Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...
Options
Comments
-
Ah, you mean the true scotsman christians. If you mentally exclude everyone who, for example, believes that drunkenness and sex outside marriage are immoral from your definition of christian then you really shouldn't be surprised if you find that christians are more likely to believe these things. That is the case because your definition of christian only includes people who believe these things
Wolfsbane is hardly being unreasonable since Christians profess to follow Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament, and the NT very clearly condemns both drunkenness and adultery. There are many different denominations and variants of Christianity, but virtually all of them see drunkenness and adultery as wrong.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. If you want us to redefine 'Christians' to include people who think drunkenness and adultery is just dandy, then why not include atheists, Hindus and Muslims as well? Heck, why bother using language at all since words seem to be able to be mean whatever we feel like at any given moment?0 -
Wolfsbane is hardly being unreasonable since Christians profess to follow Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament, and the NT very clearly condemns both drunkenness and adultery. There are many different denominations and variants of Christianity, but virtually all of them see drunkenness and adultery as wrong.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. If you want us to redefine 'Christians' to include people who think drunkenness and adultery is just dandy, then why not include atheists, Hindus and Muslims as well? Heck, why bother using language at all since words seem to be able to be mean whatever we feel like at any given moment?
The point is that whether they outwardly profess these things to be immoral or not, they still do them. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who thought there was nothing wrong with adultery as opposed to just thinking they can get away with it. This position is not exclusive to christianity any more than adultery is exclusive to or even more prevelant in non christians. Drunkenness is a slightly different situation in that no one is necessarily hurt when someone gets drunk so it's entirely possible that a non-Christian who informs his ethical behaviour through reason rather than through what a book says would see nothing wrong with it where a christian would differ but living in Ireland I have seen little evidence that christians are less likely to get drunk. But perhaps that has more to do with irish culture and the christians that wolsbane has met are indeed less likely to get drunk0 -
Some have fallen into these sins on occasion, but none practice them.
You are making a some what unfounded leap here.
I agree with you that a Christian should/will view say drunkness, or sex, is immoral.
But your leap from that to saying that they will then do this less than a non-Christian seems rather unfounded.
A good example would be the chastity movement in America. There is no evidence that pre-marriage sex rates in girls or boys who sign up to this (and thus have it drummed into them from an early age that pre-marriage sex is immoral) is less that those who don't. The only statistic that seems to be effected by it is age of first sexual encounter.
There is no point saying that if they had sex then they aren't "real" Christians, because it seems pretty clear that they believed or where taught that it was immoral and that they fall squarely into the "sins on occasion" camp.
All this seems to be based on the idea that if you are taught it is ok you will do it and if you are taught it isn't you won't
That flawed logic has been failing the conservative movement for decades if not centuries.0 -
My point is that most who claim to be Christian are not, in the original sense of the word. And that is the definition I am using when I say Christians will be less likely to get drunk than atheists. Same for sexual sins. (I agree that adultery has a broken promise aspect that adds to the sexual sin component, so let's ignore it for this argument). Atheists would generally see sexual activity between single people as not immoral, but Christians would. So of course the latter will be much less likely to do so.The point is that whether they outwardly profess these things to be immoral or not, they still do them. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who thought there was nothing wrong with adultery as opposed to just thinking they can get away with it. This position is not exclusive to christianity any more than adultery is exclusive to or even more prevelant in non christians. Drunkenness is a slightly different situation in that no one is necessarily hurt when someone gets drunk so it's entirely possible that a non-Christian who informs his ethical behaviour through reason rather than through what a book says would see nothing wrong with it where a christian would differ but living in Ireland I have seen little evidence that christians are less likely to get drunk. But perhaps that has more to do with irish culture and the christians that wolsbane has met are indeed less likely to get drunk
Any matter of conscience in atheist or Christian will have a strong effect on their behaviour. Nominal Christians will have very little conscience against sin.0 -
Wicknight said:
You raise an interesting point. However, when we look closely at the argument the conclusions are not so simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some have fallen into these sins on occasion, but none practice them.
You are making a some what unfounded leap here.
I agree with you that a Christian should/will view say drunkness, or sex, is immoral.
But your leap from that to saying that they will then do this less than a non-Christian seems rather unfounded.
A good example would be the chastity movement in America. There is no evidence that pre-marriage sex rates in girls or boys who sign up to this (and thus have it drummed into them from an early age that pre-marriage sex is immoral) is less that those who don't. The only statistic that seems to be effected by it is age of first sexual encounter.
There is no point saying that if they had sex then they aren't "real" Christians, because it seems pretty clear that they believed or where taught that it was immoral and that they fall squarely into the "sins on occasion" camp.
All this seems to be based on the idea that if you are taught it is ok you will do it and if you are taught it isn't you won't
That flawed logic has been failing the conservative movement for decades if not centuries.
Consider the fact losing one's virginity is not a practice - it is a one-off event. So the Christian who pledged may live a pure life from 12-20, fall one night, and then repent and live a pure life from 20-25 until she marries.
The non-Christian may have had one or several sexual partners by the time she marries at 25, involving hundreds or thousands of instances of sexual sin.
So there is a difference, even where a Christian has fallen. The difference is practice rather than exception.
Consider further that many of those who sign the pledge are not in fact real Christians, only those reared in some of its principles. Like most Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. What power does such head-knowledge give them in the face of sexual temptation? Very little.
Only those with a strong inner belief about sexual purity can be expected to show any marked difference over the rest. If I was single today and had fuzzy or no idea that sexual activity outside marriage was sin, I would be no different from my ungodly friends.0 -
Advertisement
-
yes I know you are, it's called the no true scotsman Fallacy. You define only those people who follow the rules as christian and then remark that christians are more likely to follow the rulesMy point is that most who claim to be Christian are not, in the original sense of the word. And that is the definition I am using when I say Christians will be less likely to get drunk than atheists.
Yes that is what you would tend to think but that does not seem to be the case. Christians aren't the only people who think that there's something wrong with promiscuous sex btw. Lots of christians have sex outside marriage but according to your definition they're not 'real' Christians so of they don't have to effect your idea of christians being more moralSame for sexual sins. (I agree that adultery has a broken promise aspect that adds to the sexual sin component, so let's ignore it for this argument). Atheists would generally see sexual activity between single people as not immoral, but Christians would. So of course the latter will be much less likely to do so.
Any matter of conscience in atheist or Christian will have a strong effect on their behaviour. Nominal Christians will have very little conscience against sin.
What makes you say that? People have consciences that make them feel bad about hurting others regardless of what religion they belong to. The only place where I would see your logic potentially applying is with those aspects of Christian morality that are in the rules despite the fact that doing these acts hurts no one, when the only reason to follow these rules is "because god says so". But in those cases I wouldn't even say the people are more "moral". What I would call immoral is knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway and in those cases the others see nothing wrong with the acts, no reason not to engage in them, and so there is no battle of conscience. I wouldn't call someone who follows a rule for no apparent reason other than an authority figure told them to more moral, I'd just call them more obedient0 -
Sam Vimes said:
Not at all. No more than you would be wrong in saying an atheist who believes God created the world is not a true atheist. My definition is the original one, so those who do not match it have to show why their claim to the title Christian is valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point is that most who claim to be Christian are not, in the original sense of the word. And that is the definition I am using when I say Christians will be less likely to get drunk than atheists.
yes I know you are, it's called the no true scotsman Fallacy. You define only those people who follow the rules as christian and then remark that christians are more likely to follow the rules
But it is the case. However, I appreciate it depends on what one means by 'Christian'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Same for sexual sins. (I agree that adultery has a broken promise aspect that adds to the sexual sin component, so let's ignore it for this argument). Atheists would generally see sexual activity between single people as not immoral, but Christians would. So of course the latter will be much less likely to do so.
Yes that is what you would tend to think but that does not seem to be the case.
Certainly. Muslims, Jews, various cults and ideologies have either moral or practical reasons for disapproving of it. But in my nation, I observe that it is acceptable to most unbelievers. Not the more rampant sort of course, just the moderate, all in the best possible taste sort of way.Christians aren't the only people who think that there's something wrong with promiscuous sex btw.
Indeed.Lots of christians have sex outside marriage but according to your definition they're not 'real' Christians so of they don't have to effect your idea of christians being more moral
Most people hold sex between consenting adults does not hurt anyone. But it is still sin, regardless of what they think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
ny matter of conscience in atheist or Christian will have a strong effect on their behaviour. Nominal Christians will have very little conscience against sin.
What makes you say that? People have consciences that make them feel bad about hurting others regardless of what religion they belong to.
The morality I refer to is that which does not originate in man's imagination, but is the revealed will of God. So any who violate that are indeed immoral.The only place where I would see your logic potentially applying is with those aspects of Christian morality that are in the rules despite the fact that doing these acts hurts no one, when the only reason to follow these rules is "because god says so". But in those cases I wouldn't even say the people are more "moral". What I would call immoral is knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway and in those cases the others see nothing wrong with the acts, no reason not to engage in them, and so there is no battle of conscience. I wouldn't call someone who follows a rule for no apparent reason other than an authority figure told them to more moral, I'd just call them more obedient0 -
Most people hold sex between consenting adults does not hurt anyone. But it is still sin, regardless of what they think about it
That's simultaneously one of the biggest problems with religious morality and one of the things that most suggests to me that the bible is the work of men. People often say they read the bible and find "the truth", as in things like "do unto others as you would have them do into you" speak to them, it's plainly and obviously perfect morality which helps in leading them to the conclusion that christianity is true
But if the bible was actually the work of a god I would expect that of the entire book. There should be no need for exegesis or interpretation of any kind, the meaning of every passage should be abundantly clear to all and it should be abundantly clear that it is absolutely perfect. No one should ever read the bible and be in any doubt afterwards as to who inspired it. We should never find ourselves in a situation where there are opposing interpretations where one party is not demonstrably wrong (there should be only one denomination for example) and nor should we find ourselves in a situation where we are following a rule just "because god says so" without knowing exactly the reason for the rule. The purpose behind every law, every line and every event in the world should be as obvious to all as the purpose behind "thou shalt not kill" and "do unto others". That might sound like a big ask but this is a god we're talking about
Allow me to predict your response: but but but but but sin! He's perfect and any bad is entirely our own fault even though this perfect being made us in such a way that we could not but commit sin0 -
Two things here.But if the bible was actually the work of a god I would expect that of the entire book. There should be no need for exegesis or interpretation of any kind, the meaning of every passage should be abundantly clear to all and it should be abundantly clear that it is absolutely perfect.
1. God is a bit bigger and wiser than you or I, so he is not required to act according to Sam Vimes expectations. Nor is it reasonable for you to expect Him to do so.
2. Communication theory tells us that exegesis and interpretation is necessary for the use of language in any shape or form. The only way you could receive a message without the need for exegesis or interpretation would be for it to be telepathically beamed into your brain.0 -
Two things here.
1. God is a bit bigger and wiser than you or I, so he is not required to act according to Sam Vimes expectations. Nor is it reasonable for you to expect Him to do so.
2. Communication theory tells us that exegesis and interpretation is necessary for the use of language in any shape or form. The only way you could receive a message without the need for exegesis or interpretation would be for it to be telepathically beamed into your brain.
Believers often say how they "just know" that something is right or wrong; in fact this intrinsic "knowledge" is often used to explain why atheists don't go out raping and pillaging the whole time and to argue for the existence of god. They also speak of personal experiences with god and of god hearing prayers. So beaming things telepatically into our brains seems to be very much within the remit of your god, at least according to some believers0 -
Advertisement
-
Believers often say how they "just know" that something is right or wrong; in fact this intrinsic "knowledge" is often used to explain why atheists don't go out raping and pillaging the whole time and to argue for the existence of god. They also speak of personal experiences with god and of god hearing prayers. So beaming things telepatically into our brains seems to be very much within the remit of your god, at least according to some believers
And your point is what? That God should limit Himself to just one form of communication?0 -
-
God could have chosen to make everything clear to us instantly. But He did not. He chose to make us struggle for the bits that aren't essential to salvation. He chose to make us exercise to be strong, rather than give us perfect strength without the effort.That's simultaneously one of the biggest problems with religious morality and one of the things that most suggests to me that the bible is the work of men. People often say they read the bible and find "the truth", as in things like "do unto others as you would have them do into you" speak to them, it's plainly and obviously perfect morality which helps in leading them to the conclusion that christianity is true
But if the bible was actually the work of a god I would expect that of the entire book. There should be no need for exegesis or interpretation of any kind, the meaning of every passage should be abundantly clear to all and it should be abundantly clear that it is absolutely perfect. No one should ever read the bible and be in any doubt afterwards as to who inspired it. We should never find ourselves in a situation where there are opposing interpretations where one party is not demonstrably wrong (there should be only one denomination for example) and nor should we find ourselves in a situation where we are following a rule just "because god says so" without knowing exactly the reason for the rule. The purpose behind every law, every line and every event in the world should be as obvious to all as the purpose behind "thou shalt not kill" and "do unto others". That might sound like a big ask but this is a god we're talking about
Allow me to predict your response: but but but but but sin! He's perfect and any bad is entirely our own fault even though this perfect being made us in such a way that we could not but commit sin
Maybe its the best way to keep us aware of our frailty and His abundant grace. Knowledge without humility is an evil thing.0 -
So there is a difference, even where a Christian has fallen. The difference is practice rather than exception.
The thing is though at what point does the exception become the practice?
If someone goes through there life having pre-marriage sex, say 10 times, and feeling really really guilty about it when they do because they know it is a sin, is that person more moral than someone who has pre-marriage sex the same number of times but thinks there is nothing wrong with it?Consider further that many of those who sign the pledge are not in fact real Christians, only those reared in some of its principles. Like most Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. What power does such head-knowledge give them in the face of sexual temptation? Very little.
But given that every body sins, what is a "real" Christian then?
Your premise seems to be that a real Christian won't sin as much as a non-Christian, but then you simply conclude that those that do aren't real Christians.
It is some what circular.
How are you defining how much sin is too much? Is a weak person who constantly gives into sin but who knows it is sin, a Christian? Is he a Christian because he knows it is a sin? Or is he not a Christian because he gives into the sin more than just an "exception" of the time, exception being defined by you?0 -
Wicknight said:
Good point!The thing is though at what point does the exception become the practice?
If someone goes through there life having pre-marriage sex, say 10 times, and feeling really really guilty about it when they do because they know it is a sin, is that person more moral than someone who has pre-marriage sex the same number of times but thinks there is nothing wrong with it?
The 10 times is a bit low to establish if a practice is going on, or just a series of falls. But if they did nothing to avoid a re-occurrence, then it would suggest a practice rather than a series of falls. It would show an unwillingness to deal with the problem.
As to level of morality, those who clearly know something is wrong and still do it are more guilty than those who do it in relative ignorance.
A real Christian fights against sinning. He/she plans against it, prepares against it. They do not excuse it and continue in it. They fall from time to time - but they repent and change their ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Consider further that many of those who sign the pledge are not in fact real Christians, only those reared in some of its principles. Like most Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. What power does such head-knowledge give them in the face of sexual temptation? Very little.
But given that every body sins, what is a "real" Christian then?
If it was an argument to prove the premise, it would be circular. But it is a statement of fact, a description of a real Christian. It is part of the Biblical description.Your premise seems to be that a real Christian won't sin as much as a non-Christian, but then you simply conclude that those that do aren't real Christians.
It is some what circular.
God is the one who knows. I can only give the warning, to those who profess to be Christians, that practising sin is a mark of the unconverted. If someone tells me they commit a particular sin once and week and are going to do nothing about it, I tell them they are behaving like unbelievers and have no reason to think they are not.How are you defining how much sin is too much? Is a weak person who constantly gives into sin but who knows it is sin, a Christian? Is he a Christian because he knows it is a sin? Or is he not a Christian because he gives into the sin more than just an "exception" of the time, exception being defined by you?
If they show me they are doing all they can by prayer and avoidance of the temptation, then I encourage them to persevere as true believers.0
Advertisement