says that you cannot be saved by your works which would mean that it wouldn't matter if you were moral or not."
Yes, the Bible teaches that we cannot be saved by our works because even all our righteous deeds are like a filthy rag. But this does not logically imply that there can be no punishment for sin as you are implying above. The moral law of God is to drive us to the point where we see we have no ability to keep a single command. It should cause us to cry out for deliverance from this "body of death" as the apostle Paul calls it. It should drive us humbly to the feet of Christ, who is the only one that can give us a righteousness not our own. True obedience in Christians, then, is found only through Christ who works obedience from the heart in them, which is love for God and not just an external form of obedience which is really no obedience at all.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"(I'm cool with people thinking anything they want ***so long as they don't try to make me agree***)"
which really just shows that you are not cool with people thinking anything they want. Basically, you are OK with people thinking anything so long as it doesn't go against what you think they shouldn't think.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
gr:
"Like I said before, if God was preventing fire and brimstone from raining down, and then He stopped preventing it, isn't that like He did rain it down? But, that's not the same as directly raining it down."
I see what you are saying, but how do you get around the direct language used in Genesis 19? "fire from the LORD out of heaven". How could it be FROM the Lord if it didn't really come from Him? Where else would it have come from? Also, why would it be sinful for God to punish sin? While our conceptions of justice may not be perfect because we are human, God is still just and in fact, perfectly just. That is why the death of His son was required. In Romans 3 it talks about Christ propitiating the sins of his people - that is, satisfying or suffering the wrath of God for those sins.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Where does this internal motivation come from? The fact that you have some sense of right and wrong demonstrates that God exists. Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? What does "wrong" mean?"
Ah now we have to open that can of worms. Really manhattie how many times do we have to go down this road....
In order to make the contention that God exist because you are moral, you have to make the assumption that God does exist.
Did you get that?
Do you understand that it is an incoherent statement. You can't define God without using the word God in it which makes it an incoherent definition. You can't define God period. You have to invoke some supernatural magical mumble jumble and try to define it from a natural standpoint. God cannot be immanent and transcendent. Christianity relies on immanence. Judaism and Islam do not have this concept. You can't claim something that is beyond nature as having a nature. Well you can claim it but it doesn't mean that it is a coherent argument. When you say God exists, then you are claiming that such an existence has an identity, has certain attributes, has a certain character. All of those concepts have limits. Identity, attributes, characters are all limiting concepts. If you ascribe to something that is unlimited (meaning God here) then you are saying that it can't have limits. Thus it means it can't have an identity, it can't have attributes, it can't have character. So when you make the statement that the Unlimited or God exists, it is an incoherent statement and means abosolutely nothing.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"Are you high, or can you just not read? I want everyone to believe in whatever floats their boat - as long as they do not attempt to make me think as they do."
What if what floats someone's boat is to attempt to make others think as they do? By telling them you are not okay with that approach, you are imposing your beliefs on them and requiring that they think as you do on the issue and so therefore violating your own principle.
I will say that one cannot FORCE a person to believe something against their will. Look at countries like North Korea and even China to some extent. Authorities there attempt to force Christains to recant their faith using torture and other means of coercion. But many still do not recant. They are more willing to endure suffering than to reject God. The will cannot be forced to change though some are more willing to reject their religion than to endure much pain.
Can you demonstrate anything that you have been FORCED to believe against your will?
deec (anonymous) says…
So how exactly did she "become" a pillar of salt if it wasn't done by god? Evolution?
Also the Book flat says God destroyed the cities. It doesn't say God let it happen, that some sort of magic fire rainstorm had been happening all along and God put his magic God umbrella up and protected the cities. Then God got mad because apparently not enough daddies were offering up their daughters for gang bangs to keep the mobs from wanting relations with the boy angels. So God folded up his magic God umbrella and went home. Is that what you're saying?
Or don't you believe in literal reading of the Book?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being." -- Manhattie
Do you see here. This is an illogical, inconsistent statement. How can something that is supernatural and unlimited have limiting concepts such as character and beingness.
If God is X then the only being he can be is X and she cannot be what X is not. Do you understand that. If you going to stand there say that God is unlimited then you are talking about a broken concept. You can't assign any thing else to God otherwise you are making an ontological error.
Manhattie, you cannot explain how the existence of God actually works. You can only assert. You fail to recognize your presuppositions that the morality argument ultimately relies upon. It does so in that it presents god to be the foundation for morality and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept.
On the other hand, secular moralists do not need God as a presupposition because it is unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. This position is much more consistent and stronger than yours.
smith (anonymous) says…
Ask most believers whether something like, say, murder...
1. Is morally wrong because god says so.
or
2. Is condemned by god because it is morally wrong.
...and they'll pick No. 2. Which proves that the morality of murder exists independently of god.
(Of course, once you've pointed that out, they'll switch their answer to the ridiculous option No. 1.) Souki
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yet both answers are wrong from the theistic position. The reason that murder is wrong is because murder is against God Himself and not because of a standard that is independent of God. Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I can see why your previous posts were so long. If they're short enough that someone might take the time to read them, their nonsense jumps right out of the computer screen.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"So I have to allow others to attempt to influence my thinking so that I don't infringe on their beliefs???"
In order to be logically consistent with your statement above, yes.
"You are basically giving credence to every repressive religious movement in the world."
No, I'm not the one making the statement that we should not attempt to make people think a certain way. I'm just trying to point out your inconsistency in applying what you apparently believe to be a moral standard. If you really believe that we should not tell people what to think, then that would include people who think you should think as they think. By your own standard, you should not tell them not to think that. That's not my standard, it's yours.
smith (anonymous) says…
In order to make the contention that God exist because you are moral, you have to make the assumption that God does exist. kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------
Or perhaps you have it backwards. To make the contention that there is morality you have to presuppose the existence of God.
=====================================
Do you understand that it is an incoherent statement. You can't define God without using the word God in it which makes it an incoherent definition. kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What you have just written is virtually incoherent if that is what you mean. God is an English word that refers to several Hebrew words one of which is translated "LORD." That word means "the I AM" or the self-existent One. There are many other approaches to this, but neither of us have the time.
=======================================
You can't define God period. kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, you just defined God. He is the One that cannot be defined.
=======================================
You have to invoke some supernatural magical mumble jumble and try to define it from a natural standpoint.
kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is just humanistic and naturalistic mumble jumble trying to escape the supernatural standpoint.
=======================================
God cannot be immanent and transcendent. Christianity relies on immanence. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know that He cannot be immanent and transcendent? By logic? Could there be the laws of logic apart from a rationaly universe? How can there be a rational universe apart from a rational Creator? Christianity does rely on immanence but not on an absolute transcendance.
=======================================
smith (anonymous) says…
When you say God exists, then you are claiming that such an existence has an identity, has certain attributes, has a certain character. All of those concepts have limits. kodiac
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not necessarily true at all. Just because God is holy does not mean that His holiness has limits. Your thoughts of God are far too human.
=====================================
Identity, attributes, characters are all limiting concepts. If you ascribe to something that is unlimited (meaning God here) then you are saying that it can't have limits.
Kodiac
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think those are limiting concepts? God is infinite in all aspects of His being and that means that His attributes are all infinite as well. The fact that we can know something about His attributes does not mean that we know all about His attributes.
======================================
Thus it means it can't have an identity, it can't have attributes, it can't have character. So when you make the statement that the Unlimited or God exists, it is an incoherent statement and means abosolutely nothing. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated, what you have said is indeed incoherent. But that does not mean that you have correctly identified God or anything about Him. Eternal life is to know God.
smith (anonymous) says…
So if murder is against God (i.e. it is a right that only God has), then you must be inherently against the death penalty? scenebooster
------------------------------------------------------------------
But God has given the command for murderers to be put to death. Murder and killing are not precisely the same thing. Murder is to kill someone for personal and selfish reasons. The death penalty is putting someone to death for the common good.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"So if murder is against God (i.e. it is a right that only God has), then you must be inherently against the death penalty?"
If murder is the unlawful or unjust premeditated killing of a human being, then you must show that the death penalty is unlawful or unjust. Obviously it's premeditated.
smith (anonymous) says…
"The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being." -- Manhattie
Do you see here. This is an illogical, inconsistent statement. How can something that is supernatural and unlimited have limiting concepts such as character and beingness. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
If one has infinite and unlimited character and beingness then there is no problem. Simple.
======================================
If God is X then the only being he can be is X and she cannot be what X is not. Kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God has revealed Himself as a He and you have no right to refer to Him as a she.
====================================
Do you understand that. If you going to stand there say that God is unlimited then you are talking about a broken concept. You can't assign any thing else to God otherwise you are making an ontological error. kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Your own position is a broken concept. If God is One and is infinite in all His being, then we are not assigning anything else to Him but His own infinity.
====================================
Manhattie, you cannot explain how the existence of God actually works. You can only assert. You fail to recognize your presuppositions that the morality argument ultimately relies upon. It does so in that it presents god to be the foundation for morality and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept. kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no one can explain precisely how God works and neither can anyone explain precisely how evolution works either. God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that. So far you have not presented any position that even allows for morality.
=======================================
smith (anonymous) says…
On the other hand, secular moralists do not need God as a presupposition because it is unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. This position is much more consistent and stronger than yours. kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "secular moralists" is a contradiction in terms because they have no way of showing that any morality is truly possible within their worldview. In fact, it is utterly absurd. If you want to have any basis for morality at all, then you must be a theist. God is a necessary Being and you can explain virtually nothing without Him. In fact, you cannot even explain why you hate the concept of God so much without God. You cannot explain morality and logic apart from God. You cannot explain langage and meaning apart from God. So here you are on this forum using language, attempted logic, and somewhat rational thinking that you have from God and are trying to explain away God and even your own being. Sounds like you are an enemy of God.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong." --Smith
Oh come now Smith. That is bunch of crap. "real answer"? What answer would be truely "real"? If an atheist has a worldview, then how can he or she be inconsistent in this worldview? His or her worldview is not based on some external standard but rather his own internal motivations. Religious beliefs as a basis for morality cannot be sustained. Atheists are far more likely to be moral than any christians are because their morality IS based in reality. Real morality is possible when the sanctions for morality are also tangible and real. Atheism shifts the basis of morality from faith in god to obligations of social living. Moral conduct is a social necessity. As we are all humans, belonging to the same species, we should live equal. Any attempt to transgress the obligation should be checked and punished here and now by fellow-humans. The immorality of one injures the happiness of others involved in a social association. Therefore the checks on immorality are also social needs. There is no postponement of the punishment to the imaginary fires of hell or to fanciful faith in divine retribution. Quite the contrary Smith, the atheist has the most "real answer" of anyone.
smith (anonymous) says…
"But God has given the command for murderers to be put to death. Murder and killing are not precisely the same thing. Murder is to kill someone for personal and selfish reasons. The death penalty is putting someone to death for the common good." scenebooster quoting smith
------------------------------------------------------------
I love it. Christian semantics. I thought God said "thou shalt not kill", and a few things about forgiveness...
scenebooster
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You thought it, but that doesn't make it so. The real idea is that of murder which is killing for personal and selfish reasons. One can forgive a person for a personal wrong and still desire that the crime be punished.
=====================================
BTW, by design, civilians are killed in war. 34,000+ civilians have been killed in Iraq in a war that our president (who was elected by God, according to him) mandated. So where does that fall in your continuum of killing? scenebooster
---------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is not murder for personal reasons. Do you think that it was murder when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Do you think that is was murder when Hussein killed his millions?
smith (anonymous) says…
"God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that. "
Any supposition about God is a statement of faith. You cannot "prove" anything about God. Nothing. Scenebooster
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IF you mean a blind faith, then that is untrue. If by faith you have the biblical concept of it where a person beholds the spiritual beauty and glory of God and believes, then that is perhaps true. However, you cannot prove anything without God. Nothing. Not only can you have no standard or basis for morality apart from God, you can absolutely have no knowledge unless there is a God.
gr (anonymous) says…
manhattanite:
"I see what you are saying, but how do you get around the direct language used in Genesis 19? "fire from the LORD out of heaven". How could it be FROM the Lord if it didn't really come from Him? Where else would it have come from? "
Here's a good exercise in understanding that what a human believes is direct language may not be so direct - let the Bible interpret the Bible rather than the dictionary interpret it.
1 Chr 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
1 Chr 10:14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.
King James says God "slew him".
As some would say, God killed Saul just because he was "curious" about witches.
For God to pick out an individual and slay them, that must have been some dramatic, spectacular, and supernatural event, don't you think? As an exercise towards understanding this concept, how did God kill him?
"Also, why would it be sinful for God to punish sin? While our conceptions of justice may not be perfect because we are human, God is still just and in fact, perfectly just. That is why the death of His son was required. In Romans 3 it talks about Christ propitiating the sins of his people - that is, satisfying or suffering the wrath of God for those sins."
As far as your comments about punishment and "eternal" punishment, I think would be best to hold off on until you agree that God's ways are not man's ways which also includes terminology. "Punishment" usually means to man to cause to change one's ways. How did "punishment" of Sodom and Gomorra help change their way.
Did God come to save people or to slay them? John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Speaking of God's son, here you have one city that believes their "choices" are as good as anyone else's choices and everyone should have their own form of morality based on their own opinions. Then, as some say, God didn't like that, so he struck them dead with fireballs. Then, another city denies, tortures, and kills His own Son sent to save them. What does He do - Mat 23:38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
Isn't that kind of strange partialities of "punishment"?
Or, did he "leave" both cities?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Sounds like you are an enemy of God." -- Smith
Smith,
I am truly sorry that you feel like I am attacking you or that you think I am an enemy of "god". I merely pursuing this conversation to become more enlightened and to seek a better understanding of different belief systems. I am curious about how or why a person believes they way they do. It is not my intention to alienate you from your own belief system. If you cannot bear it any longer I will quit of course.
"no way of showing that any morality is truly possible within their worldview" -- Smith
Sure they do Smith. The evidence is here and now. They don't have to look at some imaginary force or place to see it. They can see the results of their worldview in front of them. We live in a society where we anticipate fellow-human beings will be moral. We expect others to be responsible humans. We have varying tangible real punishments for varying different crimes or offenses. All of this is secular Smith. There is no God driving this system. Did God write the constitution of US? Did God write all of our laws as a society? Does God tax us to make sure we provide basic services as a government? Do you really think that most people out there follow YOUR standard of what God says to do? I don't think so. Sorry you still cannot escape your own inconsistency. You must rely on faith to belief what you belief.
In the meantime, as a fellow human being, I do care about what happens to you and I hope you are happy in your life.
smith (anonymous) says…
"Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong." --Smith
Oh come now Smith. That is bunch of crap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if I made that comment to you it would actually be a compliment in terms of what I really think. However, I am not trying to slam you, bt provoke you to think. You see, I believe that you are a human being made in the image of God and so you can think. You are presently in the I don't want to believe in God mode and so your thinking is less than that of bovine waste material in the sight of a holy God. However, on to the argument.
======================================
"real answer"? What answer would be truely "real"? If an atheist has a worldview, then how can he or she be inconsistent in this worldview? kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are parts in the worldview that contradict each other. Like, for example, morality and athiesm. Next, atheism and knowledge.
=======================================
His or her worldview is not based on some external standard but rather his own internal motivations.
kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
But are those motivations good or bad? How will you determine the basis for those motivations being good or bad? You are really in quite a bad spot here.
=====================================
Religious beliefs as a basis for morality cannot be sustained. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? An that from a person with a worldview that cannot present a basis for morality at all? I am not sure that you are in a position to tell me that I don't have a basis for morality when you don't have a position that support the concept at all.
=====================================
Atheists are far more likely to be moral than any christians are because their morality IS based in reality.
kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please, until you can provide a real definition of morality that can be supported within your worldview you should really not make statements like this. Until you can give a basis for morality within your worldview you should tell me that you are more likely to be moral.
====================================
smith (anonymous) says…
Real morality is possible when the sanctions for morality are also tangible and real. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you that God's sanctions are tangible and real. You are presently under his judgment and it is certainly obvious and real, though it is also His judgment on you that you are blinded to this reality. When people suppress the truth about Him and honor men and other things rather than Himself, that is His judgement. He gives people over to hardened hearts so that professing themselves to be wise they become fools. Hell is also very real.
======================================
Atheism shifts the basis of morality from faith in god to obligations of social living. Moral conduct is a social necessity. kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have no moral basis for doing that. Why should anyone (with your worldview) have any sense of obligation to society and obey its standards? In this sense it would be society pushing its morality on you and it could be very unjust as it has been in the past. Society cannot be a judge of what is just as it is just a collection of self-centered people who may agree. Society is simply the majority view of something.
====================================
As we are all humans, belonging to the same species, we should live equal. kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should we? What moral basis can you come up with for that? No you are making moral proclamations toward others as to what they should do. Why is it that you now assert that your species is superior to that of others? A good atheist would not be so prejudiced against other species.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attempt to transgress the obligation should be checked and punished here and now by fellow-humans.
kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Who put this obligation on people? There you go with that word should again. You are trying to push your morality on others and yet you have no basis for doing so.
=====================================
smith (anonymous) says…
The immorality of one injures the happiness of others involved in a social association. Therefore the checks on immorality are also social needs. kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------------
So now you know what society needs. Remember that your worldview does not allow you to have meaning in life. So what does society need to accomplish no meaning? Who are you to determine what is happiness and why one person should be punished for seeking happiness at the expense of others. You are surely trying to push your morality on others here.
========================================
There is no postponement of the punishment to the imaginary fires of hell or to fanciful faith in divine retribution. Quite the contrary Smith, the atheist has the most "real answer" of anyone. kodiac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You call that a real answer? You have provided no basis for your fanciful beliefs and you have not provided any oughtness to your position. It sounds to me like you have a fanciful blind faith in trying to explain God away. Your answer of social reasons for morality is simply relative to the majority within a society and an attempt to push your beliefs on others. Why even bother trying to be moral from your position? Why not just be honest and admit that you have no moral basis. Without God, you don't have one despite your struggles to attempt it. In fact, your struggles to come up with a version of morality demonstrates that you are made in God's image.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
OK.
1. If by "thou shalt not kill," "God" meant "thou shalt not murder," then why isn't the commandment "thou shalt not murder?" Or is that what the modern churches teach to their sheeple so they will support the death penalty? Come on. I'm calling bullsh!t on that one.
2. Come on folks, of course god is a "he." If god was a "she," then the Bible wouldn't be (a la smith) consistent with its own worldview!
Uniqueconformity (anonymous) says…
I do not wish to start any more arguements only to offer my perspective. I am not a Bible scholar, it is taxing to name the books in order. I believe in God's Creation of the world. I sometimes am upset with how things are and wonder why God allows it. But as a parent I have a new insight on things I did not understand before. With my daughter I tell her things in words she understands. I do not believe God lays out everything because we would not be able to take it. My favorite example is 'what color was the universe before there was color?' I believe the Bible states that it was dark, but what color is dark if there was no black. There was no matter, no light, no time, only the Father.
For me the bottom line is God is the creator and I am the creation, it is his world and I am a steward. I am supposed to take care of it as a neighbor's house who is away, not make it my own home. It is really unsettling for me to come to terms with. I was not raised in a church and valued independence. It feels wrong to me to accept dependence, but perhaps it is right to depend. Perhaps is is a clever disception of Satan to breed in us a spirit of independence.
Demand proof and you will receive it, but it may come too late, for the proof is not on earth.
God gave us faith, hope and love; above logic, above reason, and above intellect. All this is from the perspective and bias of a believer. Please do not take this as an assault on your belief.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"You are presently in the I don't want to believe in God mode and so your thinking is less than that of bovine waste material in the sight of a holy God."
Ah how intelligent of you to refer to my thinking as sh*t. Such a superior comeback by someone who professes to be a morally upstanding christian who follows the Great One. Do you really think that your own personal God would approve of your attacks on me? I find your discourse to be quite illuminating of who you really are Smith....
"If there are parts in the worldview that contradict each other. Like, for example, morality and athiesm. Next, atheism and knowledge." --Smith
Ah I see your point. You said ........er nothing? Hmmm guess you will have to elaborate on this statement since my own thinking is sh*t.
"But are those motivations good or bad? How will you determine the basis for those motivations being good or bad? You are really in quite a bad spot here. " -- Smith
Ah but you are making an assumption that atheists have to subscribe to a specific system of morality. I do not think they have to do that. A human being is capable of empathy. That can form the basis for a moral system. Everyone has empathy ( I guess except for psychopaths)which can be used to make a coherent system. Many animal species also demonstrate the same biological traits which does create a social system withing their species. Such a trait can be evolutionary advantageous.
"I can assure you that God's sanctions are tangible and real." -- Smith
Really Smith. How do you know? You have no way knowing this. No way at all. Do you know what the words tangible and real mean?????????
By defintion, you can't refer to a supernatural concept as being tangible and real. This is completely incoherent and illogical.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Why should we? What moral basis can you come up with for that? No you are making moral proclamations toward others as to what they should do." --Smith
Ah no, atheists don't tell others what they have to do morally. I mean we all participate in this life as part of a society. I guess if you don't like the laws of this society, you could move to a different country or different society. I can't speak for any atheists Richard but hey you can believe what you want to believe. But do understand that if you live here, you are subject to secular laws and secular forms of justice just like anyone else that lives here. If enough people disagree with some law, then the laws can be changed. I know it is not perfect system but again if you choose to live here, you do agree to live by that code.
"Why is it that you now assert that your species is superior to that of others? A good atheist would not be so prejudiced against other species." -- Smith
Sorry my thinking went to sh*t again. I have no idea why you think I said our species was "superior". I am completely baffled why you even said this?
"Who put this obligation on people? There you go with that word should again. You are trying to push your morality on others and yet you have no basis for doing so." -- Smith
Who? We did of course Smith. We all sat down and agreed to a secular moral code. Noone is pushing their morality Smith. The question is whether or not others agree with certain morals or not. If you agree to abide by a certain code of morals, noone is pushing anything here. Morals are not absolute here. We do make choices.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Why not just be honest and admit that you have no moral basis. Without God, you don't have one despite your struggles to attempt it. In fact, your struggles to come up with a version of morality demonstrates that you are made in God's image." -- Smith
Most of your statements about morality Smith are simply assertions. You can assert just about anything you want to but in the end all refer to statements based on faith. I am glad that you feel strongly about your belief system and you have faith in it. I hope you continue to have faith in your beliefs and are enlightened by your pursuit of them. I do find your statement of atheists not having meaning in their lives to be misleading. I think you were talking about an objective meaning or purpose (meaning external) as opposed to their own personal meaning or purpose. As for myself, I am quite content to live my life without an objective meaning or purpose. I find meaning in my relationships with others and my interaction with the natural world. Yes you might say that all that I am doing in life is for naught and that I don't have any ought to strive for but I disagree with this pessimism completely. Pessimism is only merited if we assume that life must be given meaning from outside our lives. But if I live without the assumption of God then without God, there is no position "outside our lives" to hand down meaning in the first place. I can choose to rebel not against a non-existent God, but instead against our fate to die. As Albert Camus says in the Myth of Sisyphus, I simply picture myself happy.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"If one has infinite and unlimited character and beingness then there is no problem. " -- Smith
No problem? So please explain to me how something can be infinite or unlimited and have character and beingness. I mean from a definitional standpoint Smith, something that has a being or has character is limiting. It makes no ontological sense whatsoever to say what you are saying.
"Of course no one can explain precisely how God works and neither can anyone explain precisely how evolution works either. God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that." -- Smith
Ah so you are saying you can expain something about God just not totally? No one can explain how God works precisely. Ah I see so this is a statement of logic then huh. So we can know God but not really know God. We can know what God means but not know what he or she really means.... yep that makes alot of sense and very logical.......yeah
Oh and I am somewhat surprised that you are comparing God to evolution. Very very surprised! I am sure that would be really appealing to God since he or she was mentioned in the same breath as a human constructed theory based on the natural real world.
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, are you a closet Christian?
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini (Kodiac): Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Inigo Montoya (Left-handed):You are wonderful.
Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in Black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): Because I know something you don't know.
Man in Black: And what is that?
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I... am not left-handed.
Man in Black: You are amazing.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I ought to be, after 20 years.
Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): Tell me.
Man in Black: I'm not left-handed either.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"God has revealed Himself as a He and you have no right to refer to Him as a she. " -- Smith
Can't sleep so I thought I would mull more over our friend Mr Smith. This statement really puzzles me. I can remember you objecting to this particular use of the masculine/feminine pronouns to refer to God from previous commentaries. I guess I do it because from a christian perspective, God has no gender so I have always thought that such human defined terms would limit God, hence the reason why I use both pronouns. Of course Jesus was a he, but from an overall perspective, the incarnation of Jesus I thought was not that he represented males but the whole of humanity. Historically some of the older Hebrew texts do refer to God as the Father and as the Mother but they also refer to the Holy Spirit as female of course Jesus as a male. At any rate, I find it a puzzling why anyone would get upset about referring to God in either masculine or feminine pronouns. I disagree that God "has revealed" himself as a he. I think that is your own subjective interpretations of translated texts Richard which is not supported in the older Aramaic and Hebrew texts. God is genderless and by definition is represented by neither the masculine nor the feminine forms. I think to make the contention that we have to refer to God as a he is to limit the concept of God and a gross misinterpretation of original biblical text. Of course this is all being said from a christian perspective. I take issue with the word "right". You have no "right" to tell me that I have to follow YOUR interpretation of translated biblical text.
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Good morning Vizzini, Regarding Smith's comment. Who cares, it's just a comment from a stranger on a message board. Big deal. So you've taken a brief layman's understanding of Hebrew and Aramaic descriptions of God. Did you read the original text, a translation or someone else's explanation? Judging from your other posts you cannot possibly indicate anything from a Christian perspective. The Christian's perspective comes from much more than quoting text or arguing on discussion boards. Unless you have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe, the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit you cannot possibly know anything about the Christian or their perspective. It is interesting, however, that you are so intent on this subject of Christianity. I think God has big plans for you and I will pray for you.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
I thank you lefthanded for your prayers. I do attempt to switch from different perspectives from time to time just from an enlightenment standpoint and seek to understand different points of view. I do have lots of personal religious experiences to draw from with Christianity obviously being the most familiar but have explored Islamic, Judaic, buddhic, paganic, naturalistic and mystical traditions as well. While my own beliefs will vacillate within a type of agnostism, I have come to the conclusion (although not final) that it isn't over the existence/nonexistence of a Being that is most important, but rather that I find my own meaning in life and that I seek to defy death. No matter how many times that rock rolls down the hill, I will continue to push it upwards and imagine myself happy...
And now to flip it back to you lefthanded...one does have to ask have you read the original texts, are your beliefs based on what others have told you? Do you follow the texts you believe in literally as obviously Smith does or do you recognize the possibility there are many paths to what one may call "the truth"?
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Viz, you're missing the point. I'm not the one attempting to disprove the Christian belief system or discredit it's believers, you are. I didn't reference these various texts, you did. You see Viz, all these belief systems require faith. And that, for you, is inconceivable. Stay clear of the iocane powder.
smith (anonymous) says…
Not only can you have no standard or basis for morality apart from God, you can absolutely have no knowledge unless there is a God." Prove it. scenebooster
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What would constitute proof to you? We have differing concepts of proof. However, I will leave you with a few questions and points.
1. Knowledge is somewhat like Plato's "justified, true
belief.
2. To claim to have knowledge what one believes must
be true and he must be able to give justification of
believing it.
3. If evolution is true, then man cannot know anything
since he cannot know anything and cannot give
justification for what he claims to know.
4. Man cannot know anything because he knows so
little about the universe and how each part fits with
each other. Man knows so little about things that
he cannot make a justified claim to know anything
at all.
5. It takes a Being that knows all things to know
anything at all. This means that man must receive
information from an omniscient Being to have any
knowledge at all.
6. If man's belief forming faculties have evolved from
the mere forces of evolutionary causation, then how
can man know that his belief making capabilities
form beliefs with any degree of accuracy at all?
7. How could man ever give an account for his belief-
making capabilites being accurate?
8. Without knowing how his own belief-making
capabilities relate to reality, man is hopelessly lost
as to knowing about reality and truth.
9. Man can only guess that his belief-making capability
has evolved within a system of evolution but not
as something that gives him correct beliefs.
10. If man has evolved, then he has no justification for
even believing that he has the truth and that
would include evolution as well. A belief-producing
capability that evolved might produce a belief
that it had evolved within a system but could
never evolve above that system of evolution
to develop beliefs about reality beyond that
system.
11. Therefore, evolutionary thinking (if it can be
called that since we can't know for sure that
our biological reactions are giving us a true
account of what we are doing) can never give us
a way of a justified true belief and so the logical
conclusion is that it leaves no one with a way
to know anything at all.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
OK, now I'm truly convinced that smith has gone off the deep end with a statement like this:
"If evolution is true, then man cannot know anything
since he cannot know anything and cannot give
justification for what he claims to know."
Yikes.
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
"Posted by ksmoderate (anonymous) on January 18, 2007 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, now I'm truly convinced that smith has gone off the deep end with a statement like this:
"If evolution is true, then man cannot know anything
since he cannot know anything and cannot give
justification for what he claims to know."
Yikes."
I agree. :)
Just smile and nod.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
Kodiac,
"I do have lots of personal religious experiences to draw
from with Christianity obviously being the most familiar "
It is impossible for one who has been given a new heart and truly has Christ dwelling in their soul to fall completely away from the faith. Great intellectual understanding and even the practice of certain "moral" things itself is not true Christianity. Making a commitment, saying a prayer, or even being baptized does not make one a true believer. Of themselves, they are simply man's efforts to follow God in his or her own strength. Many today think themselves Christians and perhaps are very externally moral and even have a great intellectual understanding of things, but God has not put His love in them and He is not dwelling in them. There were many pharisees in Jesus' day who looked good on the outside but did not have a heart that truly loved God.
It is actually impossible to "try" true Christianity. Yes, you can try to follow the moral standard set out by God in the Bible, but that is not Christianity. Christianity teaches that you cannot live up to that moral standard and so you must seek God for salvation, that He might give you a righteousness not your own and a true love for Himself in the heart. If God has not given this to you, then no matter what you say or do, it is not true Christianity.
deec (anonymous) says…
But what about "once saved, always saved"?
gr (anonymous) says…
I guess no one had anything to say about the predictive value in the Bible with Daniel's image.
manhattanite,
Regarding January 17, 2007 at 4:19 p.m.
Did you happen to read how God killed Saul?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Hmm Manhattie,
I guess I am not convinced of your external concept of what God and what it means to be a "true christian". I would argue that using your definition, you yourself would never be able to know whether you are a "true christian" or not. Your statement of "so you must seek God for salvation, that He might give you a righteousness not your own and a true love for Himself in the heart. If God has not given this to you, then no matter what you say or do, it is not true Christianity." would mean that you would not know yourself or even control your own fate. Only God would know and only God would be able to choose to give this to you no matter what you do. You could say that you feel a certain way and you may act a certain way and you may have a certain belief, but in the end it wouldn't matter because it isn't up to you to make this happen. It is entirely out of your hands Manhattie. I think if this were really true Manhattie, there would be no reason for you to stay a 'christian". I also find it curious that you are suggesting that certain people such as myself might not be a true christian when you just said only God can make that judgement. Are you judging me Manhattie?
Obviously I don't know. You clearly have some specific notion of what and how everything is based on some religious document and that is fine. You can believe in it if you want to. I think it is human written document. In my view such reliance on this piece of work is doomed to fail Manhattie because it does not reflect our current reality.
In fact I would go as far as to suggest that maybe you yourself are struggling with your faith. The fact that you have to point out to me that I am not a "true christian" according to how you interpret what a "true christian" is makes me question why you saying this to me. I mean come on Manhattie, it is quite obvious I do not believe as you believe. Does it validate your belief system somehow to tell me this? Does it make you feel better? It doesn't bother me that you made this point, just curious as to why? Have you not been reading what I am writing? I am not concerned with being a "true" anything whether it be christian, muslim, jew, paganist, buddhist etc according to how someone else might view what "true" means. I personally think there are many paths to the Truth no matter who or where you are. We all have a point of view, but if there is to be a Beingness, then that Beingness has a view of all of these points.
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"...f God has not given this to you, then no matter what you say or do, it is not true Christianity." would mean that you would not know yourself or even control your own fate."
Note that I never said you cannot know that you are a true Christian. Faith is what makes a person a true follower of CHrist in the heart. But faith operates in the spiritual realm, not just the physical and intellectual. I was merely pointing out that a person can do certain things and even intellectually believe certain things but not have true faith. Christian faith is not merely intellectually assenting to certain things and so modifying your behavior.
"Does it validate your belief system somehow to tell me this? Does it make you feel better? "
Neither. I simply saw what you had written and it sounded as if you had "tried" Christianity or were once a Christian but found it to be somehow lacking and so are one no longer. I was pointing out that Biblically, this is not a possibility. No one who truly tastes of the glory of God would then completely reject Him. That's not to say that all who have God in them will believe exactly the same things about Him. But unless you don't really believe what you are writing, it is clear to me that you are not a Christian. Or perhaps I should say that you were never a born-again believer in the way that the Bible explains that.
"Are you judging me Manhattie?"
I am making a judgment about your state as a Christian/non-Christain based on what you have written. Perhaps you object to this from your worldview? What is your basis for thinking that judging others is wrong?
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Viz, Kodiac, Grasshopper, you still don't get it. Read the verses from God's word below, meditate on them, confess your sinfulness to Jesus Christ and your eyes will be opened. Let go of the pain, the hate, the anger and fear... Let it all go.
Matthew 7:23
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Romans 5:5
and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 8:3
But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Hmmm interesting comments Manhattie,
ok lets see here you make this comment here..."Many today think themselves Christians and perhaps are very externally moral and even have a great intellectual understanding of things, but God has not put His love in them and He is not dwelling in them." -- Manhattie
From a judgement standpoint, I wasn't really looking at my own basis but the idea that you are making a judgement like you have some power to see that God is not in them. I guess you might say well I can tell this by their words or actions but such statements are still based on your own ideas of what actions or words or whatever "it" is that means someone is a "true christian". You are making a personal subjective judgement based on your own subjective interpretation. Maybe God told you who is a "true christian" and who is not but then I would say you are being deluded and irrational especially if you heard some voice telling you who is "true" and who is not. You might say well it is right there bible but even there YOU are still having to make some subjective interpretation and judgement of what it means to be a "true christian". Can you yourself determine that someone else is really a "true christian"? Let's say you have studied biblical text extensively and you feel that your knowledge and the fact that God has come into you has allowed you to make definitive statements about a "true christian". As an imperfect human, are you capable of making errors in your judgements of what that knowledge or presence means.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Let us make this even a broader question....Can a Christian call themselves as being a"true" even though he or she has never studied any other religious doctrines in existence. You may know alot about the bible Manhattie but can you say the same for the Koran, zorahster texts, buddhist writings, the Hebrew texts etc etc. Christians are generally willing to dismiss the truth claims made by other religions with little to no knowledge and understanding of those religions themselves. Yet, if I reject Christianity based on my judgements of the bible, do I have to pass some test to show you that, I am an expert. If I reject it based on some expert analysis and with an open heart and mind, will you still telll me that I just don't know enough to make the decision in question because in your own judgement God has not come into me. You can't really provide any kind of an objective justification or judgement that I am or am not a "true christian". Back to the other religions. What if I become a "true Muslim" because Allah has come into my heart. Would you and could you make any kind of judgement that I am not a "true muslim" because Islam of some idea of yours that islam is false?
Of course, I don't anything about you Manhattie and certainly I don't know what your experiences are. But I do know that if you are human, you are on very shaky grounds to make any kind of an "absolute" statement based on your own subjective judgements and interpretations.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefthanded,
Ah very beautiful verses. Now I have some for you Inigo to meditate as well. Remeber I am not lefthanded either...
Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32
For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the Sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme.
Mark 3:28
Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
John 1:29
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Good night my friends. I tire so I must sleep. But I do appreciate your comments which I find have found very enlightening. Remember as Scott Peck says (paraphrased), once you figure out that everything that happens to you teaches you something about sacredness, then you really have it made.
I like that....
smith (anonymous) says…
Ah how intelligent of you to refer to my thinking as sh*t. Such a superior comeback by someone who professes to be a morally upstanding christian who follows the Great One. Do you really think that your own personal God would approve of your attacks on me? I find your discourse to be quite illuminating of who you really are Smith.... kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You said that what I said was "crap." I was pointing out to you that your thinking against God was indeed against God and so was less than that. The context of a statement is very important in these situations. Again, I was not attacking you, but replying to your statement that what I was saying was crap. I then tried to relate that to how God must view your statements about Him. Read my statement again in light of what you said about me.
smith (anonymous) says…
OK, now I'm truly convinced that smith has gone off the deep end with a statement like this:
"If evolution is true, then man cannot know anything
since he cannot know anything and cannot give
justification for what he claims to know."
Yikes. ksmoderate
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Read what I wrote and interact with it. Can you really give justification of anything as knowledge if you really hold to evolution from a naturalistic perspective? It is far easier to type "yikes" than it is to deal with a position.
smith (anonymous) says…
Smith, that was what we used to call an "end-around". I didn't ask you anything about evolution.
You stated "Not only can you have no standard or basis for morality apart from God, you can absolutely have no knowledge unless there is a God."
Thus, in order for your statement to be true, you would have to prove the existence of God, which you cannot do. scenebooster
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you did not mention evolution, that is your only other alternative to God creating. That has been the conversation up to this point. Naturalistic evolution cannot provide a justified true belief and so it cannot give knowledge. For a human being to have knowledge, that is, a justified true belief, it would require God. It would require God to create man with a belief-forming capacity in order to have true knowledge. It would require God because only God knows all things and so what He reveals to man would be true knowledge. Apart from that man cannot know that he knows anything at all in truth.
smith (anonymous) says…
I agree. :)
Just smile and nod. Calliope877
-----------------------------------------------------------
But what are you agreeing to? Do you really think that you have 100% access to the truth? Are you so sure that your belief-developing capabilities have evolved so perfectly that they give you true insight into reality? Are you so sure that this little slice of information that you have is able to give your belief-making capabilites to extend the slightest confidence in agreeing to anything?
Are you so sure that you know enough about the causes of things that are happening around you that your belief-making capabilities are able to develp a belief based on truth? Do you have a justified true belief that when you think you smile that you are really smiling and that when you think you nod you are really nodding? Could it be that you are dreaming or that you are deceived? If you think this is surely nonsense, I would invite you to dwell upon the amount of things that you have to believe correctly in order to believe that you can really smile. Think of the causation of lights, of waves, of seeing, of feeling, of thinking, of ideas, and so on. Things are much deeper when one really thinks about them. So again, do you have a justified true belief about anything if you have evolved from the philosophically driven idea of evolution without an intelligent cause? Can you demonstrate it?
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Smith,
Do you have way too much time on you hands? Do you really think you're making some kind of impact by writing long-winded, rambling posts on this forum? Are you enjoying all the attention your getting? Do you realize your perspective isn't new or even the least bit enlightening? Have you considered psychiatric help? Are you aware that people are going to get bored with this discussion, if they already haven't, and move on and forget about you and your letter?
And once again, are you sure you don't have too much time on your hands? Perhaps you should get a hobby?
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"do I have to pass some test to show you that, I am an expert. If I reject it based on some expert analysis and with an open heart and mind, will you still telll me that I just don't know enough to make the decision in question because in your own judgement God has not come into me."
You appear to be defining "Christian" as one who has a certain level of knowledge. But this is not how a Christian is defined in the Bible. In John 3, Jesus explains that one must be born again. The amount of knowledge a person has does not determine their status as a Christian. Perhaps some other religions just require a certain degree of intellectual agreement, but that is not the case for Christianity. Do you think it is logical for a person to call themself a Christian and yet reject what the Bible proclaims is a Christian? I suppose I could call myself a frog and then define the attributes of a frog as that which matches my own. But how is that helpful in discussion?
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
gr:
"For God to pick out an individual and slay them, that must have been some dramatic, spectacular, and supernatural event, don't you think? As an exercise towards understanding this concept, how did God kill him?"
Man's will is not free from the sovereign will of God. That God ordained for Saul to be hit by archers and fall on his own sword does not mean that God could have had no part in it. God can use whatever means he pleases as He upholds all things and is himself not bound by so-called natural laws.
If God is love, then does He love His own name? Or is his love only directed toward humans? Are we God's Gods? What would it mean for God to not care and not exercise justice on those who take his name in vain?
I also wouldn't necessarily agree with your definition of punishment. Capital punishment, for example, is not exercised with the intent for the one punished to change. What is meant by the justice of God? What is the point of Jesus' propitiating anything if God does not demand justice for sins against Him?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Therefore, no person who believes differently from you is under any obligation to believe anything you say."
Very true.
smith (anonymous) says…
Smith,
Do you have way too much time on you hands?
Calliope877
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, not enough.
===================================
Do you really think you're making some kind of impact by writing long-winded, rambling posts on this forum?
Calliope877
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are far from rambling. I take it that you are not getting the point. The impact made is not up to me.
=====================================
Are you enjoying all the attention your getting? Do you realize your perspective isn't new or even the least bit enlightening? C-877
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you have taken too many psychology classes if you think this is a way to get attention. Whether this perspective is new or not it still has not been answered in terms of basic logic. What one person considers enlightening within one worldview another rejects because it would cause his or her own worldview to collapse. Your worldview cannot give a basis for knowledge or morality. For you to admit that would leave you grasping at straws in order to explain your own drive to want morality on some level.
=======================================
Have you considered psychiatric help? C-877
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of help can psychiatrists really give? If we are nothing but evolved animals, does it make sense to talk to a person as if they have deep thoughts and souls that can be helped? Medication can only control certain things in order to change certain behaviors. Within your worldview there is no basis for morality and so no need to control certain behaviors.
=====================================
smith (anonymous) says…
Are you aware that people are going to get bored with this discussion, if they already haven't, and move on and forget about you and your letter? C-877
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am aware that people bore easily and do not desire to really deal with issues that they either don't want to understand or will not understand. However, from your worldview, I have just evolved this way and so you should not pass judgment on me.
=====================================
And once again, are you sure you don't have too much time on your hands? Perhaps you should get a hobby?
Calliope877
------------------------------------------------------------------
From you worldview, what is too much time in this short life? How can I be sure about anything? Now you are passing a moral absolute on me and telling me that I should do something. From your worldview, what is a hobby but a way to pass away a short and meaningless existence and not have to think about it.
smith (anonymous) says…
"It would require God because only God knows all things " quote of Smith
Ok, prove this - hell, just prove conclusively ANY of the statements that you've made. You CANNOT.
scenebooster
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are utterly convinced of that, then I cannot because you will not. But remember that we are talking about justified true belief as necessary for knowledge. What will it take for you to assert that A is true in a justified manner? Can you know that A is true in all cases if you don't know all cases? Can you say that A is true in the whole universe if you are not able to say what is true in the whole universe. Can you say that A is not related to B in any way unless you know all about A and all about B? If you extrapolate on those simple examples, it shows that in order to claim knowledge in a naturalistic universe one must know virtually everything about everything.
=======================================
I am not questioning any of the precepts of your faith.
i am absolutely questioning that your faith is TRUTH.
scenebooster
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From your worldview you very well should. But then again, does your worldview allow you access to truth? If it does not, then there is no reason to bother asking if anything is truth or not.
======================================
My point, which cannot be factually refuted, is that all of your statements are rooted in faith, not fact, and you cannot prove otherwise. scenebooster
-------------------------------------------------------------
What are facts in your worldview? Remember, if faith is something different than you believe, then your whole paradigm must change. Your worldview does not logically allow for facts to be known and understood. When you speak of facts you are borrowing from my worldview. The very fact that you speak of facts demonstrates that down deep you are using my worldview to speak against my worldview.
======================================
Therefore, no person who believes differently from you is under any obligation to believe anything you say.
scenebooster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In one sense that is correct and in another it is utterly false. It is not that what I say puts an obligation on another, but if what I say is a reflection of what God says, then the obligation is there but not because I say it. All are under obligation to God whether they like it or not and not even if they profess to believe it or not. Down deep all rely upon God to argue for or against Him. He is a necessary Being and all do and will answer to Him.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
Smith.
""If evolution is true, then man cannot know anything
since he cannot know anything and cannot give
justification for what he claims to know."
Yikes. ksmoderate
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Read what I wrote and interact with it. Can you really give justification of anything as knowledge if you really hold to evolution from a naturalistic perspective? It is far easier to type "yikes" than it is to deal with a position."
My statement of "yikes" had nothing to do with your sidetrack on evolution, so I'll be more clear: "...then man cannot know anything since he cannot know anything and cannot give justification for what he claims to know."
That statement makes zero sense, period. You can insinuate all you want that I'm not smart enough to understand you if that makes you feel better...that's your right (and seemingly fits in with your "worldview").
gr (anonymous) says…
gr: "For God to pick out an individual and slay them, that must have been some dramatic, spectacular, and supernatural event, don't you think? As an exercise towards understanding this concept, how did God kill him?"
manhattanite:
"Man's will is not free from the sovereign will of God. That God ordained for Saul to be hit by archers and fall on his own sword does not mean that God could have had no part in it. God can use whatever means he pleases as He upholds all things and is himself not bound by so-called natural laws."
It's true God can use any natural means. But do you see that there are two possibilities? God could directly cause Saul to die, or Saul could have caused God to withdraw His protection. Saul sensed God wasn't communicating with him (or Saul was no longer listening) was why he went to ask a witch.
If God claims to have killed Saul, which he did in not protecting him, could there be other instances in the Bible where God's wording may not be our wording?
"If God is love, then does He love His own name? Or is his love only directed toward humans? Are we God's Gods? What would it mean for God to not care and not exercise justice on those who take his name in vain?"
What would it mean? How about love to the point of letting them have their choice - and consequences? "Love His own name"? Didn't fully follow - surely you don't mean He has to protect His Name. - Like Hitler?
"I also wouldn't necessarily agree with your definition of punishment. Capital punishment, for example, is not exercised with the intent for the one punished to change. What is meant by the justice of God? What is the point of Jesus' propitiating anything if God does not demand justice for sins against Him?"
How about propitiating our relationship view of God?
=========
Kodiac:
"Lefthanded,
Ah very beautiful verses. Now I have some for you Inigo to meditate as well. Remeber I am not lefthanded either..."
Those verses point out what some struggle with to accept. We are saved from the foundation of the earth. But just because God takes away our sins and has given us salvation doesn't mean we can't have the free will to walk away from it. He won't force salvation on us.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Actually ksmoderate,
When Smith says "then man cannot know anything since he cannot know anything and cannot give justification for what he claims to know" this is a very defensible position. However by saying this, Smith leaves himself with no chance to return to any kind of absolute truth nor absolute justification from a logical standpoint. He has nothing to hang his hat onto. Again he fails to recognize his presuppositions that his God argument ultimately relies upon. He presents god to be the foundation for knowledge and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept. What does that all mean. Essentially it is a matter of faith. There is no such thing as an absolute justified true belief. That phrase in the way Smith means it is incoherent. It is a subjective personal justification or truth and most certainly it is a belief.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Manhattie,
You are missing my point. You made a statement in a previous post about what a "true" christian is. You were telling me it is not a possible for me to reject Christianity if I was a "true" christian. But this is all based on YOUR subjective interpretation of what it means to be "true". You can call yourself a Christian and you can make interpretations of certain bible verses to determine what you think a Christian is but you cannot say whether or not it is an absolute truth. That can be applied to any religion. Your judgement of who I am or what I am is entirely subjective Manhattie. You keep looking for some absolute definition but you have no way of knowing what that absolute is especially since you haven't explore or experienced any other beliefs. I am saying, it doesn't matter what I say or what I do to show that I have considered some belief system, you will label my reasons as not being true because I don't follow some criteria YOU are setting (be it that I am "born again" or whatever you interpret as being important). That may be your belief Manhattie, but this has nothing to do with absolute truth. On top of that, it is my contention that you cannot make any determination of what is true because you have not considered any other belief system. You talk about being born again and having God come into you but such statements are personal and only refer to you and your experiences. I say your experiences are limited and you have less validity in saying what you are saying because of that limitation.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
I'm with you, Kodiac!
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
gr:
"What would it mean? How about love to the point of letting them have their choice - and consequences? "Love His own name"? Didn't fully follow - surely you don't mean He has to protect His Name. - Like Hitler?"
Does God love man more than he loves himself? Woiuldn't that be idolatry for God if the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? If sin is an attack against God Himself, then are you saying that God is more concerned about the desires of man than about his own justice? But what if as ROmans says, he was willing to endure vessles of wrath in order to put his mercy on display. He could not display His grace and mercy if there was no sin. Is it really all about us? Or is it all about God putting His attributes on display?
That sounds very selfish from man's perspective, but as you say, God's ways are not our ways. And yet if we are to love God, then God is also to love God.
"How about propitiating our relationship view of God?"
When used in the Bible, propitiation has more the meaning of appeasing or satisfying the wrath of God. That is what Jesus did for his people - satisfied God's wrath so he could be just in justifying them. So I guess I'm not sure how you are attempting to use it in the above sentence, which would read something like "How about appeasing the wrath of God our relationsihp view of God."
smith (anonymous) says…
When Smith says "then man cannot know anything since he cannot know anything and cannot give justification for what he claims to know" this is a very defensible position. However by saying this, Smith leaves himself with no chance to return to any kind of absolute truth nor absolute justification from a logical standpoint.
kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am saying that a person cannot know anything because he cannot justify any knowledge within the worldview of the materialistic evolutionist. I don't need to return to absolute truth since I never leave it and that is because all truth flows from that. I know that to many that sounds arrogant, but to state what is true is a reflection of absolute truth. In other words, if there is no absolute truth there are no truths. If we cannot know absolute truth how can we know anything as a truth or know truths at all?
====================================
He has nothing to hang his hat onto. Again he fails to recognize his presuppositions that his God argument ultimately relies upon. He presents god to be the foundation for knowledge and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept. kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------------
God is the ultimate presupposition. He has to be presupposed for anything to be true and for anything to work at all. I am saying that God is the foundation for all knowledge in the sense that without God no one could know anything. I am not saying that people have to know God in order to know anything, but that without Him they could not. But I am also saying that there would be no logic without God either. Logic is not opposite of my view at all. All things must come from God to be true and coherent within the system of truth.
=======================================
What does that all mean. Essentially it is a matter of faith. There is no such thing as an absolute justified true belief. That phrase in the way Smith means it is incoherent. It is a subjective personal justification or truth and most certainly it is a belief. kodiac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am saying that within your worldview there can be no really justified true belief. People will give something that they call a justification, but that is different than a real justification. That means that there is no true knowledge within your worldview. However, within the Christian worldview there is. The body of Jesus Christ was the tabernacle of the glory of the truth and grace of God. In Christ the reality of truth and grace were on the planet (John 1:14-18).
werekoala (anonymous) says…
smith:
Are Hindus as lacking in absolute truth as atheists?
Do they share the same absolute truth as you do?
If there are two mutually exclusive doctrines both claiming to be absolute truth, how should we set up a society that includes believers of both doctrines?
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Viz, Viz, Viz, I'm disappointed. In all your many (seriously) posts you indicate so much fear, so much postering, so much pride. You seem quite willing to risk anything to keep others at a distance so they won't find out who you really are. Do you really believe yourself to be a kind, thoughtful, loving and forgiving person as you portray here or are you, in reality, a scared, angry, violent one who is afraid if you love and forgive that you will be more likely to accept the forgiveness Christ has for you? You are more comfortable on a message board, arguing with strangers than a conversation w/friends discussing these same topics, why? What are you afraid of? What are you angry about? BTW, the verses which I referenced from the word of God, which you indicated were beautiful, you who seemingly presumes that he is intellectual yet remains so closed-minded that you can't accept anything you can't see or touch. The verses posted were in regards to the Lord Jesus Christ's perception of those who did not come to him as little children. In those verses, he is speaking of the last days when all are judged, not by their persumed intellectuallism but by their love and obedience to him, nothing else, nothing more or less. You who presumed to speak from a Christian perspective. It would seem you are not the intellectual you see yourself to be. I do not write as some may from a perspective of condescendation but from one of love and concern. I will continue praying for you.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Strange post Lefty,
"You are more comfortable on a message board, arguing with strangers than a conversation w/friends discussing these same topics, why?"-- Lefthanded
That comment right there is contradictary and very revealing. As far as I know, I have no idea who you are nor do you know who I am. You are yourself are a total stranger and you are on these boards arguing about these same topics. If you are a friend or used to be a friend of mine, I find it deceptive but not too surprising that you would present yourself in this way. If you are indeed a friend, one wonders why you would use this forum to tell me that I am "angry, scared, violent, close-minded." It seems that you are the one having trouble accepting me for who I am. I had a friend that was kind of like you, a christian who tried to preach to me about love and compassion. Yet those terms you used about me probably were terms you could use to describe him. I still accepted him for he was even with all of his faults. Of course, ultimately, he could not accept who I was and wanted me to change to his idea of what I should be. I find alot of similaries between you and him.
I can only suggest that you walk as many different paths as you can and open your eyes to the actual truth. It isn't about obedience, but rather about our choices. You can choose to believe what you want to believe but always remember we are all connected to each other. Think about it Lefthanded.
A quote from Gandhi (fast becoming one of my favorite people ever)
"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us. This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." -- Gandhi
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Viz, I accept you, it's just that your posts don't indicate nearly the depth of spirituality you think they do.
It would appear as if you actually think that if you've read a book, attending a gathering or said a prayer you now have the "christian perspective", remember that one? You seem to indicate that you now have the essence of whatever it is or whomever it is you read about. Unless you choose a path and seek it w/o relenting, whether it be a Christian or Hindu one you will never have a true appreciation of it, or "get it. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of useless knowledge which makes for windy posts and not much else.
You say that Gandhi is one of your favorite people, why? Because he said things that you think make you sound thoughtful when quoting? Try being like Gandhi instead of allowing him to only be the flavor of the month. Try living as the Hindu lives and maybe you will understand what Gandhi's quote means, means for you. I do not think it means what you think it means.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Let this go already
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefty,
No it is quite obvious you do not accept me. What is also quite obvious is that you have misunderstood me in my posts and in our own previous personal relationship. You make fun of my posts and claim them to be "useless" or shallow. I guess it doesn't surprise that you would exploit our personal relationship to try to undermine what I am saying. Maybe you should actually start thinking about what it is you believe and how dangerous your dogmatism is. Do you really want to bring that child of yours into a world that is most certainly headed for a nuclear holocaust because of your destructive behavior and irrationality. How can you "truly" appreciate your spirituality through this blind obedience you promote and ignore reason and intellectual honesty. Do you think this somehow makes you a "deep" person? How can you believe in some being whose first 4 commandments have to do with his or her vanity? Do you really think that such a being is deserving of praise? How can you believe in some being that shows his or her "love" through violence and favoritism? Have you not listened or read anything I have written? I don't think you have.
You obviously don't understand why Gandhi is becoming one of my favorite persons. Has it ever occured to you that it isn't his religion that I admire? Your thinking is 2-dimensional lefty as always. Maybe that is why you resort to physical violence and threats of retribution in an attempt to force your point across. I suggest you start actually using that brain of yours instead of succumbing to your fears of the unknown.
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Viz, Viz, Viz, perhaps if your posts contained more fencing, fighting and giants they'd be more interesting. Nevertheless, I do try to read them. I accept you, I happily accept you, can't you accept that? I accept Gandhi too, he was quite the wise man and so gifted too.
Interesting that he is your new favorite person yet a quote which you missed is this one, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
You rail against the mistakes or perceived nature of your former friend while seeking to portray yourself as one who is non-violent. Perhaps, this quote from Gandhi is most telling as you do seem to be prepossessed with the violent nature. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefty,
I do apologize for my last post. It was indeed incoherent and said with emotions.
I am going to challenge the idea that you can have a "true" appreciation for being a christian. Oh you may appreciate your experience and define that experience from a christian perspective, but can you really say that it is "true". Really now think about it Lefty. This isn't complicated here. Please consider this. Can you really appreciate your perspective if you have no perspective of other perspectives. Obviously a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu will say you have no "true" appreciation for their faith or religion because you aren't a Muslim, you aren't a Jew or you aren't a Hindu. In fact you may give it the "I am tolerant of thier faith" speech and maybe even "respect" it but ultimately Lefty, you think it is wrong. Why? I remember our conversations where anytime we would talk about another religion or faith, you would do the proverbial eye roll and imply it is wrong or in error. Can you really say that? How can one have a "true" appreciate if they don't explore other beliefs. I guarantee you Lefty, the only reason why you believe the way you believe is because that is your experience, that is your location, that is how you were raised. You don't have any other perspectives because you haven't gone outside of your own environment. Can you really say that it is "true". What if you are wrong? You claim Gandhi was wise and gifted but from a christian perspective, you have no choice but to say that he was wrong. He was not a christian. Your creed tells you that he was in error. You may understand his statements, but such statements have no meaning for you because they aren't "christian".
That is the mistake you make with Gandhi. That is at least what I was trying to tell you. You don't have to have a "religious" perspective to understand what Gandhi was talking about. You just have to be a human. Gandhi was becoming atheistic. This is why I admire him so Lefty. He realized this and was sharing that with the world. He wanted a global civilization and he was saying the only to do this was to discard this obsession with a single perspective. He may have said things from a Hindu perspective at certain times in his life but this view was changing. What do you think he meant when he said "Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew." when he asked if he was a Hindu. Could he really say that if he had never had a (as you call it) a true perspective.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefty, I don't deny that I have in the past had trouble commiting to one perspective or the other. But I truly believe that such commitments weren't because I never made the effort or your term that I didn't "fully embrace" the path. It was because in my heart, I knew these paths were not quite right. I cannot live a lie Lefty. If you do know me, you have to know that I have always truly embraced looking at all of the perspectives. It has been only recently that I have come to the realization of why I did so. In fact it was very freeing when I realized I could let go of my belief in some personal god or religion. Don't you see, this is what scared me the most, letting this belief go. I was afraid of what I would become if I did not believe in some religion or some god. I have found my place and I find myself happy here.
I have to go. More about this later....
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Viz, Viz, Viz, perhaps if your posts contained more fencing, fighting and giants they'd be more interesting. Nevertheless, I do try to read them. I accept you, I happily accept you, can't you accept that?"--Left-handed
How can I accept someone who says they accept me and yet in the same breath tells me that my posts are "uninteresting", says that he has to force himself to read it, and has to call me names to mock what I am saying? Heck dude, you won't even admit to me who I know you to be. These are the actions of a coward. How can I respect or accept anything you are saying? I find it rather ironic you would give us a quote from Gandhi about nonviolence and then proceed to demonstrate exactly what Gandhi is railing against.
It is more than just admitting you made a mistake, Lefty. We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from such mistakes. However, as I read your posts to me, it is quite obvious that you haven't learned anything. You want forgiveness, I can forgive you Lefty. I understand that you are human and you are capable of mistakes. You want to be friends, I suggest you go back and reread your posts to me.
In the meantime, please don't "force" yourself to read my posts if they are so uninteresting to you. Please don't "force" yourself to be my friend or pray for me Lefty.
maxtin (anonymous) says…
Ok. Ethics 101. There are two branches of ethics. Metaathics (what 'right' and 'wrong' actually mean) and Normative ethics (what things actually are or are not right and wrong).
Moral realists believe that right and wrong are objective facts of some kind. There are MANY kinds of morally realist theories. ONE of them is Divine Command Theory:
The sentence "x is good" is parsed out as "x is commanded by god".
Divine Command Theory is inconsistent with being a good christian since it Makes a nonsense of the Doctine of God's Goodness (Omnibenevolence) since "God is good" now reduces to "God does what god wants".
Send your pastor back to Seminary Smith. Take some basic philosophy or theology. Your ramblings are neither coherent nor accurate representations of educated Christian Theology
maxtin (anonymous) says…
Whoops that's Metaethics there folks
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Dear, dear Viz, you seem so frustrated, so angry. I get fearful that this will be our last discussion. I can go away, would you like if I just stopped bothering you? Interestingly, you keep coming back here day after day to argue with me. Please, I beg, do not sic your giant on me. I promise I am not the six fingered man you think that I am.
Your first post yesterday seemed like more of the same borish carrying on. After starting with an apology I thought perhaps we were getting somewhere but inevitably it led into the beaten to death tolerance game. Viz, you do understand that you have no say in who or what I tolerate or accept. If I accept you ViZ, you are mine to accept. It really seems to bother you that I accept you and/or tolerate you doesn't it. Fascinating, well, anyway, that's your problem. Now then, why do you throw quotes out there about Gandhi w/o understanding their context? When Gandhi stated, "I am..." he was in deep despair because his beloved India, the crown of the British Empire, was about to gain it's independence. Rather than emerge as a proud nation it emerged as two warring enemies split bitterly along religious lines. He was crushed, he was devastated. He says this in a season of great despair and you use it as evidence he was an atheist. Context Viz, you need to think about it. Acceptance Viz, is that what your Gandhi thing is about too? "If it was okay for Gandhi then it must be for me too." Have you tried a hunger strike? So yeah, that post was a disappointment. The next one, the short one made me proud, I really thought we had something b/c at least you seemed honest rather than typing for an hour and when your done it says, " ". As for the last one, OUCH! Did you have a bad day?
Finally, it has hardly gone unnoticed that you seem to vacillate as to whether or not I am your old friend who just doesn't understand you and was mean to you. Doesn't everyone like you have an old friend like this? You have prattled on and on about violence regarding this former friend. Exactly, how long did you have this friend? Was violence perpetrated often? You indicated this person could not relate a point w/o violence. Tell me, if not all the violence then was perpetrated against you, what were you doing when it was occurring? Did you try to stop it? Did you encourage it, laugh at it, secretly wish it was you perpetrating the violence?
You see Vizzini, I do not think that you have a friend or former one that is or used to be violent, I think, perhaps it is you that struggles with violence. I do accept you Viz, I really do, and I will continue to pray for you. As with acceptance, of course, you can't control this. And I will pray that you face this violence in your life so that then it will, perhaps, be easier for you to accept and tolerate others more readily. Good night, Vizzini. I do not think I wil be around for a little while, but then you never know.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Viz, you do understand that you have no say in who or what I tolerate or accept." -- Left-handed
Yeah but that is not what you asked though dude. Your statement was "I accept you, I happily accept you, can't you accept that?" I replied that I do not and told you why. I wasn't talking about you dude. You asked me if accepted this and I told you that I don't. That has nothing to do with whether I have a say in what you do or accept. Like I said you can say or do anything you want to but just because you saying it doesn't mean I have to accept it. I don't care what you do. Don't force yourself to do anything on my account Lefty. I'm not responsible for you.
"He says this in a season of great despair and you use it as evidence he was an atheist."-- Left-handed
Well first of all Lefty, I didn't say that he was an atheist, only that he was becoming one. And second of all this statement was only an example of many statements he was making. He was embracing univeralism. You bring up the fact that he was in despair over these two religious groups in India but that only examines what was happening and not why Gandhi was in despair. Gandhi was a man of man rather than a man of god. That statement among many others show that. He did not hesitate to leave his own faith especially if it stood in the way of service to the peace and progress of humanity. His emphasis was on truth which was about social needs, not faith which is sentimental. He supported secularism if it solved the differences of a community. He wanted everyone to get along. That was the whole point of the statement. Global civilization was more important to him than some specific faith. It wasn't that he was an atheist Lefty, only that he was going that direction Lefty.
As for the rest of your statements I am not sure why you are so hung up on my respect and admiration for Gandhi. I made a quote by Gandhi and your original post was that I couldn't understand it because I wasn't a Hindu. My point in this whole thing that you got bog down in was that you don't have to be in a "religion" to understand any of these statements that anyone says. So your comments are becoming somewhat incoherent to me. Hunger strike? Huh?
As far as the friends stuff I think that has gotten out of hand as well. I know who you are Lefty because you given yourself away too many times. I find it bizarre that you keep referring to yourself in the third person. I guess there is nothing more to say on that matter. I can tolerate you Lefty, I just don't want to hang out with you dude (in person of course). Kind of like hanging out with ex-wives don't you think. I mean I'm sure you could tolerate your ex-wife and maybe even accept her, but I imagine you probably don't want to hang out with her. Just think of me as that way Lefty. I'm an ex who doesn't want to hang out with you (in-person).
Good luck with your preying there Lefty...oh er I mean prAying.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Oh and by the way, I haven't brought up anything else about violence associated specifically with that former friend except for the one sentence that I was apologizing for (where I said you use brute force to get your point across). Everything else regarding violence in conjection with this former friend, has been brought up by YOU. Go back and look at your posts. I was only responding to your statements. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up but you sure think it is important regarding me. You could almost say you are obsessed with it. Kind of curious don't ya think. Of course that wasn't the reason why I decided to break off that friendship I was referring to but I guess since you don't know me ("wink") then that is a mute point. It does make for a very interesting read concerning your thoughts.....
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Das_Ubermine,
You know I have always meant to tell you that I have alot of respect for you and really enjoy reading your posts. You really bring a unique perspective that I find very liberating.
Ok enough idol worship or Lefty might start get jealous again. Something about accepting him I think..
Several reasons for posting here. I am exploring different belief systems. I hope that I am open to different ideas and seek to keep actively pursuing my philosophy. I am also interested in promoting universality but not really sure how much I can do in that respect. This probably sounds corny but I do want a better world for our children and I think this religious obsession with a personal god is divisive and will destroy our species. I don't consider myself a leader though and often look to others to help me. Lefty is right in that I have a lot to learn about what others say and what certain ideas or concepts actually means. Sometimes I get frustrated with myself for not being able to undertand more then I do. Sometimes it takes me forever to understand something and I think I must be an idiot savant. I do find it helpful to me though to be on here because I find most everyone here will expose my lack of understanding which usually (not always) comes with little or no emotional baggage or irrationality.
As to Lefty, well that is more of a personal matter. Lefty gave himself away and it became somewhat personal for me. I am not sure why I have chosen to hash it out here but I think it is because I am looking for some type of closure with him. I did originally ask him in private to leave me alone but then I realized I did want to say some things to him. I thought maybe this could be a way to talk to each other. Perhaps, subconsciously I still even want to be friends with him. I don't think that is happening here though. It seems we still find those faults in each other even on here. So I guess with Lefty I didn't see it as insanity but rather an attempt to find some closure, some kind of resolution.
So what about you?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Hey Lefty,
You still haven't answered any of my original questions of course. I still would like to know why you think you have a "true" appreciation of being a christian. I still would like to know how you can believe in a god whose first 4 commandments are about his or her vanity? I still want to know how is that you can believe in a god that has perpetuated so much (do I dare say it; might cause you to go into convulsions ahhhhhhhh) violence against the human race? You keep avoiding these questions and I am very curious as to how you would answer these questions. I also wonder if you think other religions are wrong. What does it mean when you say you "tolerate" them? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh did you read any of my bible verses. Did you figure out what they were about? Maybe you can share your thoughts on those as well.....
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Dear Viz, my but we do get worked up, don't we? Truly, your's is a dizzying intellect. Is it frustrating to you Viz, you keep coming back to this worn out blog to "argue" with me? I've already told you I only skim these posts at best. Do you really think if you write more or longer ones that I'll read them, hold them dear to my heart and reply to you over and over until late into the night?
Have a good day, Vizzini, watch out for the Iocane and try not to become confrontational. You ever had a problem with that, Viz? Now, me, your (ex)wives, all of your other imaginary friends and former friends too, will try to have a good day.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefty,
That is too bad. I was hoping for some serious answers from you but all you have for me is this little game you play. I thought we were getting somewhere but apparently I was wrong. I can't tell you how disappointed I am with that. I guess Das_Ubermine is right in that you are just a troll.
It saddens me that you cannot or will not answer any of my questions. They are not complicated questions Lefty. Do you really need to have any "spiritual" depth to ask those questions? I do wonder how anyone can deal with the incoherency and contradiction of biblical text. I don't think most do. I think it is ignored or maybe assigned to this "we can't know" area. Sometimes I hear this "well this is the old covenant and this is the new covenant". You know what that means to me. All that says is that this god of yours changed his or her mind. I ask why and again I get hit with this we can't know bit. Kind of like this parent up in the sky saying because I said so that is why. Well Lefty, I say it is time for all of us to grow up. It is time to discard this 2000 year old mythical document and start building a better world for our children.
lefthanded (anonymous) says…
Well, at least the other poster talked about trolls so that spiced things up a little. Guess what, Vizzini? I read their whole post, I read it twice. I even agreed with some of their points. So long, Viz! Don't let the Christians, or the republicans, or the President worry you to much. With a few more nazis like you, perhaps, you'll get your world w/o Christians some day. It's only me and the other billion, then you're free and clear. Then you'll fire one up for sure, right? Now don't be so easy next time.
Dang, you were just starting to get interesting with the trolls. Dang, dang, dang.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Ah Das,
I do apologize for doubting you so. I guess my closeness to the situation was interfering with my better judgement. I think there is at least some hope for lefthanded if he is willing to listen to you.
And much to my dismay, I did miss the chance to sic my giant and Inigo onto him earlier. But then again I don't think he would have left me alone. I guess I must still have his Buttercup.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Lefty,
I have to tell you, it is truly amazing to me that you keep responding to my posts. As I read your last post, I kept looking for the line where you call me the spawn of h*ll. But alas you did not so maybe I am not worthy of it.
I will try to keep this short and sweet just for you Lefty because I know how you despise such long-worded emails. Of course I can't really control the interesting part so you will have to just skim what you can from it.
It was enlightening to watch you go from praying for me and accepting me to calling me a shallow violent Nazi. I can see that we bring out the worst in each other and it makes me think there is at least some hope for you and I, to continue this dialogue with each other.
If it is any consolation Lefty (and hopefully this won't go to your head) you have caused me to question who I am and reexamine what I am doing. I do have alot of issues with that internal judge of mine and its desire to reach out and knock people down.
I sincerely hope that you find a place to be where you are happy or at least comfortable answering the questions I posed to you. Hopefully you will find the courage to stand up for what you do believe in instead this need to rely on what a billion others believe in.
Have a nice day Lefty....
jonas (anonymous) says…
A strange triangle has developed here.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
For Souki question (#2 post, a little late in the game):
"Ask most believers whether something like, say, murder...
1. Is morally wrong because god says so.
or
2. Is condemned by god because it is morally wrong."
You missed the real crime/sin here.
The sin/immorality of murder is the usurping of God's perogative and right, as He is the only one who can take what He has given. It is morally wrong as it is an offense against God himself.
Just another manifestation of the original sin.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
Morality is just a bit shy of the stature of the inviolable laws of physics, say on the level of the laws of economics.
Some fundamentalist churches condemn Masons because we teach morality independent of religion. To people who take pride in what horrible sinners they were before they converted this is an astonishing thing. Indeed it condemns them and brings into question the value of their faith: It says they didn't need their conversion experience to know right from wrong.
As for God willing horrors, recall some incidents in the book of Joshua, chapter 8 for instance, where the Israelites are commanded to commit genocide against the people of Ai.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
75x55,
I don't think this is really a solution to what Souki is asking. It seems to me you are merely substituting "usurping of God's perogative and right" for "murder". Then you choose option #2 which brings us back to Souki's original point that Morality is independent of God.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Actually 75x55,
It is simpler than that. When you say God's right or perogative, it imples that there is some entity who has a right that he himself has given himself. I find such a concept to be limiting and incoherent.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
And once again, K., you reduce God to the level of humanity. And around the circle we go again.
Example of this: "some entity who has a right that he himself has given himself."
This discounts the nature of God (or "Necessary Being") - when this is done, it's terribly easy to lay all kinds of 'moral woes' on Him, such as all the old testament massacres, Sodom and Gomorrah, et. al.
Besides, Souki's question isn't about finding an answer, it's about trapping an ignorant believer and making them feel small.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
75x55,
I did not realize that Souki was trying to make anyone feel small or that this is about trapping a believer. I can't speak for Souki, but I think she is asking a genuine question.
I'm trying to make sense of this 75. I guess I don't understand what you mean by me reducing God to humans. I'm not trying to go in circles here 75. How can I "reduce" God to human terms when He is already in human terms? You were speaking of God in human terms when you started talking about rights or perogatives. This is probably the most confusing concept of god to me.
You talk about the nature of God but anything we (and I mean you or I or anyone) talk about God, it is still a human construct. How can you talk about an absolute when all we can deal with is this world, these boundaries, our own reality. If we are imperfect, we can't conceive of something that is perfect. You can descibe a universe where a god does exist, but this universe, this reality is something you have created to understand the unknowable or ultimate Reality.
I don't feel like I am trapping anyone 75. That is why I say I find this "limiting" and "incoherent". You are presenting an ontological argument 75 and I think such an argument fails.