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
-
Just to think more as to the topic. I'd say that seeking God and following Him, makes me more human than I would be otherwise. Precisely because as I strive to follow Him, I better suit my teleological purpose. I.E That I am meant to be a representative of Him in this world (tselem - reflection).0
-
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Do you want nature to be a designer or not?
Does design have to be intelligent? Does complexity have to be designed?
Anyway, I'm using the term "designer" with artistic license for a bit of banter. I don't think nature has "designed" anything.If nature is a designer then you've invented a deity.
See above. Sorry to have caused confusion.If there is no designer then empathy has evolved by accident.
And natural selection. Let's not forget that.
0 -
To be honest I see that as accident.doctoremma wrote: »And natural selection. Let's not forget that.
For example, if a vase falls off a shelf and smashes, it is not random - because gravity is operating. But it is still an accident in that no-one intentionally caused it (design).
Anyway, we seem to have gone well off-topic in discussing the semantics of the word 'accident'. 0 -
Just to think more as to the topic. I'd say that seeking God and following Him, makes me more human than I would be otherwise.
Please tell me. How's the view from that massive pedestal you've climbed onto? How do us lesser amoral humans look from up there?Precisely because as I strive to follow Him, I better suit my teleological purpose.
Is your purpose to follow god?
Or do you follow god to find your purpose?
Or have you just said:
My purpose is to follow god to find my purpose.
Does that even make sense?0 -
To be honest I see that as accident.
You see natural selection as an "accident"? You perceive it to be "arbitrary" or "random"?Anyway, we seem to have gone well off-topic in discussing the semantics of the word 'accident'.
No, we went off-topic when you started going down the road of Boeing 747 fallacies...0 -
Advertisement
-
doctoremma wrote: »Please tell me. How's the view from that massive pedestal you've climbed onto? How do us lesser amoral humans look from up there?
You're not lesser than me at all. If I recall correctly we're both sinners in terms of Christianity. I wouldn't dare to suggest that you were any lesser than me.doctoremma wrote: »Is your purpose to follow god?
Or do you follow god to find your purpose?
Or have you just said:
My purpose is to follow god to find my purpose.
Does that even make sense?
My purpose is to do what is right before others, and to be a light to other people in the best way I can be. It also involves loving God and seeking after Him which is precisely why I said it better suits my teleological purpose. God has a plan for each and every person in Christian thinking and people implement this purpose in different ways according to what God gives them.
I don't think that's contradictory, or a tautology in the way that you are suggesting.0 -
But it's not about your life. It's about the life of others.
We human beings tend to be very egocentric. We value our family, friends, wants, desires and fears as being very important - but frequently fail to accord the same valuation to others.
This egocentrism can be taken to its extreme when we devalue others to the extent that they are viewed as no more valuable than animals. Regimes that practice torture, for example, routinely encourage their enforcers to see their victims as less than human.
The idea that human life is a gift from God, not just a biological accident, may not cause you to view your life any differently. But it can encourage you to view someone else's life differently.
History teaches us that believing in God doesn’t do a whole lot of good for people’s view of others’ lives either. The rules are great in theory but in practice there are those that value the lives of others and those that don’t and there is little to suggest that belief in god changes that. I frequently hear believers say that without god there is no right and wrong and murder is perfectly fine but I can’t help but think that this is simply because they have been raised from birth to think that morality and god are inextricably linked. People who believe in God don’t murder people because god commands it and they can’t understand any concept of morality besides that but people who never bought into the whole god thing see that morality is a result of evolution, society and reason and they don’t murder people because harming people makes them feel bad and because they’ll go to jail if they do0 -
'Accident' is not a synonym for 'random'.doctoremma wrote: »You see natural selection as an "accident"? You perceive it to be "arbitrary" or "random"?
If a coconut falls from a tree and hits you on the head, then it happened as a result of natural forces and processes (notably gravity and the botanical process by which coconuts ripen and then fall). But it is still an accident, because it was unplanned and undesigned.0 -
History teaches us that believing in God doesn’t do a whole lot of good for people’s view of others’ lives either.
Quite the opposite in fact given the Biblical idea that the enemies of God and His people are worthy of death and destruction, which has often been put into practice by over zealous believers.
It can be argued by apologists that Christianity teaches humans have no authority on their own to carry out these acts but again history shows that the jump from my king wants me to destroy his enemies to my king wants me to destroy his enemies in the name of God is not a particularly big one.
It would have sent a slightly better message to believers if God himself hadn't spend a large amount of time killing his own people.0 -
To be honest I see that as accident.
For example, if a vase falls off a shelf and smashes, it is not random - because gravity is operating. But it is still an accident in that no-one intentionally caused it (design).
Anyway, we seem to have gone well off-topic in discussing the semantics of the word 'accident'.
I know what you mean but I think accident is possibly the wrong word here as accident implies an unexpected out come that deviates from the intended outcome. Without no intended outcome in the first place it is hard to view anything as an accident, they just happen.
Using the coconut analogy, standing under a tree you intend not to be hit on the head. When you are hit on the head this is an outcome the deviates from what you expected to happen, you did not plan it. It can be said to be unexpected negative outcome, and thus an accident.
If there was no intended outcome in the first place then there is no deviation either, so nothing is an accident.
Anyway, all getting off topic. I think the over all point in your post was clear.0 -
Advertisement
-
But anyway, back to my point: As long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it is logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing but it is possible to believe that the rule about not killing should not apply to certain out-groups (such as gentiles in the OT)
Therefore there is right and wrong without god, people know what's wrong because they wouldn't want it to happen to themselves and their loved ones but the difference is that it becomes more difficult to argue that this sense of right and wrong should be applied universally. The exercise is not in convincing a person that something is wrong, it's in convincing him that this other group is sufficiently "like him" that he should apply the same rules to them as he does to his own group
Discuss0 -
But anyway, back to my point: As long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it is logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing but it is possible to believe that the rule about not killing should not apply to certain out-groups (such as gentiles in the OT)
Therefore there is right and wrong without god, people know what's wrong because they wouldn't want it to happen to themselves and their loved ones but the difference is that it becomes more difficult to argue that this sense of right and wrong should be applied universally. The exercise is not in convincing a person that something is wrong, it's in convincing him that this other group is sufficiently "like him" that he should apply the same rules to them as he does to his own group
Discuss
This thread has grown by a fair few pages...
I'm not getting you Sam? Why is it logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing if you have desires oneself and for loved ones? It is apparent to me that everyday people do nasty things to other people that they wouldn't want to have done to themselves. This is what the Nazis did. If they were wrong by what criterion are they adjudged to have been wrong?
Furthermore, what do you mean by "right" and "wrong"? What if society X is convinced that society Y is sufficiently "unlike" them so as not to apply the same rules? Who then determines what is right and wrong?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »This thread has grown by a fair few pages...
I'm not getting you Sam? Why is it logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing if you have desires oneself and for loved ones? It is apparent to me that everyday people do nasty things to other people that they wouldn't want to have done to themselves. This is what the Nazis did. If they were wrong by what criterion are they adjudged to have been wrong?
Furthermore, what do you mean by "right" and "wrong"?
No you're not getting me. The point is that even the nazis viewed killing as wrong....when it was applied to themselves, their loved ones and fellow nazis. The argument put forward by theists is that there is no right and wrong without god but there is. What's right is the way human beings like to see the people they care about treated and what's wrong is the things they wouldn't want to happen to the people they care about, the only difference is that this sense of right and wrong isn't necessarily applied universally. You ask by what criteria the Nazis are adjudged to be wrong: they were wrong because they were doing things to others that they would not like to have been done to their own loved ones.
You might be able to argue that there is no compelling reason for there to be a universally applicable right and wrong without god but there most certainly is right and wrong within social groupsFanny Cradock wrote: »What if society X is convinced that society Y is sufficiently "unlike" them so as not to apply the same rules? Who then determines what is right and wrong?
That is a risk that we take every day, we have seen it happen an millions upon millions upon millions of times throughout history. It's one of the things that most strongly suggests that our sense of morality is the in-group centred one suggested by evolution rather than the objective and universally applicable one that is supposed to have been written on our hearts by god.
But again, the point I am making here is that there is right and wrong without god. You can argue that it's not perfect because it's not always applied universally but it's still there and you cannot legitimately say that without god rape is no worse than going to the shops for some milk because even someone who tries to argue that rape is perfectly fine still wouldn't like to see it happen to their mother and all you have to do is point that out to show them that they're wrong0 -
No you're not getting me. The point is that even the nazis viewed killing as wrong....when it was applied to themselves, their loved ones and fellow nazis. The argument put forward by theists is that there is no right and wrong without god but there is.
Firstly, I don't believe that is the argument put forward by the corporate body of theists - some theists maybe, but not all and not me.
As for the Nazis not killing their own - bully for them. However, it still doesn't address the question of whether they were wrong to do what they did to their enemies - those whom they attempted to convince themselves weren't fully human. They might have shared your view hypothetically, but the reality was that they never practised it in reality.What's right is the way human beings like to see the people they care about treated and what's wrong is the things they wouldn't want to happen to the people they care about, the only difference is that this sense of right and wrong isn't necessarily applied universally.
This is the crux of my not understanding your position. I just can't figure the finer points out of why it should be so.
*When did this almost moral imperative come into play? Was it after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their goons had finished killing tens of millions? Or are these guys simply the unfortunate exception to the rule?
*Are lions bad for killing antelope? Surely if the lion (or its "selfish genes") acts entirely out of its own interest then we do too.
*Is Tesco wrong for killing off the competition? Again, the company is acting on behalf of its own interests, those of its shareholders, its staff and they would probably claim the wider community.
*If in 100 years there isn't enough water to supply everyone on the earth (including the wealthy nations) is it right to forcibly take water sources from weaker nations (thereby helping your nation and its people)? Or should you stand by and do nothing while they suffer and die?
(Sorry for all the questions)You ask by what criteria the Nazis are adjudged to be wrong: they were wrong because they were doing things to others that they would not like to have been done to their own loved ones.
I won't disagree with the overall thesis. But I now have to point out that you are perilously close to describing an overarching morality - a law if you will. Heaven forbid! Because if it's not a law, then the Nazis were presumably not wrong in doing what they did. (This despite however distasteful we find their actions.)You might be able to argue that there is no compelling reason for there to be a universally applicable right and wrong without god but there most certainly is right and wrong within social groups
No doubt there is. But the problem arises when one group thinks that it is acceptable to harm another. And having zoomed out from distinct groups you are now back to square one. The reality then is that morality (or the foundation of your morality) is simply an aggregate of shared opinions. And if enough people disagree strongly enough right and wrong go out the window. Therefore, while I maintain that abortion is morally wrong (and I will agree there is the morally grey when the mother's life is in danger) Irish society is seemingly chaining to agree that such a thing isn't considered wicked.That is a risk that we take every day, we have seen it happen an millions upon millions upon millions of times throughout history. It's one of the things that most strongly suggests that our sense of morality is the in-group centred one suggested by evolution rather than the objective and universally applicable one that is supposed to have been written on our hearts by god.
I don't deny that morality has evolved or that there isn't such a thing as subjective interpretation of a moral imperative. Interestingly, there are some atheists who do subscribe to objective morality. Shelly Kagan is one such person who springs to mind.
As for God writing something on our hearts, I do think this is what happened and that's why I think that you aren't as far away from admitting the existence of objective rights and wrongs (albeit without a creator (for now...).But again, the point I am making here is that there is right and wrong without god. You can argue that it's not perfect because it's not always applied universally but it's still there and you cannot legitimately say that without god rape is no worse than going to the shops for some milk
I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not saying that anyone equates rape with a milk run. Please understand this.
However, what I am trying to point out is that whatever your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do it isn't fixed under your system. - it's just a rule of thumb. And one that potentially carries no more negative consequences for breaking it than it guarantees positive consequences for sticking by it. You might say that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you. But what if a person rejects your humanity and says they aren't convinced by your argument? To what do you appeal to say that this view is wrong?0 -
Fair enough. That was the point I was making so if you don't make that argument I don't think we have a dispute here. But the rest of your post suggests otherwise so let's go on shall weFanny Cradock wrote: »Firstly, I don't believe that is the argument put forward by the corporate body of theists - some theists maybe, but not all and not me.
God's morality also only applies to other humans and before his son was born it only applied to other Jews. Even with objective god given morality what's to stop people defining another group as sub human for the purposes of not applying morality to them? You gave the example of abortion but with or without god people can still convince themselves that a foetus is just a clump of cells and therefore that normal morality does not apply to it. All of this shift towards abortion has happened in a world that you think is ruled by objective morality and where everyone innately knows right from wrong because god has written it on our hearts so what's your point? What good is a belief in objective morality if abortions happen anyway?Fanny Cradock wrote: »As for the Nazis not killing their own - bully for them. However, it still doesn't address the question of whether they were wrong to do what they did to their enemies - those whom they attempted to convince themselves weren't fully human. They might have shared your view hypothetically, but the reality was that they never practised it in reality.
Hitler did not act entirely out of his own self-interest, he acted out of the interest of his fellow Germans. Tesco acts out of the interests of its employees and customers. Lions act out of the interests of their pack and in 100 years if there's a water shortage people will act in the interests of their own group. None of those acts are carried out entirely for the selfish gain of one person as would be expected of a system devoid of morality, they are carried out in the interests of a group and within that group the normal "rules" of what we call morality apply, for example lions will kill antelopes for food but not other lions.Fanny Cradock wrote: »This is the crux of my not understanding your position. I just can't figure the finer points out of why it should be so.
*When did this almost moral imperative come into play? Was it after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their goons had finished killing tens of millions? Or are these guys simply the unfortunate exception to the rule?
*Are lions bad for killing antelope? Surely if the lion (or its "selfish genes") acts entirely out of its own interest then we do too.
*Is Tesco wrong for killing off the competition? Again, the company is acting on behalf of its own interests, those of its shareholders, its staff and they would probably claim the wider community.
*If in 100 years there isn't enough water to supply everyone on the earth (including the wealthy nations) is it right to forcibly take water sources from weaker nations (thereby helping your nation and its people)? Or should you stand by and do nothing while they suffer and die?
(Sorry for all the questions)
I can tell someone that killing is wrong based on the fact that they wouldn't like their own children to be killed but if they have twisted themselves up until they have managed to convince themselves that it doesn't matter that killing is wrong because of X excuse that makes it ok in their mind not to apply that rule to X group there's very little I can do. But the question then becomes: can religious morality do any better at convincing such a person? And history has shown us that the answer is a very emphatic no. If someone desperately wants to believe something they're going to believe it no matter how much you point to your interpretation of your holy book.
It's only a law insofar as human beings have made it a law. There is no automatic leap from it being a law to god existing. Basically it goes like this:Fanny Cradock wrote: »I won't disagree with the overall thesis. But I now have to point out that you are perilously close to describing an overarching morality - a law if you will. Heaven forbid! Because if it's not a law, then the Nazis were presumably not wrong in doing what they did. (This despite however distasteful we find their actions.)
Other guy: I don't think there's anything wrong with killing your children so I'm going to kill them
Me: I don't want you to kill my children but I don't think there's anything wrong with killing your children so I'm going to kill them, especially if you kill mine first
Other guy: Hmmm, it seem we are at an impasse. We both want to kill each other's children but neither of us wants our own children to be killed. Hmmmm, what to do....?
Both of us: Seems to me the best thing is for neither of us to kill the other's children. In fact let's write that down so that we don't forget it and let's make it so that if one of us breaks this agreement the other guy gets to punish him.
Simple as that. As I said, as long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it's logically impossible to see nothing wrong with killing in general. There must always be at least a subset of the population that you do not think that it's acceptable to kill and this desire for our loved ones to avoid harm that is held across the whole of humanity can be used to derive rules by which people must live in order to be accepted into a society. Only people who do not violate my desire to avoid harm for myself and my loved ones are acceptable to me and I am only acceptable to people whose desires I do not violate
In all honesty I don't even know what that means. The only thing that I would call objective morality is if every single human being on the planet had exactly the same concept of morality and exactly the same moral opinion on every subject as every other human being but that is clearly not the case. The fact that most sane human beings object to things like murder is not miraculous in any way because we all share the same desire for ourselves and our loved ones to avoid harm.Fanny Cradock wrote: »As for God writing something on our hearts, I do think this is what happened and that's why I think that you aren't as far away from admitting the existence of objective rights and wrongs (albeit without a creator (for now...).
I say: fair enough, there's nothing wrong with killing. Now move out of the way til I slit your children's throats. And when they try to stop me they have to justify why there should be one rule for them and another for everyone else. Basically he has to come up with a reason why he shouldn't have to follow the golden rule while still wanting everyone else to follow itFanny Cradock wrote: »However, what I am trying to point out is that whatever your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do it isn't fixed under your system. - it's just a rule of thumb. And one that potentially carries no more negative consequences for breaking it than it guarantees positive consequences for sticking by it. You might say that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you. But what if a person rejects your humanity and says they aren't convinced by your argument? To what do you appeal to say that this view is wrong?
The golden rule is there to protect everyone. It's better for everyone if everyone follows it. And the reason why someone can be made to follow it is that if they don't they lose their right to the rule's protection. I no longer have to treat this person as I would like to be treated because he has not afforded me the same courtesy. If you're going to break the rule you have to make damn sure you're strong enough that no one can ever retaliate against you or anyone you love because that's the only way that breaking the rule won't have negative consequences0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »You might say that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you. But what if a person rejects your humanity and says they aren't convinced by your argument? To what do you appeal to say that this view is wrong?
I'm not following this point?
Say God exists. To what do you appeal to say that the view is wrong? God?
Say a man with a knife comes into your house and tries to kill you because you let your dog defecate on his lawn.
As the man is about to you kill you you tell him he can't do that because God has told humans not to kill each other? The man shrugs, says he doesn't care, and kills you anyway. Or even worse, the man shrugs, says he talks to God all the time and has already cleared killing you with him.
I'm failing to see what you think appealing to God as a source of morality solves in this instance over simply appealing to say the law or your own judgement on the matter?
Opinions don't matter unless the other person agrees with them or you have the ability to enforce them. There is no difference between saying I don't think you should kill me or saying God doesn't think you should kill me if the person about to kill you doesn't agree0 -
Really? So it wouldn't be a big deal to you to suffer the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being sustained for a few hours? A pain worse than childbirth, worse than a kick in the gonads, worse than having your skin pulled off in tiny strips with hooks?
Of course it would be a big deal but equally of course I could stand it, especially given I had no choice whether to stand it or not.
You claim Jesus suffered the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being yet we have had this discussion before and it was very clearly pointed out to you that Crucifixion is by no means the worst physical suffering human beings can or have endured.
So I'm going to assume your going to bring up the 'spiritual' pain card. OK.
Lets assume that Jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then a normal human being is capable of suffering. So what ?
Torture has been perfected over human history and you know why its an ineffective means of getting information ?
You know why pain (physical) is itself ineffective ?
Mind over matter. I have shown you before how Buddhist monks among others can completely ignore their pain, not by going into a trance etc but literally accepting the pain and controlling their response.
Of course we had this discussion before and you claimed Jesus underwent 'spiritual pain' which is of course something non-Christians cannot experience, or was it non-religious people ?
I find this equally unimpressive for the same reasons as physical and psychological pain. Of course you claim I don't know what spiritual pain is and I cannot experience it so you are making an argument for your case which by your own definition is impossible for me to argue against.
Very handy when things get difficult. Claim the other side can't possibly understand your argument so by default your are right. :rolleyes:0 -
For all the people here claiming that without God we would be running wild GTA style I want to ask a question.
How do you explain the Pirahã people in South America ? (For one example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people
They don't really have a religion per say, they believe in 'an animistic belief in spirits. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.'
About their culture;- As far as the Pirahã have related to researchers, their culture is concerned solely with matters that fall within direct personal experience, and thus there is no history beyond living memory.
- The culture has the simplest known kinship system, not tracking relations any more distant than biological siblings.
- There appears to be no social hierarchy; the Pirahã have no leaders. Their social system can thus be labeled as primitive communism.
- Curiously, although not unprecedentedly[2], the language has no cardinal or ordinal numbers. Some researchers, such as Prof. Peter Gordon of Columbia University, claim that the Piraha are incapable of learning numeracy. His colleague, Prof. Daniel L. Everett, on the other hand, argues that the Pirahã are cognitively capable of counting; they simply choose not to do so.
- They barter with external traders but have resisted most external influences (such as encouragement to farm) retaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
So perhaps we're hitting a few birds with the same stone;
These people have a very primitive culture which can best be described as primitive communism and they don't believe in anything supernatural (under our definition any ways).
So why are they not killing each other, raping each others women or carrying out a mass genocide against their neighbours ?
How do you explain this ?0 -
How can something 'clearly be pointed out to me' when I have never tried to claim anything otherwise? I know that crucifixion is not the worst physical suffering humans can endure. I was teaching that to others when you were still in your nappies. I suggest you drop the posturing and try entering into the discussion.Of course it would be a big deal but equally of course I could stand it, especially given I had no choice whether to stand it or not.
You claim Jesus suffered the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being yet we have had this discussion before and it was very clearly pointed out to you that Crucifixion is by no means the worst physical suffering human beings can or have endured.
Nobody's 'playing any card'. We're discussing Christian belief, which is the purpose of this forum. If you can't do that in a less confronntational way then I suggest you head for the exit.So I'm going to assume your going to bring up the 'spiritual' pain card. OK.
Lets assume that Jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then a normal human being is capable of suffering. So what ?
So what? So it means that His death is not something inconsequential that one would willingly endure for the sake of one's cat - and that was the point I was responding to.Lets assume that Jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then a normal human being is capable of suffering. So what ?
This is a complete off-topic change of subject you are attempting. Pain and torture is unreliable (although sadly not always ineffective) as a means of extracting information.Torture has been perfected over human history and you know why its an ineffective means of getting information ?
You know why pain (physical) is itself ineffective ?
Not true. The reason why torture is unreliable as a means of extracting information, as most studies demonstrate, is nothing to do with mind over matter. It is because the victim of torture will tell the torturer whatever they think they want to hear in order to make the pain stop.Mind over matter.
If you are determined to drag us off topic then at least do so with correct information.
I stated Christian beliefs before, yes. And you seemed to get upset that you couldn't understand it which made it unfair that you couldn't argue against it. And I will repeat what I said to you then - if you're just coming into this forum to argue with something that you don't even understand, then you're going to end up being infracted as a troll. So let's not go down that route again, OK?Of course we had this discussion before and you claimed Jesus underwent 'spiritual pain' which is of course something non-Christians cannot experience, or was it non-religious people ?
Let's get this clear. It's nothing to do with anything being 'handy'. I've stated what the Christian belief is. You are the one trying to create an argument, and then somehow trying to make out that it's unfair that you can't understand the issues enough to make a decent argument.I find this equally unimpressive for the same reasons as physical and psychological pain. Of course you claim I don't know what spiritual pain is and I cannot experience it so you are making an argument for your case which by your own definition is impossible for me to argue against.
Very handy when things get difficult. Claim the other side can't possibly understand your argument so by default your are right.0 -
I stated Christian beliefs before, yes. And you seemed to get upset that you couldn't understand it which made it unfair that you couldn't argue against it.
We know it's the christian belief, the point being made here is that the christian belief itself is 'handy'. It goes back to a point someone made a few weeks ago about faith being a conversation stopper. To someone on the outside looking in this belief that Jesus pain was multiplied seems to be nothing more than an ad hoc hypothesis thought up by someone years ago who wanted to believe that Jesus made the greatest sacrifice
You have nothing to suggest that Jesus pain was multiplied, you just believe it, the sacrifice was the greatest because you have defined it as such, you're right because you have been defined to be and there's nothing anyone can say in response except "I disagree". I think you can see why people would find that frustrating0 -
Advertisement
-
Not true. The reason why torture is unreliable as a means of extracting information, as most studies demonstrate, is nothing to do with mind over matter. It is because the victim of torture will tell the torturer whatever they think they want to hear in order to make the pain stop.
Of course your right but I was referring to the equally valid point that certain people have shown under extreme forms of torture/pain that they are capable of resisting/ignoring it, i.e > mind over matter.Let's get this clear. It's nothing to do with anything being 'handy'. I've stated what the Christian belief is. You are the one trying to create an argument, and then somehow trying to make out that it's unfair that you can't understand the issues enough to make a decent argument.
Heres what I don't get.
Whenever you or anyone else here talks about Jesus, whenever I hear any evangelist trying to convert someone, whenever I hear someone preaching about Christianity then they use terms and ideas which they know people will understand.
"Jesus suffered on the cross and he died for our sins." Thats the line thats thrown around. Clearly when it suits Christians, they are trying to make people think Jesus suffered and died.
Your trying to convey an idea to people using concepts (suffering and dying) they are supposed to understand and yet when people question those same ideas using the same concepts you yourself have conveyed you turn around and tell them they can't understand them.
Do you understand my frustration ?
Your telling me Jesus 'suffered' and 'died' and then your telling me when I question it that I can't understand the 'suffering' or the 'dying' that Jesus went through.
Well if thats the case then what possible meaning does that phrase have anymore ? You might as well say 'Jesus had a lovely cup of tea and a slice of toast last tuesday' because by your own words, I am incapable of understanding these ideas in which case they completely loose all meaning.
You are putting your ideas and your religion on a pedestal that cannot be touched, you are placing your beliefs behind an impregnable wall and yet you claim you want to discuss them ?
That doesn't make any sense and is one of the main reasons I have turned away from religion. Once you consider your argument or your beliefs untouchable then thats something to be very afraid of indeed.
PDN you mightn't believe me but I do have a lot of time for certain religious figures, one such individual would be Father George Coyne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc). The reason I have time for these individuals is precisely because they are open to debate, they are open to other views, they are open to rethinking their faith.
It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, Christians here do not want a debate, they don't want to discuss other views, they just want to high 5 each other in agreement over the status quo and never question it.0 -
I'm a bit confused. So what is the Christian belief here... does God simply provide an objective morality that we should follow OR does God instill this moral sense into a person at conception?0
-
Truth often is 'handy'. You seem to be complaining that, in this case, you are unable to argue effectively against a point of Christian doctrine. That's hardly my problem, is it?We know it's the christian belief, the point being made here is that the christian belief itself is 'handy'. It goes back to a point someone made a few weeks ago about faith being a conversation stopper. To someone on the outside looking in this belief that Jesus pain was multiplied seems to be nothing more than an ad hoc hypothesis thought up by someone years ago who wanted to believe that Jesus made the greatest sacrifice
The task of theology is to understand the revelation that God has given us of Himself, and to frame that in a way that is consistent, coherent, and makes philosophical sense.
We are in no way obligated to frame our beliefs in a way that you or monosharp find it easy to argue against it.
You, as someone on the outside, disagree with a point of Christian doctrine. We get that - and you have a forum where you can discuss your disbelief to your heart's content. If you want to discuss the coherence or consistency of the Christian belief then you are free to do so if you can remain within the Charter. But complaining about something because it is 'a conversation stopper' won't cut it.
No, I believe it because that is the position suggested by the biblical revelation and because it is the explanation that is the most consistent, coherent, and the one that makes the most philosophical sense.You have nothing to suggest that Jesus pain was multiplied, you just believe it, the sacrifice was the greatest because you have defined it as such,
The only people that would find that frustrating would be the people who feel they have to argue with every Christian position or doctrine, irrespective of whether they understand the concept or even have a valid argument. There are names for such people.you're right because you have been defined to be and there's nothing anyone can say in response except "I disagree". I think you can see why people would find that frustrating0 -
It isn't valid at all in the context of this thread.Of course your right but I was referring to the equally valid point that certain people have shown under extreme forms of torture/pain that they are capable of resisting/ignoring it, i.e > mind over matter.
Some people, in certain situations, have been able to endure certain types of pain for periods of time.
It does not follow that pain does not exist, or that such endurance has any relevance at all to the suffering of Christ on the Cross.
Because Jesus did suffer and die.Heres what I don't get.
Whenever you or anyone else here talks about Jesus, whenever I hear any evangelist trying to convert someone, whenever I hear someone preaching about Christianity then they use terms and ideas which they know people will understand.
"Jesus suffered on the cross and he died for our sins." Thats the line thats thrown around. Clearly when it suits Christians, they are trying to make people think Jesus suffered and died.
People understand the concepts of suffering and dying. But that does not mean that all discussion of suffering and dying must be confined to your limited understanding on those concepts.Your trying to convey an idea to people using concepts (suffering and dying) they are supposed to understand and yet when people question those same ideas using the same concepts you yourself have conveyed you turn around and tell them they can't understand them.
For example, is it unfair of me to discuss the pain of a child dying with anyone who has never been a parent? Such a person has no idea of the extent of pain a parent feels when a child dies, but the parent is still allowed to try to express that in terms that the other person can understand.
No, because I cannot understand someone being so arrogant as to assume that everything discussed on this board should be suited to their own limited understanding.Do you understand my frustration ?
Christians, who understand the concept of spiritual suffering, should be allowed to discuss that in this forum without you butting in to say, "But I can't understand this - therefore you shouldn't discuss it because that frustrates me!"
Now you're just being silly. Your inability to understand stuff does not prevent the rest of us discussing our beliefs.Well if thats the case then what possible meaning does that phrase have anymore ? You might as well say 'Jesus had a lovely cup of tea and a slice of toast last tuesday' because by your own words, I am incapable of understanding these ideas in which case they completely loose all meaning.
Our beliefs are certainly open for discussion and question. But you need to come up with something better than, "But i can't understand it, therefore it's not fair for you to talk about it."You are putting your ideas and your religion on a pedestal that cannot be touched, you are placing your beliefs behind an impregnable wall and yet you claim you want to discuss them ?
That doesn't make any sense and is one of the main reasons I have turned away from religion. Once you consider your argument or your beliefs untouchable then thats something to be very afraid of indeed.
Well, to be honest, I could easily point you to other fora where the questioning of one's position is far less, and the smug back slapping far exceeds that of this forum.It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, Christians here do not want a debate, they don't want to discuss other views, they just want to high 5 each other in agreement over the status quo and never question it.
You can certainly question views - but it would help if you understood them first.0 -
.
Christians, who understand the concept of spiritual suffering, should be allowed to discuss that in this forum without you butting in to say, "But I can't understand this - therefore you shouldn't discuss it because that frustrates me!"
Perhaps you could explain the concept of spiritual suffering and how it differs to normal suffering for those of us who don't understand it?0 -
Perhaps you could explain the concept of spiritual suffering and how it differs to normal suffering for those of us who don't understand it?
Atheists seem to have no problem understanding the concept of spiritual suffering when it comes to discussing hell. Then they can wax lyrical about how unfair it is that a God would allow people to suffer it for all eternity.
However, once we start talking about how Jesus bore the spiritual suffering of hell on our behalf on the cross - then suddenly it turns into "But that's not fair because I don't understand it."
The concept is that the human body is composed of a spirit, a soul, and a body. Your body is the material lump of meat. The soul is your mind, will and emotions. The spirit is the part of you that communicates with God. Each part can suffer in it's own way.
If I bump my head then that is physical pain. If Arsenal lose 3-0 to Chelsea then that is emotional (or soulish) pain. If I sin, and as a result feel God withdraw His presence from me, then that is spiritual pain.
The bible says that natural man (without God) does not feel spiritual pain or joy because his spirit is actually dead. The highest he can attain to is emotional or soulish pleasure or suffering. So he can appreciate great art and music - but cannot enjoy the presence of God. However, our spirits come alive (the King James Bible says they are 'quickened') when we become children of God.
The terrible reality of hell is that people will become spiritually aware, and so be awfully aware that they are cut off from God's presence for all eternity. I believe that in order to express this in terms that people can understand, at least to some extent, the Bible uses metaphors about fire and flames.
Now, as I see it, there are two logically consistent positions that unbelievers can take on this.
a) They can argue that they don't believe in the concept of spiritual suffering. That is their perogative. Therefore they don't see Christ's sacrifice on the cross as being impressive - but equally they have no grounds for complaining about the unfairness of hell.
b) They can complain about how unfair hell is - for inflicting spiritual suffering on people for all eternity. But then they have to allow for the possibility that Jesus suffered similarly on the Cross.
What is inconsistent is to have your cake and eat it - to argue against the unfairness of spiritual suffering in hell, yet to deny the existence of spiritual suffering when it comes to Christ on the Cross.0 -
Genuine question and curiousity about our spirits etc. If one never accepts God, never becomes baptised, confirmed etc does their spirit remains "dead"? I presuming they're not literally dead just never "awoken" although I could well be wrong in this. If this is the case then I am presuming they could never feel spiritually connected to God throughout their life. However it must be the case that after death one would have to become aware of this spiritual connection to God whether or not they were through out their life, before we could ever understand the suffering caused by being cut off from Gods presence in hell. I hope I'm getting my point across, apologies if I didn't.0
-
a) They can argue that they don't believe in the concept of spiritual suffering. That is their perogative. Therefore they don't see Christ's sacrifice on the cross as being impressive - but equally they have no grounds for complaining about the unfairness of hell.
b) They can complain about how unfair hell is - for inflicting spiritual suffering on people for all eternity. But then they have to allow for the possibility that Jesus suffered similarly on the Cross.
Thanks for expressing your position. I would say I fall into a. but I don't complain about the unfairness of Hell because I don't believe it exists.
I think most atheists tend to argue that it's wrong to teach children about the immense pain in Hell because it's almost like blackmailing them into believing in Christianity. I don't think it's that we (at least not myself) understand spiritual pain in Hell, but rather that the child will interpret it as pain and torture nomatter what 'type' it is.0 -
It does not follow that pain does not exist, or that such endurance has any relevance at all to the suffering of Christ on the Cross.
1. Where did 'not exist' come from ?
2. Why wouldn't it have any relevance ?Because Jesus did suffer and die.
You have told me that I 'can't' understand his suffering and according to Christians he didn't really die at all.death [deth]
–noun
1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.
Death is permanent so what happened to Jesus wasn't death. We need a new word with the definition of 'temporary cessation of all the vital functions of an organism'
You are the one who first told me that Jesus suffered and died, then when I question the suffering and the dying based on scientific understanding of the concepts you then told me that I can't understand them which brings us right back to my first point.
What possible meaning does the sentence "Jesus suffered and died for our sins" mean to people like me, who according to you, cannot understand what the words mean.People understand the concepts of suffering and dying. But that does not mean that all discussion of suffering and dying must be confined to your limited understanding on those concepts.
I understand suffering, I understand the physical, biological and physiological factors involved with the concept and thats why I don't find the statement 'Jesus suffered' very impressive.For example, is it unfair of me to discuss the pain of a child dying with anyone who has never been a parent? Such a person has no idea of the extent of pain a parent feels when a child dies, but the parent is still allowed to try to express that in terms that the other person can understand.
Your talking about degrees of pain, degrees of suffering. Your not talking about something which is inherently different.No, because I cannot understand someone being so arrogant as to assume that everything discussed on this board should be suited to their own limited understanding.
I've asked you to explain it to me and you came back with "you just can't understand it unless your part of our club" which is not an argument, its an excuse.Christians, who understand the concept of spiritual suffering, should be allowed to discuss that in this forum without you butting in to say, "But I can't understand this - therefore you shouldn't discuss it because that frustrates me!"
I said no such thing.Now you're just being silly. Your inability to understand stuff does not prevent the rest of us discussing our beliefs.
So when you go to try and convert someone and you tell them that "Jesus suffered and died for them" what concepts are you trying to put forward ? Because you have just repeatedly said that non-Christians are incapable of understanding these concepts.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm thinking it's only people like you that have this issue with being "unimpressed" with Jesus' suffering. Christian evangelism is not particularly suited to handle the convincing of smug, arrogant atheists who look down at God. Some people realize they need Jesus Christ in their lives, while others are "just fine on their own" and don't see anything wrong with themselves.1. Where did 'not exist' come from ?
2. Why wouldn't it have any relevance ?
You have told me that I 'can't' understand his suffering and according to Christians he didn't really die at all.
Death is permanent so what happened to Jesus wasn't death. We need a new word with the definition of 'temporary cessation of all the vital functions of an organism'
You are the one who first told me that Jesus suffered and died, then when I question the suffering and the dying based on scientific understanding of the concepts you then told me that I can't understand them which brings us right back to my first point.
What possible meaning does the sentence "Jesus suffered and died for our sins" mean to people like me, who according to you, cannot understand what the words mean.
I understand suffering, I understand the physical, biological and physiological factors involved with the concept and thats why I don't find the statement 'Jesus suffered' very impressive.
Your talking about degrees of pain, degrees of suffering. Your not talking about something which is inherently different.
I've asked you to explain it to me and you came back with "you just can't understand it unless your part of our club" which is not an argument, its an excuse.
I said no such thing.
So when you go to try and convert someone and you tell them that "Jesus suffered and died for them" what concepts are you trying to put forward ? Because you have just repeatedly said that non-Christians are incapable of understanding these concepts.
Perhaps something will happen in your life that will allow you to appreciate what Christ did for you.
You deny and reject Christ, so your opinion on His suffering is no surprise.0
Advertisement