cane and abel

maitri

timetogetfit wrote: »

Adam and eve had 2 sons cane and abel I was wondering

Who had cane and abels children?

To come back to the initial question: What about Lilith? Or is she not really part of Christian faith, since (I believe) she's not mentioned in the Bible? It's said though that she was Adam's first wife but that he was not too happy about her since she was not obedient (but as it should turn out, Eve was not obedient either).

Or maybe there were other beings, like the Giants of Genesis 6:4?

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Zombrex

maitri wrote: »

Or maybe there were other beings, like the Giants of Genesis 6:4?

The Nephilim ... yeah prepare to get some weird explanations of that one

wolfsbane

maitri wrote: »

To come back to the initial question: What about Lilith? Or is she not really part of Christian faith, since (I believe) she's not mentioned in the Bible? It's said though that she was Adam's first wife but that he was not too happy about her since she was not obedient (but as it should turn out, Eve was not obedient either).

Or maybe there were other beings, like the Giants of Genesis 6:4?

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Yes, Lilith is no part of the Christian faith. Possibly one of the Jewish fables referred to in Titus 1:14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

There is debate about who the 'sons of God' were, but I think the better argument lies with them being fallen angels. Perhaps the ones the apostle refers to:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

maitri

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is debate about who the 'sons of God' were, but I think the better argument lies with them being fallen angels. Perhaps the ones the apostle refers to:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

Really? I didn't think Christians believed that fallen angels could have babies with women. To me that seems more like something out of a horror movie... I thought angels vere generally seen as sex-less and gender-less beings?
And I thought they didn't have free will either (or maybe that is in Islam)?

wolfsbane

maitri wrote: »

Really? I didn't think Christians believed that fallen angels could have babies with women. To me that seems more like something out of a horror movie... I thought angels vere generally seen as sex-less and gender-less beings?
And I thought they didn't have free will either (or maybe that is in Islam)?

As I said, there is some disagreement about who these sons of God were.

We are not told much about the nature of the angels, and their ability or otherwise sexually is not discussed - unless this account does so. So silence permits it as a possibility.

Since their fall, they don't have free-will (meaning the ability to choose to do good and evil). The good angels remain good; the bad angels (demons) remain bad. They both act according to their natures.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Ok, this is getting rather long winded and way way off the original topic of cane and abel so I will try and reply to what I think are the important bits.

I agree - we can't keep meeting like this.:D:D:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The atheist, however, has no such outside standard that constrains his thinking. He makes his own morals and can change them by merely accepting they are now outdated. Yesterday's morals - OK for then, not now in these new circumstances.

Yes but that is actually nearly impossible, because a person like myself who comes up with their own moral system has reasons behind their morality, unlike a theist such as yourself who is borrowing morality.

For example I believe that abortion is wrong once a foetus has developed a brain capable of higher thought. I believe this for a large number of reasons that have lead me to that conclusion. It is my morality and as such I understand it fully.

So how would I change that?

Say my girlfriend gets pregnant, and I would love for her to have an abortion, but it is very late.

On what grounds do I tell myself that my morality was wrong originally, and that now it is actually moral to abort late term babies?

To do so I would have to some how convince myself to over turn all the of the reason that lead to that moral outcome in the first place. The entire logic would have to change, and I would need a very good reason to do so. "I want to" is not a good reason and I would know this. "I want the baby to not be self-ware because I want to be able to abort it" is not going to over ride my original conclusion that the baby could be self ware with a brain capable of higher functions.

A good point. But it really comes to this: how strong can any previous reason be, in the face of pressing present concerns? You may have put a value on the baby's life because it is to some degree aware, or even that it has the potentiality for self-awareness. But how does that value stack up against a need to leave Uni and get a job to support a family? So the strong reason to oppose abortion is negated by new reasons to do so. For the Christian, the issue is one of sin (murder) vs great economic difficulty. That surely gives the Christian a more dependable moral system.

I appreciate that you may not understand this. You are given your morality (or at least you believe you are) and told to use it, without necessarily understanding or even knowing the logic behind it. If it was all changed tomorrow you would simply go "Ok".

But the morality cannot change in the manner yours can - my whole world-view (my religion) has to be abandoned if I'm to ditch my morality.

But when it is your own morality it is not that simple because you already understand all the reasons that lead you to the original moral conclusion in the first place.

Yes, but you can easily place them in a new order of importance. You don't have to reject the idea that the baby has value, for instance. You just say that a degree and lifestyle that follows has more value.

Take another example. I believe that capital punishment is wrong, no matter what. Now say my sister gets raped and murdered and the catch the guy. Now I don't know I may be boiling with anger and want to bash the guys head in. But that couldn't change my moral belief that capital punishment is wrong because there isn't a reason in there that contradicts or over turns the trail of reason that lead to my moral conclusion that capital punishment is wrong.

OK, you would have to re-evalutate your belief on capital punishment. Maybe you would stick with it - depends on why you thought it was wrong. Was it just an idealist notion, a natural repulsion at the thought of deliberately killing someone? Or was it formed in the full knowledge of how wicked men can be, raping and murdering the innocent? Is it a rock-solid conviction that embraces the facts of life and accepts this is the only way? Or, as I said, just a notion?

Christian morality is of the former sort, based as it is on their inner conviction that God has spoken and this is His way. As such it is much more likely to stand in adversity than well-intentioned notions.

Do you understand the point I'm making. it is all about ownership of ideas, ownership and understanding of your own morality.

You don't own your morality, you borrow it. You see something and go "That is what I should believe" and you convince yourself that you do believe it. That is easy because you don't have to understand and justify that believe to yourself, you just accept it as being correct.

Though I didn't invent it, I believe it comes from God, so it has immense weight with me, even if it doesn't suit my present situation.

I can't change my morality without lying to myself (which is baring mental illness, rather hard to do),

But you can re-evaluate its importance.

where as you can change your morality by just changing your interpretation of what you think your morality should be, which I imagine happens all the time.

Every time you read the Bible you now doubt see something you didn't see before and alter your interpretation. In fact you are probably strongly encouraged to do this.

Yes, I can change my mind on what is right and wrong about a particular issue. But I can not do so just ot suit my needs. Any interpretation must seem to fit the Biblical account. I can't just dismiss it or say it means something that suits me when it plainly doesn't.

For example, a Christian might change his mind about Divorce and Remarriage. The Scripture is not easily understood on the matter. But he cannot change his mind about adultery, saying it OK to have sex with my neighbour's wife while he's at work.

PDN

maitri wrote: »

Really? I didn't think Christians believed that fallen angels could have babies with women. To me that seems more like something out of a horror movie... I thought angels vere generally seen as sex-less and gender-less beings?
And I thought they didn't have free will either (or maybe that is in Islam)?

I don't believe that fallen angels ever had babies with women. I don't think, however, that there is any biblical basis for believing that angels are genderless.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

A good point. But it really comes to this: how strong can any previous reason be, in the face of pressing present concerns?

Very strong, and I think this is the point you are not really getting, I suspect because of you rely on borrowed morality, morality that you haven't derived yourself.

All the reasons why I got to a moral position have to be very strong because it is my own morality, it has to justify itself otherwise it isn't morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You may have put a value on the baby's life because it is to some degree aware, or even that it has the potentiality for self-awareness. But how does that value stack up against a need to leave Uni and get a job to support a family?

Again if I were to simply decide that human life is now not as valuable as my selfish needs it would be impossible for me to do this without realising that I'm only doing this for selfish reasons. And that has to be considered.

If human life has value and it is wrong to abort unborn babies with higher brain functions before I need to get a job, there is no logical reason why it doesn't have value after I need to get a job.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That surely gives the Christian a more dependable moral system.

Not really, because if you rely on interpretation of something like a holy book, it is possible to find a "logical" reason to change, you simply find a different interpretation that better fits your current need, and go "Ah yes, this interpretation makes more sense. So God really doesn't mind me aborting my unborn baby"

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the morality cannot change in the manner yours can - my whole world-view (my religion) has to be abandoned if I'm to ditch my morality.

Well it depends on how much of a change required, and in how many steps.

It would be silly to deny that there is a huge difference in the details of how the various Christian churches interpret what Christian morality is supposed to be (look at something like abortion). While you may claim they all believe in the same fundamentals, the fundamentals tend to be rather abstract and wishy-washy. It is when these fundamentals are turned to the details the splits start to appear.

Then look at the difference between Judaism and Islam and Christianity, these are quite closely related religion (you wouldn't even have to give up faith in your god) but have often very different interpretations themselves when it comes to the details.

It is not hard to see how people can shift around within the Christian religions, or even the Abramhamic religions when they come across different interpretations of essentially the same thing, different interpretations that feel "fit them" better.

This is rather easily justified under the pretense that they were simply wrong before. It wasn't that the morality was wrong, so they don't need to go through all the reasons an atheist would have to justify to himself, because the morality is from God, it is never wrong. What was wrong was the flawed human interpretation of what the moral was supposed to be.

So again using the example of the Christian who, probably after being raised Catholic, held the moral belief that life began at conception and abortion was sinful. He gets his girl friend pregnant. Now he kinda wants an abortion. To get to a position where he can justify that he doesn't have to justify that the moral that abortion was sinful is wrong, he simply needs to justify that that wasn't actually the correct interpretation of the moral in the first place. And there are plenty of Christian churches and web pages and articles that say exactly that, that there is little reason to believe the correct interpretation of God's moral on a foetus is that the soul enters the body at conception.

So he doesn't have to abandon his morals, because they aren't his morals to begin with, they are borrowed morals. He didn't come up with them, and he certainly didn't come up with the reasons behind them. He doesn't have to abandon his religion, or his faith in God/Jesus, or even his faith in the Bible. He simply abandons his previous flawed interpretation and adopts a "better" one, that just so happens to fit is current needs. Who is to say his new interpretation isn't the correct one?

If he had determined on his own, using his own reasoning, that abortion after conception is immoral, he couldn't do this, or at the very least he couldn't do it without some serious delusion on his part with relation to justify to himself why his previous reasoning was all wrong, and his new reasoning is some how now correct.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, but you can easily place them in a new order of importance.

No its not, because there are reasons why they are put in order of importance in the first place.

You can't re-arrange them without justifying why those reasons were all wrong to begin with, and that is rather hard to do because they are your own that you yourself worked out in the first place.

If I determine that human life is more valuable than a cheese burger, the reasons I used to make that determination don't disappear out the window when I see someone with a cheese burger I want. It doesn't suddenly flip because I want at that moment a cheese burger.

I would have to justify why all the previous reasoning that humans are more valuable than a cheese burger was all of a sudden wrong.

How would I do that? What justification would I use? The reasons haven't changed. Humans are still self aware, cheese burgers still aren't self aware. The golden rule is still there, it hasn't been replace with a clause "unless they have a cheese burger" that now allows me to bash this guy to dead.

You can picture it like the devil and the angel on your shoulders. My girlfriend is pregnant and the devil pops up saying "You guys should have an abortion". The angel pops up and says "No, abortion is moral because of all these reasons..." and lists the reasons you have already determined.

The devil says "Well, er, umm, there is a brand new reason why abortion is now moral that, umm, over rules all those reasons"

The angel asks "Ok, what is it?". The devil is force to reply "Umm, because I now want one ... is that a reason?" to which the angel goes "No, it isn't"

Now it could happen that the devil goes "Screw the reason, be selfish and immoral" and I listen to him. That is of course possible, but I would know what I was going was immoral and wrong by my own determination, which is where guilt kicks in.

Again I think this is the fundamental different between non-theist morality and religious morality. You don't really know the reasons behind the morals you read and are taught, behind "It is what God wants".

You borrow them, and you are never actually sure you have it correct. That ambiguity over if you actually have the correct interpretation of what the borrowed moral is actually supposed to mean, allows quite a bit of wiggle room.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christian morality is of the former sort, based as it is on their inner conviction that God has spoken and this is His way. As such it is much more likely to stand in adversity than well-intentioned notions.

True, but then I would hope that most non-religious people don't form their morality based on "notions"

You do seem to think that atheist morality is based simply on a system of whims, or gut feelings. I can certainly see why you would believe that is a flawed way to base a morality system, and why you would think that such a system can change a belief on a dime.

But that isn't how I form my morality, or most atheist I know. It is actually a long considered detailed process of reasoning and justification.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Though I didn't invent it, I believe it comes from God, so it has immense weight with me, even if it doesn't suit my present situation.

Well yes, but the question is how well do you know the reasons and justifications behind each moral, and therefore know that what you think the moral is actually is the moral.

There is a difference between being told what do to and knowing what to do. It comes down to understanding.

For example, I could give my mother a list of instructions to follow to get to her email. She may follow these instructions without actually understanding why she is supposed to do each bit. The problem is that she may interpret my instructions wrong, and because she doesn't actually understand why she is doing each stage when she gets it wrong she can't tell she has because she doesn't know why she is doing each step in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I can not do so just ot suit my needs. Any interpretation must seem to fit the Biblical account. I can't just dismiss it or say it means something that suits me when it plainly doesn't.

True, but Wolfsbane how many interpretations are there out there for the Bible?

You certainly won't suddenly think that the Bible justifies the idea that Jesus was actually Satan and we should all be Scientologists.

But it is ridiculous to pretend that there isn't a huge spectrum of different interpretations within the Bible. Look at all the different Christian Churches that all have different opinions on the details, from divorce to abortion to war to capital punishment

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, a Christian might change his mind about Divorce and Remarriage.

That is a pretty big thing is it not?

He might also change his interpretation about abortion, about war, about capital punishment, about homosexuality, about sex etc etc

The list goes on ....

I know you are going to say that the fundamentals are there, that all Christians believe in good fundamentals such as peace and love and kindness etc, but then all humans (in general) believe in those things at an abstract level, it is part of our biological nature.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, how those abstract general notions are applied to specific circumstances, such as abortion or divorce or war or punishment.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe that fallen angels ever had babies with women. I don't think, however, that there is any biblical basis for believing that angels are genderless.

Not now, but what about the Nephelim?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Not now, but what about the Nephelim?

The meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 is unclear and there are several viewpoints on it.

I don't believe they were the offspring of fallen angels. My own opinion is that Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the line of Cain. BTW, it doesn't actually say that the Nephilim were products of intermarriage - simply that they were on the earth at the same time as this was going on.

However, I may well be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

The meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 is unclear and there are several viewpoints on it.

I don't believe they were the offspring of fallen angels. My own opinion is that Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the line of Cain. BTW, it doesn't actually say that the Nephilim were products of intermarriage - simply that they were on the earth at the same time as this was going on.

However, I may well be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last.

Indeed, its all so clear, isn't it?

wolfsbane

djbarry said:

What you are saying is that because I don't believe in your God, by default, I have been "tricked" into being a follower of Satan?

Yes.

Again, this means nothing to me, as Satan is someone (or something) that you believe in, not me.

Not believing in him doesn't make him not real.

My only "sin" (in your eyes) is my lack of belief in your God.

That's the only sin you have confessed to here. I don't know you personally. I suspect you will have all the sins common to the rest of us in our unsaved state: fornication, drunkness, envy, back-biting, etc. Maybe not all at once, nor all the time. But each one counts.
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You may indeed continue all your life a respectable citizen, but your eternal state will be an everlasting prison. God is utterly opposed to sin and punishes it fully, either in Christ or in the sinner in hell.

I don't care, quite frankly. I am dedicating my life to the advancement of mankind - if that's not good enough for your God, then I really don't want to spend ANY time with him, never mind an eternity.

No, it is not good enough for Him. Only repentance for your sins and trust in Him is acceptable. To do less is to insult the infinitely holy God. To imagine that your puny, sporadic efforts to do good in some way atone for all the efforts you have made in sinful things is foolish. It comes from viewing sin as a slight problem rather than a black, hell-warranting evil.

You have to choose between God as the righteous judge or yourself - if you think you are the wiser and more just, then you will find out to your eternal cost on the day of Judgement.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A good point. But it really comes to this: how strong can any previous reason be, in the face of pressing present concerns?

Very strong, and I think this is the point you are not really getting, I suspect because of you rely on borrowed morality, morality that you haven't derived yourself.

All the reasons why I got to a moral position have to be very strong because it is my own morality, it has to justify itself otherwise it isn't morality.

To keep to our previous resolution, I'll be brief.

I too was once an unbeliever, with my own morality. So I know how it works. It certainly depends on the integrity of the person - the honest man with not abandon his morality for small gains. But bigger problems will cause him to ask himself where he got these ideas. The atheist will - if he is honest - admit that they seemed the best at the time, but now real weakesses have appeared. He will also remember that man is ultimately no different that the rocks, just a more sophisticated arrangement of molecules. So any sacrifice he is to make he is free to accept or reject without blaming himself. Nothing has absolute moral value. So he will make up a new morality, something that will accommodate his social conditioning as far as possible, but not cramp his style needlessly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I can not do so just ot suit my needs. Any interpretation must seem to fit the Biblical account. I can't just dismiss it or say it means something that suits me when it plainly doesn't.

True, but Wolfsbane how many interpretations are there out there for the Bible?

You certainly won't suddenly think that the Bible justifies the idea that Jesus was actually Satan and we should all be Scientologists.

But it is ridiculous to pretend that there isn't a huge spectrum of different interpretations within the Bible. Look at all the different Christian Churches that all have different opinions on the details, from divorce to abortion to war to capital punishment


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
For example, a Christian might change his mind about Divorce and Remarriage.

That is a pretty big thing is it not?

He might also change his interpretation about abortion, about war, about capital punishment, about homosexuality, about sex etc etc

The list goes on ....

I know you are going to say that the fundamentals are there, that all Christians believe in good fundamentals such as peace and love and kindness etc, but then all humans (in general) believe in those things at an abstract level, it is part of our biological nature.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, how those abstract general notions are applied to specific circumstances, such as abortion or divorce or war or punishment.

The command not to murder, not to steal, not to oppress, not to fornicate, not to get drunk, etc. - all real moral issues, all clear and without wiggle room.

It is the complex issues like when is war justified, when does life begin in the womb, can one remarry after divorce, that give rise to change of opinion among true Christians. Not the advantages or disadvantages in the circumstances: those who operate under that are plain sinning.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

The atheist will - if he is honest - admit that they seemed the best at the time, but now real weakesses have appeared. He will also remember that man is ultimately no different that the rocks,

Do you really think that I look at my 16 month old daughter and see a stone?

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Indeed, its all so clear, isn't it?

No, not every historical detail or reference in the Bible is clear. I don't think anyone ever pretended it was.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, not every historical detail or reference in the Bible is clear. I don't think anyone ever pretended it was.

Well, that's distinctly arguable, given some of the aerobic justifications produced by some of the good folks in the creationism thread.

Regardless of that, we find ourselves in the strange position that we have a text which christians admit is ambiguous, but which is thought by the same christians to deliver an unambiguous message.

How exactly does that work? Or is the christians belief that the meaning of the bible is unambiguous, is actually wrong?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's distinctly arguable, given some of the aerobic justifications produced by some of the good folks in the creationism thread.

Regardless of that, we find ourselves in the strange position that we have a text which christians admit is ambiguous, but which is thought by the same christians to deliver an unambiguous message.

How exactly does that work? Or is the christians belief that the meaning of the bible is unambiguous, is actually wrong?

The Bible does not tell us everything we would like to know about God, but only what we need to know. The way of salvation is clearly laid out, as are instructions that we need for godly living. However, I think it is obvious that many things in the Bible are open to differing interpretations.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think it is obvious that many things in the Bible are open to differing interpretations.

So how come so many christians, quite possibly including yourself (?), seem to think that there's only one right interpretation?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

So how come so many christians, quite possibly including yourself (?), seem to think that there's only one right interpretation?

Look at any forum on boards.ie

It doesn't matter whether the subject under discussion is the British Empire, the US Presidential race, or who will win the Premiership - most people will argue their corner as if their view is the only right one. Such dogmatism increases when people are continually under attack - and this forum allows such attacks more than most.

Most Christians I know will readily admit the existence of various views on many subjects (eg the Second Coming of Christ, once saved always saved, who wrote the Book of Hebrews, creationism etc). I would love to see that reflected in this forum. However, such honest discussion is unlikely due to the high number of hostile postings. This forum is not a place where Christians can discuss such matters in a calm environment without some troll interrupting with a post that essentially says, "Well the reason you can't agree is because it's all rubbish and you're all irrational idiots for believing in fairy tales."

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Do you really think that I look at my 16 month old daughter and see a stone?

No - your conscience tells you different, which is what God put it there for.

But your darkened mind also informs you, and it tells you that despite your inner 'feelings', objectively she is no different than the rocks. Or as another evolutionist, Professor Peter Atkins put it, ‘We are just a bit of slime on the planet’.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote:

However, such honest discussion is unlikely due to the high number of hostile postings. This forum is not a place where Christians can discuss such matters in a calm environment without some troll interrupting with a post that essentially says, "Well the reason you can't agree is because it's all rubbish and you're all irrational idiots for believing in fairy tales."

why dont you just ignore them/ report the posts
a troll doesn't need a particular topic in a forum to be trolling on

djpbarry

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not believing in him doesn't make him not real.

It makes him unreal to me and it is rather difficult to "follow" someone in whom one does not believe. Unless of course, by some incredible coincidence, my choice of lifestyle coincides exactly with the "teachings" of Satan. However, given my understanding of the subject, I would say this is highly unlikely.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suspect you will have all the sins common to the rest of us in our unsaved state: fornication, drunkness, envy, back-biting, etc. Maybe not all at once, nor all the time. But each one counts.

Maybe to you, but not to me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To imagine that your puny, sporadic efforts to do good in some way atone for all the efforts you have made in sinful things is foolish.

There you have made the mistake of assuming that I am attempting to atone for something - I'm not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have to choose between God as the righteous judge or yourself...

Considering I don't believe in the former, by process of elimination that leaves myself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He will also remember that man is ultimately no different that the rocks, just a more sophisticated arrangement of molecules.

To say that is a rather simplistic view would be an understatement. When I look at my friends and family, I see far more than a "sophisticated arrangement of molecules".

wolfsbane wrote: »

So he will make up a new morality, something that will accommodate his social conditioning as far as possible, but not cramp his style needlessly.

If you truly believe that "non-believers" change there morals on a day-to-day basis to suit the current scenario, then surely crime rates would be a LOT higher than they currently are and the vast majority of the world's population would be serial criminals.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The command not to murder, not to steal, not to oppress, not to fornicate, not to get drunk, etc. - all real moral issues, all clear and without wiggle room.

It is the complex issues like when is war justified, when does life begin in the womb, can one remarry after divorce, that give rise to change of opinion among true Christians.

I would say there is a fair bit of overlap there.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But your darkened mind also informs you, and it tells you that despite your inner 'feelings', objectively she is no different than the rocks.

Ok, so when I look at my daughter, you're telling me that my brain is constantly reminding me that she's no different from a rock, or a bit of pond-slime?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But bigger problems will cause him to ask himself where he got these ideas. The atheist will - if he is honest - admit that they seemed the best at the time, but now real weakesses have appeared.

Well certainly.

I'm not suggesting that an atheist will never change his morality. But he won't, if he is honest, change his morality on a whim and without strong reasons. "I want to" isn't a strong reason.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He will also remember that man is ultimately no different that the rocks, just a more sophisticated arrangement of molecules.

I'm not quite sure why you keep saying that.

Your analogy is like saying that a Picaso is no different to a piece of printer paper since they are both made of paper and ink. Few people would pay $5 million for a piece of blank paper.

Or to use an example you might understand better, it is like saying that the Bible is no different to a tree, because they are both made of exactly the same material. Which I would imagine you would disagree with.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So any sacrifice he is to make he is free to accept or reject without blaming himself.

Well yes if he truly believes that humans are no different to rocks, he certainly won't blame himself if he kills or hurts a human. But then if he is completely void of empathy or morality he is probably a level 10 psychotic, and would never blame himself about anything.

He wouldn't be a Christian either though, so it is a bit irrelevant. We are either talking about normal, general, humans or we are talking about psychotics. Its a bit unfair to give the atheists all the psychotics, Christianity would have no more effect on someone devoid of emotion and empathy than atheism would.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nothing has absolute moral value.

Nothing has God given moral value. But that isn't necessary for things to have value. Again God hasn't declared a Picaso has having value, but that doesn't stop people paying millions for one.

Humans are perfectly capable of attributing value to things without having to be told what to view as valuable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So he will make up a new morality, something that will accommodate his social conditioning as far as possible, but not cramp his style needlessly.

Well no he won't Wolfsbane, not without lying to himself, because he must justify his morality to himself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The command not to murder, not to steal, not to oppress, not to fornicate, not to get drunk, etc. - all real moral issues, all clear and without wiggle room.

Again, the devil is in the details.

What exactly is "murder", when is it lawful or not lawful to kill someone. Would you kill someone in self defense. Would you allow abortion? Would you kill someone in punishment. Would you kill someone who was terminally ill and wanted to die? Would you kill someone to save another persons life or would you let that person be killed?

What exactly is to "steal". Would you steal food to help a hungry person? Would you steal something from an immoral person that may stop him doing bad things? Would you steal someone who owed you in the first place?

You can say "I will not murder, I will not steal" all you like but that isn't actually the morality, that is simply an abstract sentences, rough guides.

The morality comes into play when you actually have to react to a given situation, and all the details that a given situation brings.

As I've said you can see this in how all the different Christian churches deal with different circumstances.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the complex issues like when is war justified, when does life begin in the womb, can one remarry after divorce, that give rise to change of opinion among true Christians.

That is exactly my point. What you are talking about when you say things like that Bible says it is wrong to murder, that isn't actually morality. The morality comes when you attempt to apply that to a given situation.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

So how come so many christians, quite possibly including yourself (?), seem to think that there's only one right interpretation?

I'm glad you say 'seem to think.'

I as well as most educated Christians know and understand that there are different interpretations of different issues. We all however agree on the basic fundamentals being that Christ is God incarnate and the only way to salvation.

We also agree on Jesus coming again. We also agree on a baptism and the celebration of the Lord's supper.

We agree on His crucifixion and His virgin birth. We agree on His resurrection and that teh Bible is the inspired word of God,

What we understand and enjoy discussing are things like: the millenium, the presence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in communion, how to worship, the role of the church, the hierarcy of the church, end times signs and wonders, Biblical history, etc. For those we understand that there are differences and yes, I think that my take on any of the debates is the correct one.

What I also understand is that when Kelly1 and I stand before God and ask about the presence of Christ in the communion celebration that we will get the answer and both say, 'aha!' And then we'll celebrate together the grace of God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What I also understand is that when Kelly1 and I stand before God and ask about the presence of Christ in the communion celebration that we will get the answer and both say, 'aha!' And then we'll celebrate together the grace of God.

That might be ok if what we were discussing was rather trivial (do angels have genitals), but I think morality is a little more important.

Wolfsbane is putting forward the idea that Christians have a uniform and hard to misinterpret (if one is honest) moral guide in the form of the Bible, but looking around at all the different positions taken by different Christian groups on various moral issues it is hard to see the uniformity.

Even on this forum there is a lot of different opinions on the morality of certain situations (abortion, execution, war, sex), and I don't think many here would charge that another poster wasn't a proper Christian.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

robindch wrote:

So how come so many christians, quite possibly including yourself (?), seem to think that there's only one right interpretation?

I'm glad you say 'seem to think.'

Er, you haven't actually answered the question. I know that you know that there are many interpretations. What I would like to know is why you seem to think that there is only one right interpretation. Unless you think that there is more than one right interpretation, in which case, please let me know!

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I as well as most educated Christians know and understand that there are different interpretations of different issues. We all however agree on the basic fundamentals being that Christ is God incarnate and the only way to salvation.

Not really. There are plenty of Nestorian christians who disagree with you about Jesus being the same as god, and as late as yesterday, PDN told me that Jesus and god were not interchangeable since Jesus was not omniscient, which god is supposed to be. Meanwhile, many churches assert that salvation occurs with the help of other things than just Jesus ("good works" and all that).

If I had more time than I do now, I'm sure that I could show you that there is, or has been, disagreement in just about every topic that you listed, and which you think you share a common belief with every other self-describing christian.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

there are differences and yes, I think that my take on any of the debates is the correct one.

Fine, that's what I was trying to find out -- thanks.

So, given that there are so many areas of disagreement which it's possible to make a choice one way or the other, why do you believe that your particular choice is the right one, and that everybody else, is in some way, wrong?

And if the number of areas of general agreement is small relative to the size of the bible, then why is the bible the size it is? Why isn't it a five-page pamphlet? Why all the extra text?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think many here would charge that another poster wasn't a proper Christian.

well, there are several christian posters who regularly say or imply that other christians are in variously dangerous states of religious error. One particular poster has said a few times, that ~90% of people who think they're christians, actually aren't.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Originally Posted by BrianCalgary:
I as well as most educated Christians know and understand that there are different interpretations of different issues. We all however agree on the basic fundamentals being that Christ is God incarnate and the only way to salvation.

There are plenty of Nestorian christians who disagree with you about Jesus being the same as god, and as late as yesterday, PDN told me that Jesus and god were not interchangeable since Jesus was not omniscient, which god is supposed to be.

Congratulations, Robin, in managing to misrepresent Brian, myself and Nestorianism all in one single sentence. That is quite an achievement!

Unless you are referring to another post, I don't see where Brian said Jesus was "the same as God". He said that Christ was God Incarnate. That means that God the Son became incarnated in human flesh - but does not equate to saying that Christ, as God the Son, is "the same as" the Triune Godhead.

Brian said that Christ was God Incarnate. That is entirely consistent with my statement that Jesus was not omniscient. As I clearly explained to you earlier, God the Son, in order to be incarnated as Jesus, voluntarily and temporarily laid aside some of His divine attributes such as omnipresence and omniscience. This in no way implies that He stopped being God.

My statement that God the Son is not interchangable with God the Father is entirely consistent with Brian's statement that Christ is God Incarnate and also with the Nestorian understanding of the Trinity.

Historically Nestorianism taught that two natures (divine and human) co-existed within Jesus Christ but were distinct from each other, whereas the establishment of the day taught that the two natures were unified. It is a hard distinction to explain or to grasp for anyone not versed in some of the history and theology connected with the Trinity, and most theologians today would agree that the differences between Nestorius and his accusers were hardly significant enough to affect anyone's salvation and certainly not worthy of being labeled a heretic.

In fact, Nestorius would have agreed with Brian's statement that "Christ was God Incarnate". Nestorius, to put it rather crudely in layman's terms, tried to say that Jesus (the human nature) was not God, but that Christ (the divine nature) was God.

As for your statement about there being "plenty of Nestorian Christians" who disagree with Brian. That would not be accurate either, since modern Nestorians do not actually hold to the doctrine that Nestorius preached. The issue of Nestorian belief is, therefore, a historical curiosity, but really irrelevant to the issue of whether most Christians agree on the fundamentals necessary for salvation.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Er, you haven't actually answered the question. I know that you know that there are many interpretations. What I would like to know is why you seem to think that there is only one right interpretation. Unless you think that there is more than one right interpretation, in which case, please let me know!Not really. There are plenty of Nestorian christians who disagree with you about Jesus being the same as god, and as late as yesterday, PDN told me that Jesus and god were not interchangeable since Jesus was not omniscient, which god is supposed to be. Meanwhile, many churches assert that salvation occurs with the help of other things than just Jesus ("good works" and all that).

So, given that there are so many areas of disagreement which it's possible to make a choice one way or the other, why do you believe that your particular choice is the right one, and that everybody else, is in some way, wrong?

And if the number of areas of general agreement is small relative to the size of the bible, then why is the bible the size it is? Why isn't it a five-page pamphlet? Why all the extra text?

I think that my interpretation is the correct one as a result of my study and understanding of scripture. To be precise it would depend on which one you are talking about. On that I'd suggest a new thread on each.

On any of the side topics I am open to changing my view if and when new information is given.

Because you cant fit human history and all the rich lessons to be learned by those gone before in just 5 pages.

Interestingly enough Jesus boils teh Bibles teachings down to two commandments.

To wicknight: we do not disagree on moral subjects. I'd say we all agree on the principles. You should read us more.