Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm thinking it's only people like you that have this issue with being "unimpressed" with Jesus' suffering.

Lets just say for example that the Bibles portrayal of Jesus' suffering and execution is accurate. I can give you more examples then you can count about people undergoing much worse instances of suffering.

I find it 'unimpressive' in relation to the statement 'He suffered and died for us so we should worship him'. People have suffered and died all throughout history for the sake of others and I find their sacrifices incredible and very meaningful. But Christians claim Jesus went through this and the way they try to put this forward is that no one else ever has.

Christian evangelism is not particularly suited to handle the convincing of smug, arrogant atheists who look down at God.

I'll accept smug and arrogant but I'm not an atheist. At least I'm pretty sure I'm not one using your definition. I don't 'know' if theres a god/gods or not, I don't claim to know.

Secondly, I don't look down on god because I have no idea if it even exists.

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.

What has this got to do with the topic ? Some people realize they need Scientology/Islam/Buddhism/Mormanism/Astrology or any other number of things in their lives, it does not say a thing about the truth of these things but instead tells us a great deal about human imagination and the way our minds work.

Perhaps something will happen in your life that will allow you to appreciate what Christ did for you.

I'm listening right now and I'm asking you right now, what did he do for me ?

You deny and reject Christ, so your opinion on His suffering is no surprise.

How do I deny Christ ? I accept his suffering as portrayed in the bible, I accept he did probably go through all that stuff and I accept that most of the people in that area of the world thought it was the worst punishment imaginable.

Why do I need to be Christian to understand what he 'did' for me ?

And by the way is no one going to answer my question about the Pirahã people ?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

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.

You are the one who told me I couldn't understand it.

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."

Again, your the one claiming we can't understand it.

If I sin, and as a result feel God withdraw His presence from me, then that is spiritual pain.

So people that don't accept god who go to hell won't suffer because they don't have a spirit or because their spirit is dead ? Because I'm not feeling any spiritual pain right now.

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.

Honestly, where do you get this stuff ? Because I'm pretty sure it isn't from the Bible. Please show me where the bible defines soul and spirit.

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.

Ah, I think I see your problem. You see when we complain about the unfairness of hell we are actually trying to point out a fallacy in your beliefs.

For example my thread on the Buddhist monk wanting to go there. I was trying to show Christians that the whole concept is illogical, that a loving god wouldn't put people through that. I no more believe in hell then i believe in god so it'd be a bit rich of me to complain about one whilst not believing in the other.

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.

Ok so we're back to understandable concepts again are we ? Jesus suffered, OK.

You ever read about how Vlad the impaler treated guests ? Their suffering was many times greater and longer then Jesus'.

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.

Where does the bible say this ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

1. Where did 'not exist' come from ?

2. Why wouldn't it have any relevance ?

I've been dealing with the issues you and Sam Vimes raised, and their implications. I'm not interested in playing semantics with you.

You have told me that I 'can't' understand his suffering and according to Christians he didn't really die at all.

Our understanding is limited on many subjects. You are able to understand the concept that Jesus suffered, even if you lack the capacity to appreciate the nature of His suffering.

And according to Christians He did die.

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'

More meaningless semantics - cherrypicking a dictionary definition.

If you want to go down that road then please never discuss death with a Christian on this forum again, since Christians believe that everyone will be resurrected at some time in the future. Christians believe that Jesus died in the same sense that they believe everyone dies - the only difference is the length of time between death and resurrection.

You appear to be saying that a belief in resurrection somehow invalidates the very concept of death or the use of the term in language. If you want to argue such nonsense then please take it elsewhere.

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.

And in a free country you are entitled to find whatever you like to be impressive or unimpressive - but we are more interested in this forum with discussing Christian issues.

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.

No, it's a statement of a belief that has been held by the Christian Church for 2000 years. The fact that you don't like it because it doesn't suit your desire to advance an argument is neither here nor there. Labelling it 'an excuse' is incredibly egocentric - this is not all about you.

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.

They understand the concepts of suffering and death very well. They might not be able to fully appreciate the precise nature of Christ's suffering - but that is not a barrier to those who are looking for the truth rather than just trying to pick an argument.

Fanny Cradock

Monosharp, you made the same points a month and a half ago. There is no point in playing the same record again.

If you are actually interested in listening to perspectives on this matter other than your own - something I seriously doubt - you might want to consider reading The Cross of Christ by John Stott. I've personally not read it (it's on the list) but its been recommended by a couple of people in the last months.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Monosharp, you made the same points a month and a half ago. There is no point in playing the same record again.

Actually I'm not, I actually don't want to argue about the crucifixion, I want to talk about how some Christians here refuse to partake in a logical discussion some of the time and when an argument is put to them they simply ignore the points raised.

I have raised points and PDN has dismissed them with a handy 'But your not Christian do you can't understand X' stick.

This statement, Jesus suffered and died for you, is always used for evangelist purposes. I want to discuss what this means exactly from a historical and theological perspective.

And this is just one of the many statements I want to discuss, off the top of my head the simple statement 'God loves everyone including you'. I have heard this a billion times before, yet when I question it the same person changes her/his tune completely and doesn't want to 'think' about what their saying, they just want to parrot the words out.

If you are actually interested in listening to perspectives on this matter other than your own - something I seriously doubt - you might want to consider reading The Cross of Christ by John Stott. I've personally not read it (it's on the list) but its been recommended by a couple of people in the last months.

I'd love to know what I've done to earn such scorn but thanks I might check that out.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

I have raised points and PDN has dismissed them with a handy 'But your not Christian do you can't understand X' stick.

This statement, Jesus suffered and died for you, is always used for evangelist purposes. I want to discuss what this means exactly from a historical and theological perspective.

And I believe the same topic was previously raised in the thread I linked to.

monosharp wrote: »

I'd love to know what I've done to earn such scorn but thanks I might check that out.

It's not scorn, monosharp. I simply don't believe that you willing to listen to Christians when it comes to matters of Christianity. That's why you often repeat the same topics - for example: the suffering of Christ; how hostile and forceful the Christians are in parts of Asia; or how Christian colleges in S. Korea place unreasonable demands upon you if you want enter their college. I wouldn't mind if there was some headway made - even to the point where somebody says, "OK, I can see your point but I reject it for X, Y and Z." But this rarely happens. And so we go around in circles - the suffering of Christ; hostile Christians in Asia...

Have you ever received a satisfactory answer here?

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Lets just say for example that the Bibles portrayal of Jesus' suffering and execution is accurate. I can give you more examples then you can count about people undergoing much worse instances of suffering.

Well, no you can't. Neither you nor I can say how much Jesus suffered, so we can't say one way or another. All I can go by is that Jesus bore the sins of the world. I'm not sure who else has done that or what it might "feel" like.
I can try to give an example which shows just how horrible the suffering could be, since you seem to think other people have suffered so much worse.
We can start with the physical torture and suffering of the crucifixion. No need to go further with that.

Now, let's go to the emotional.

Let's say your wife and child are kidnapped. Your wife is brutally raped while your child is forced to watch. Months of torture later, after she gives birth to the rapist's child, she is then skinned and burned alive, while your child watches. Your child is then told to say "I love you daddy, please help me," before being thrown into a pit of rabid dogs to be mauled to death. This is all video taped and you get the video. Your wife and child are on tape, both calling out your name, asking you to save them.
This would probably cause you quite a bit of emotional pain. Now imagine that you had that same level of closeness to 10 billion other people, and had to endure the same type of emotional torment for each case. You also have the capacity to fully experience the emotional suffering of each and every one of the 10 billion cases.
We could go further and say that for every case, the criminal ended up realizing the horrible thing he had done, and felt immense guilt. So now add to the emotional pain of losing 10 billion wife/child equivalents to the guilt of 10 billion criminals.

The spiritual pain is not worth mentioning in this case.

I find it 'unimpressive' in relation to the statement 'He suffered and died for us so we should worship him'. People have suffered and died all throughout history for the sake of others and I find their sacrifices incredible and very meaningful. But Christians claim Jesus went through this and the way they try to put this forward is that no one else ever has.

Jesus should be worshipped because He is God. He died so that we don't have to. He rose again, yes, but so will we. If He did not conquer death, no one would have eternal life.

I'll accept smug and arrogant but I'm not an atheist. At least I'm pretty sure I'm not one using your definition. I don't 'know' if theres a god/gods or not, I don't claim to know.

Secondly, I don't look down on god because I have no idea if it even exists.

Point taken.

What has this got to do with the topic ? Some people realize they need Scientology/Islam/Buddhism/Mormanism/Astrology or any other number of things in their lives, it does not say a thing about the truth of these things but instead tells us a great deal about human imagination and the way our minds work.

It has a lot to do with the topic, even if not for you particularly. If someone thinks Jesus is not God and did not die for their sins, then His suffering is irrelevant.

I'm listening right now and I'm asking you right now, what did he do for me ?

He gave you the gift of eternal life, though you are just a sinful mortal being who rejects God.

How do I deny Christ ? I accept his suffering as portrayed in the bible, I accept he did probably go through all that stuff and I accept that most of the people in that area of the world thought it was the worst punishment imaginable.

Why do I need to be Christian to understand what he 'did' for me ?

You deny Christ in that you do not accept Him as your Lord and Savior.

And by the way is no one going to answer my question about the Pirahã people ?

All men have the capacity to do good. God's commandments were given to serve as a guideline on how to live life, because we may not notice it when we start to stray and become accepting of increasingly immoral behavior.
There is a difference, however, in "not killing each other" and loving others as Christ loved us. Self-sacrifice and submission to God and our fellow man is a bit more disciplined than the peaceful nature of a primitive tribe.
Their behavior is due, IMO, either to the working of the Holy Spirit on their hearts, or to what best benefits their people as a whole.

Man may know "naturally" what is "good and bad" for the most part, though this in no way obligates him to follow what is good. God demands that we are "good," however, and man is held accountable. The spiritual aspect is a step beyond this, and comes through the revelation of the Holy Spirit Himself.

To quote C.H. Spurgeon:

When the Holy Spirit comes to us, he shows us what the law really is. Take, for instance, the command, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Well!" says one, "I have not broken that commandment." "Stay," says the Spirit of God, "till you know the spiritual meaning of that command, for whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." There is, also, the command, "Thou shalt not kill." "Oh!" says the man, "I never killed anybody, I have not committed murder." "But," says the Spirit of God, "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." When the Lord thus writes his law upon our heart, he makes us to know the far-reaching power and scope of the commandment. He causes us to understand that it touches not only actions and words, but thoughts, ay, and the most transient imaginations, the things that are scarcely born within us, the sights that pass in a moment across the mind, like a stray passenger who passes in front of the camera when a photographer is taking a view. The Spirit of God teaches us that even these momentary impressions are sinful, and that the very thought of foolishness is sin.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept there is no good or evil, that murder and paedophilia are of no more or less significance than mowing the lawn or pissing in the snow?
And why would you think Atheists believe that ?

I didn't say I thought they did, only that they should - it is the logic of their position.

I can only speak for myself but here is my reasoning, and I must stress this is not an atheist 'position', it is my position. Maybe others agree, I don't know (or care).

Murder is wrong to me because it causes suffering, I don't want to suffer and I don't want to cause suffering to anyone else.

That tells me what you want, it does not give me any rational reason for why you don't want to cause suffering to others.

I believe that we are extrodinarily lucky to be alive, I feel privileged to be alive and to experience sentient existence. Murder is wrong because it extinguishes that life.

Why is extinguishing sentient life wrong? Because you feel privileged to be sentient and think that this privilege demands you respect it in others? This feeling is just that - an emotional response. Nothing to do with reason. Reason (atheistic) tells you that sentient life is just an alternative version of any other form of life, or indeed non-life.

Paedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to the defenceless.

Why is it wrong to inflict suffering on the defenceless? Emotions may tell you so, but reason - if materialism is all there is - tells us suffering is just the same as pleasure or indifference.

This argument is so old and so wrong that I am sick of hearing it.

It won't go away until you give a rational defence of your position. Emotional responses tell us only what you subjectively feel.

I don't believe in any deity, I don't believe I will pay for my actions after I die.

If atheism is true, that follows.

And in opposition to many atheist views I also don't particularly think the punishment by law is a big factor in these things.

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying it is not important that we punish murderers and paedophiles? It certainly has no objective significance, if atheism is true. But it will have big subjective effects for atheists and theists alike.

Murder is wrong because of the factors I have highlighted, I don't need to fear any supernatural being or any legal repercussions to come to that conclusion.

As I pointed out above, that amounts to saying it is wrong because you feel it is wrong, not for any objective reason. The murderer may feel it is right and be a valid in his morality as you in yours - that is, without a rational argument, if atheism is true.

Quote:
I think that is because they know in their hearts that there is actual good and evil, that some things do matter.
If I really believed in good and evil then I most definately would NOT be a fan of your deity. If these supernatural beings believed to be deities in this world existed then I would consider them to be evil.

That is because either you have a distorted view of the God of the Bible or your sinful heart is in rebellion against Him.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept there is no good or evil, that murder and paedophilia are of no more or less significance than mowing the lawn or pissing in the snow?

Many atheists like to pretend some things do matter more than others, and they invent their morality and tut-tut about those that violate it. Few seem willing to say there is no 'ought' and to live by whatever pleases them at the time.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that there is actual good and evil, that some things do matter. But rather than accept there is a God to whom they must give account, they pretend to themselves they are just a self-aware collection of atoms.
This is what that sounds like to me:

Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept brocolli is as appealing as a big mac, that fatty foods and salt are of no more or less significance than steamed vegetables and water?

Many atheists like to pretend some foods are more appealing than than others, and they invent their tastes and tut-tut about those that say they prefer steamed vegetables. Few seem willing to say there is no 'more appealing food' and to eat whatever pleases them at the time.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that fatty foods are more appealing than steamed vegetables, that some things do taste better. But rather than accept there is a God to whom they must give account, they pretend to themselves they are just a self-aware collection of atoms.

How can fatty foods possibly be more appealing than steamed vegetables unless there is a god wolfsbane!!!

I never denied that charity is more appealing than murder. In fact, I claimed most people, including atheists, feel that is so.

What the atheist cannot do, however, is show why he should feel so - other than say it is an inherited evolutionary trait. He cannot claim that charity is actually better than murder. If materialism is all there is, both are equally significant in the universe. That is, no more significant than the rolling of a sand grain on some slope on a distant planet.

But the atheist cannot (usually) live with that logical consequence of his world-view. He therefore invents/adapts a morality for himself, and proceeds to tut-tut when he sees it violated.

Hypocrisy certainly, but driven by a desperate need to quell his conscience.

Turtwig

Hang on?

Are you saying that without God, anything goes?
*Grabs a baby*

eblistic

After all of this talk of the kind of absolute, objective, universal morality that religion can provide can somebody give us an example of a monotheistic religious doctrine whose suite of moral codes has remained unchanged over the course of its history?

(Actually, if they're so absolute and so objective they ought to have existed since the beginning of life no?)

Fanny Cradock

eblistic wrote: »

After all of this talk of the kind of absolute, objective, universal morality that religion can provide can somebody give us an example of a monotheistic religious doctrine whose suite of moral codes has remained unchanged over the course of its history?

(Actually, if they're so absolute and so objective they ought to have existed since the beginning of life no?)

I'm guessing that you haven't been paying attention because otherwise you wouldn't need to ask the question.

wolfsbane

eblistic wrote: »

After all of this talk of the kind of absolute, objective, universal morality that religion can provide can somebody give us an example of a monotheistic religious doctrine whose suite of moral codes has remained unchanged over the course of its history?

(Actually, if they're so absolute and so objective they ought to have existed since the beginning of life no?)

The eternal moral Law of God is absolute. The laws He gave to man have also included laws that were temporary, suitable only for a special purpose. Circumcision, for example. But the laws against murder, adultery, theft, for example - these are permanent. They applied from Adam down.

To that must be added the observation that man, even Christian man, has not always correctly identified all God's law or how it is to be implemented. We all suffer in consequence of sins of ignorance, as well as of wilful sins. Unwarranted divorce, for example, brings suffering to many and God's wrath against the guilty party.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Hang on?

Are you saying that without God, anything goes?
*Grabs a baby*

Yes. Logically so. The only determining factor would be the desires/feelings of the one taking the action.

eblistic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm guessing that you haven't been paying attention because otherwise you wouldn't need to ask the question.

You could be right. Thank you for your helpful response!

Rather than doctrine I should, perhaps, have asked for the name a specific sect which has never adapted or altered any of its supposed objective set of moral rules over time. Is there really any?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God's morality also only applies to other humans and before his son was born it only applied to other Jews.

Not sure what this means. Objective morality is objective morality. That God will judge us all is part and parcel of Christian eschatology. And it's precisely because we have a sense of right and wrong that we are held accountable.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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?

There isn't much to stop them, I guess, except those who maintain that X is objectively wrong in the face of the shifting moral Zeitgeist. Perhaps MLK Jr. was an example of such a person? But despite this it has never been my argument that we can unerringly understand this thing called objective morality. I freely admit that my idea of morality is corruptible by my flaws, my own sin. As I've said before: that we humans use subjective morality doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called objective morality or that our subjective morality doesn't overlap with objective morality on certain issues. Indeed, I think we can begin to understand objective morality via subjective morality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Thanks for answering.

A few of points. I didn't ask about Hitler's motivations - quite aside from him being an evil, rotten bastard (and to me that is an objective truth) - I'm sure he probably thought to some degree that he was doing right by the German people, at least the part that he approved of, and for a time it looked like he was doing a good job of it! I've said on maybe 3 occasions now that I'm not claiming that the Nazis, Hitler or unspecified supermarket chains are devoid of morality. And I'm saying it again now. However - and this is important - the Nazis and Hitler (I'll avoid mentioning anyone else in case of liable) applied their morality selectively and it was always at the great expense of those unable to defend themselves. The fruits of their labour - their most horrendous crimes - were objectively wrong, which means that they are always evil no matter the time, the place or who was victorious. This is a good bit different than criticising the Nazis for not adhering to the golden rule or pointing out that each acted in some way for their own community.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But the question then becomes: can religious morality do any better at convincing such a person?

Maybe maybe not. I would say that I am closer to most of my Christian contemporaries on certain issues than I would be to non-Christian friends who I've know for many years. But as I've said I'm not claiming that a something like a Irish theocracy will usher in a new age of harmony and brotherhood. Such things have always ended in failure, so I see no reason why they wouldn't next time around. But this says nothing about objective morality. I think I covered this above.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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...

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.

And if you ever want to go that far and say that there is an objective moral law (without God) there are atheists (like the the unfortunately named Shelly Kagan I previously mentioned) who would back you up.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Basically it goes like this:

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.

Well, unlike turn based simulations, real life isn't a tit-for-tat set of moves. How often does the perpetrator of an injustice (murder, rape, theft or whatever) give their victim or the family of their victim the chance to draw up a menacing threat or even have their revenge? I'm going to suggest the answer is rarely.

In practice we see case after case of an evil individual doing harm and getting away with it. It might be easy to say "eye for an eye" but that presupposes that you are willing to do the same (doctoremma, for example, suggests she is incapable of murder) or that having your revenge it is even possible or satisfying. Perhaps the criminal values nothing and no one – a nihilist through and through– or maybe they are just stronger than you. Social Darwinism* in action.

(*As there can be some confusion over the use of the term, I'll clarify that intend to imply no links to evolutionary Darwinism here. I've no beef with evolution.)

Let me clarify: I applaud the golden rule. But if at the the heart of it all there is only the threat of retaliation - thus violence is staved off by the threat of violence - than the golden rule is nothing more than a moral Mexican stand-off. And this means I'm not sure that you or any other moral subjectivist can say that death camps are evil and wicked, only bad for those not in the particular in-group. Which leads into the next point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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 consequences

And what do you think when this happens in practice? Is it no longer a moral issue (subjective morality, of course) because the stronger has taken what they want and nobody can do anything about it?

Finally, and these are my last questions (you've been a good sport for answering them), what about a "victimless crime"? Say there is a husband who loves his wife - he buys her flowers every day, takes her to Rome at the weekends and writes her sonnets during his work lunch hour. She adores him. But the thing is he also cheats on her because she doesn't enjoy sex as much as he does. Assuming this affair is entirely discreet and no one will never be any the wiser. Is there anything the golden rule (or any other source of morality that you care to use) can say about this? Or is there anything that needs to be said if everybody is happy even through ignorance?

wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following this point?

You don't have to. I wasn't addressing you :pac:

Seriously though, I believe that I've answered this above. The point of your story remains unclear. Assuming my appeals to objective morality don't work - and I've never claimed they would - it seems I'm dead either way. I just hope I went in an honourable way and with clean underpants.

The point that you seem to be missing (and obviously wont agree with) is that my murder remains objectively wrong and will be judged as such. Pol Pot may have escaped earthly justice when he died an old man in his house but he wont escape divine judgement. Justice will be seen to be done in this life or the next.

Fanny Cradock

eblistic wrote: »

You could be right. Thank you for your helpful response!

Rather than doctrine I should, perhaps, have asked for the name a specific sect which has never adapted or altered any of its supposed objective set of moral rules over time. Is there really any?

Again, you don't understand what people mean by objective morality. We aren't arguing that objective morality is an exclusive function of time or space (comparing who has been saying what and for how long). If tribe X has consistently maintained that torturing and killing people with red hair is the right thing to do doesn't make it objectively right. Your question incorrectly assumes that being objectively right is related to time. Objective morality is supernatural and transcendent, its source is beyond nature and beyond us. That we often don't know what it is right and what is wrong is linked, I believe, to the doctrine of sin.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Well, no you can't. Neither you nor I can say how much Jesus suffered, so we can't say one way or another.

Christians do it all the time. They tell me 'Jesus suffered on the cross and died for our sins'. I say 'crucifixion, relatively speaking isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person' and then the Christians usually tell me 'but jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then normal human beings are capable of suffering'.

So while it isn't important to me how much or how little he did suffer, I find it disturbing that Christians feel the need to claim his suffering was so great that I, as a non-christian, am incapable of understanding it.

All I can go by is that Jesus bore the sins of the world. I'm not sure who else has done that or what it might "feel" like.

1. Where does it say this in the Bible ?
2. Why were the cross and nails required for this ? Were they purely decorative ?

I can try to give an example which shows just how horrible the suffering could be, since you seem to think other people have suffered so much worse.
We can start with the physical torture and suffering of the crucifixion. No need to go further with that.

Indeed, I'm shown many times that crucifixion, while probably the most painful punishment known to the Romans is far from the worst. Its over relatively quickly too in comparison to many others.

Now, let's go to the emotional.

Let's say your wife and child are kidnapped....
This would probably cause you quite a bit of emotional pain. Now imagine that you had that same level of closeness to 10 billion other people, and had to endure the same type of emotional torment for each case. You also have the capacity to fully experience the emotional suffering of each and every one of the 10 billion cases.
We could go further and say that for every case, the criminal ended up realizing the horrible thing he had done, and felt immense guilt. So now add to the emotional pain of losing 10 billion wife/child equivalents to the guilt of 10 billion criminals.

Do you really want to reply to that ? I know this may sound cold but frankly after the first 4 or 5 it would stop having any real impact.

This is what happens to people who go to war or go through very traumatic experiences. Of course there is a lot of emotional distress here but there is only so much distress that it can cause.

For example the first time I ever saw a dead body it was quite disturbing, the next time was pretty much emotionless.

The spiritual pain is not worth mentioning in this case.

Why ? Because some people define it in the same way you just talked about emotional pain.

Jesus should be worshipped because He is God. He died so that we don't have to.

Why does god need worship ?

He rose again, yes, but so will we. If He did not conquer death, no one would have eternal life.

He created death, also how can god conquer anything ? He created everything. Its like me creating a crossword and 'amazing' people by conquering it.

It has a lot to do with the topic, even if not for you particularly. If someone thinks Jesus is not God and did not die for their sins, then His suffering is irrelevant.

I think its irrelevant even if I did believe he was god and died for our sins.

He gave you the gift of eternal life, though you are just a sinful mortal being who rejects God.

Gods fault isn't it ? he did create me.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

All men have the capacity to do good. God's commandments were given to serve as a guideline on how to live life, because we may not notice it when we start to stray and become accepting of increasingly immoral behavior.
There is a difference, however, in "not killing each other" and loving others as Christ loved us. Self-sacrifice and submission to God and our fellow man is a bit more disciplined than the peaceful nature of a primitive tribe.
Their behavior is due, IMO, either to the working of the Holy Spirit on their hearts, or to what best benefits their people as a whole.

1. PDN and others have told me that my spirit is dead because I don't accept god. If my spirits dead how can the holy spirit act on it ? If these people don't accept god then their spirits are dead in which case they can't have the holy spirit acting upon them.

2. 'what best benefits their people as a whole' IS where our morals come from. This is why we don't kill eachother. Not from god.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

That tells me what you want, it does not give me any rational reason for why you don't want to cause suffering to others.

Wolfsbane, I am not going to answer this because frankly as I've already stated, I find this whole topic boring and self explanatory.

Instead I would ask you to reply to my post about the Pirahã people which will explain where I and all people get their morals from.

edit: I mean my answers are basically covered in my Pirahã people post.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

1. Where does it say this in the Bible ?

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8, KJV

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures;"
1 Corinthians 15:3, KJV

"Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our
Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he
might deliver us from this present evil world, according to
the will of God and our Father:"
Galatians 1:3, 4, KJV

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of
whom I am chief."
1 Timothy 1:15, KJV

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
Hebrews 1:3, KJV

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and
unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation."
Hebrews 9:28, KJV

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,
that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness:
by whose stripes ye were healed."
1 Peter 2:24, KJV

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ
his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
1 John 1:7, KJV

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1 John 2:2, KJV

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins;
and in him is no sin."
1 John 3:5, KJV

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
1 John 4:10, KJV

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of
the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our
sins in his own blood,"
Revelation 1:5, KJV

2. Why were the cross and nails required for this ? Were they purely decorative ?

They were only "necessary" in that it was the method of execution implored by those who would persecute Christ at the time.

Indeed, I'm shown many times that crucifixion, while probably the most painful punishment known to the Romans is far from the worst. Its over relatively quickly too in comparison to many others.

Ok.

Do you really want to reply to that ? I know this may sound cold but frankly after the first 4 or 5 it would stop having any real impact.

This is what happens to people who go to war or go through very traumatic experiences. Of course there is a lot of emotional distress here but there is only so much distress that it can cause.

For example the first time I ever saw a dead body it was quite disturbing, the next time was pretty much emotionless.

The point is that Jesus wouldn't get numb to the suffering or guilt of others, ever. He is the God of Love, not some apathetic weak-minded mortal.

Elsewhere in scripture Jesus says: "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
Jesus Christ (God), feels what His creation feels.

Why ? Because some people define it in the same way you just talked about emotional pain.

I didn't want to get into what spiritual suffering is, because it is meaningless to you and can't be proven.

Why does god need worship ?

He doesn't, but it's the required response from any created being who actually respects their creator.
Maybe you think "worship" sounds a bit extreme and demeaning? Worship is just love, adoration, reverence, and devotion.

He created death, also how can god conquer anything ? He created everything. Its like me creating a crossword and 'amazing' people by conquering it.

I wouldn't say He "created" death. Sin cannot be in the presence of God, so it must be destroyed. Death is the consequence of sin, and since all men have sinned, they have death awaiting. Because of Jesus Christ atoning for the sins of man, death is conquered, i.e. it is no longer the required destination of man.

Gods fault isn't it ? he did create me.

That might be what Lucifer was saying in heaven. You actually CAN choose, though. You are making the choice not to believe in Him, are you not? You are quite capable of choosing God.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

1. PDN and others have told me that my spirit is dead because I don't accept god. If my spirits dead how can the holy spirit act on it ? If these people don't accept god then their spirits are dead in which case they can't have the holy spirit acting upon them.

2. 'what best benefits their people as a whole' IS where our morals come from. This is why we don't kill eachother. Not from god.

Everyone is spiritually dead until they are born again in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit speaks to our mind.

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Are you saying that without God, anything goes?
*Grabs a baby*

No malty you villainous fiend! without christian morals inspired by god your a monster that can and will do anything to anyone.

Someone quick, hand him a bible!

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8, KJV

... etc

Ok.

They were only "necessary" in that it was the method of execution implored by those who would persecute Christ at the time.

Really ? Because many Christians I have known as well as many books and talks I'm listened to, to say nothing of certain movies, go out of their way to depict Jesus' physical torment.

The point is that Jesus wouldn't get numb to the suffering or guilt of others, ever. He is the God of Love, not some apathetic weak-minded mortal.

Several problems with this.

You have just assumed that people get 'numb' to such incidents, your right and your wrong. Some people do become 'numb' but for others it simply becomes commonplace and the shock factor is simply not there.

Think of the life of an 18th century high class British aristocratic lady compared to the life of a 8th century Gallic barbarian tribeswoman.

What the tribeswoman would experience on an everyday basis would probably cause the aristocrat to faint.

Think also of ancient warfare compared to modern warfare. The vast majority of soldiers today would be in a complete state of shock if they were placed into the ranks of, say a Roman legion in a battle.

Humans, like all animals, are capable of going through any experience which is realistically possible. Its all a matter of conditioning and circumstances.

Actually one more example if I may, most civilized people in the world today would experience huge shock and astonishment if they were to suddenly find themselves in Spartan society. What was completely normal to them, most people today would find utterly reprehensible.

You also claim that Jesus would not 'get numb' or 'get used' to these things like normal people.

I'm pretty sure, but open to correction, that the bible says nothing of the sort.

I also find it pretty childish to be honest. Your trying to suggest that Jesus has super human feelings/emotions but at the same time only has a human tolerance which I have already pointed out is completely subjective.

Pain, physical or psychological is natural and intended for the individuals survival. If I burn my finger with a cigarette I can find it very painful indeed, similarly if I place my hand into a pot of boiling oil its very painful too. But when you experience pain for long enough durations it becomes commonplace and looses all meaning.

He doesn't, but it's the required response from any created being who actually respects their creator.

If he doesn't need it then why does he want it ?

Maybe you think "worship" sounds a bit extreme and demeaning? Worship is just love, adoration, reverence, and devotion.

Well as I don't believe he created me and if he did I'd have some rather unpleasant questions for him regarding his analysis and design process, I won't be doing the above.

Actually if he did in fact create us, I'd take the cylon approach because of all the harm he has allowed to happen to us.

That might be what Lucifer was saying in heaven. You actually CAN choose, though. You are making the choice not to believe in Him, are you not? You are quite capable of choosing God.

I can't choose him because when he created me, he programmed me with a disbelief in himself. Hardly fair is it ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Everyone is spiritually dead until they are born again in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit speaks to our mind.

So we don't need the bible or belief in god for our morals. Thanks for admitting it.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

(*As there can be some confusion over the use of the term, I'll clarify that intend to imply no links to evolutionary Darwinism here. I've no beef with evolution.)

Yes you do because evolution explains quite easily why we have a sense of right and wrong but you want to stick to your “god did it” explanation. As times goes on and we understand more and more about our cognitive mechanisms your dispute with science will only deepen. That is unless you want to accept that our sense of right and wrong evolved through a blind and unintelligent process but keep a vague idea that god was involved somewhere along the line for no apparent reason which is fine with me

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let me clarify: I applaud the golden rule. But if at the the heart of it all there is only the threat of retaliation - thus violence is staved off by the threat of violence - than the golden rule is nothing more than a moral Mexican stand-off. And this means I'm not sure that you or any other moral subjectivist can say that death camps are evil and wicked, only bad for those not in the particular in-group. Which leads into the next point.

And what do you think when this happens in practice? Is it no longer a moral issue (subjective morality, of course) because the stronger has taken what they want and nobody can do anything about it?

I’m talking about how human beings can derive laws without a god. Being able to do harm and get away with it is not the same as claiming or believing that there’s nothing wrong with something. Even the most hardened criminal prefers living in a society with laws that prevent harm being done to them. Whether someone goes on to break those laws does not negate the fact that they were made and that they can be made.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, and these are my last questions (you've been a good sport for answering them), what about a "victimless crime"? Say there is a husband who loves his wife - he buys her flowers every day, takes her to Rome at the weekends and writes her sonnets during his work lunch hour. She adores him. But the thing is he also cheats on her because she doesn't enjoy sex as much as he does. Assuming this affair is entirely discreet and no one will never be any the wiser. Is there anything the golden rule (or any other source of morality that you care to use) can say about this? Or is there anything that needs to be said if everybody is happy even through ignorance?

Whether she knows or not it’s still a betrayal. The golden rule very much applies in that case because I wouldn’t want my girlfriend to cheat on me even if she kept me from knowing about it so I wouldn’t do it to her either. But there are quite a number of victimless “crimes” that religious people object to that actually have no victim such as homosexuality.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not sure what this means. Objective morality is objective morality. That God will judge us all is part and parcel of Christian eschatology. And it's precisely because we have a sense of right and wrong that we are held accountable.

There isn't much to stop them, I guess, except those who maintain that X is objectively wrong in the face of the shifting moral Zeitgeist. Perhaps MLK Jr. was an example of such a person? But despite this it has never been my argument that we can unerringly understand this thing called objective morality. I freely admit that my idea of morality is corruptible by my flaws, my own sin. As I've said before: that we humans use subjective morality doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called objective morality or that our subjective morality doesn't overlap with objective morality on certain issues. Indeed, I think we can begin to understand objective morality via subjective morality.
….
Thanks for answering.

A few of points. I didn't ask about Hitler's motivations - quite aside from him being an evil, rotten bastard (and to me that is an objective truth) - I'm sure he probably thought to some degree that he was doing right by the German people, at least the part that he approved of, and for a time it looked like he was doing a good job of it! I've said on maybe 3 occasions now that I'm not claiming that the Nazis, Hitler or unspecified supermarket chains are devoid of morality. And I'm saying it again now. However - and this is important - the Nazis and Hitler (I'll avoid mentioning anyone else in case of liable) applied their morality selectively and it was always at the great expense of those unable to defend themselves. The fruits of their labour - their most horrendous crimes - were objectively wrong, which means that they are always evil no matter the time, the place or who was victorious. This is a good bit different than criticising the Nazis for not adhering to the golden rule or pointing out that each acted in some way for their own community.
…
Maybe maybe not. I would say that I am closer to most of my Christian contemporaries on certain issues than I would be to non-Christian friends who I've know for many years. But as I've said I'm not claiming that a something like a Irish theocracy will usher in a new age of harmony and brotherhood. Such things have always ended in failure, so I see no reason why they wouldn't next time around. But this says nothing about objective morality. I think I covered this above.
…
Well, unlike turn based simulations, real life isn't a tit-for-tat set of moves. How often does the perpetrator of an injustice (murder, rape, theft or whatever) give their victim or the family of their victim the chance to draw up a menacing threat or even have their revenge? I'm going to suggest the answer is rarely.
….
Seriously though, I believe that I've answered this above. The point of your story remains unclear. Assuming my appeals to objective morality don't work - and I've never claimed they would - it seems I'm dead either way. I just hope I went in an honourable way and with clean underpants.

The point that you seem to be missing (and obviously wont agree with) is that my murder remains objectively wrong and will be judged as such. Pol Pot may have escaped earthly justice when he died an old man in his house but he wont escape divine judgement. Justice will be seen to be done in this life or the next.

I really don’t think I’m getting your point. You seem to be saying to me that objective morality exists but:

1. Nobody is under any obligation to follow it except if forced, which is the same with subjective morality
2. It can be and has been interpreted many ways to suit many agendas in the past, just like with subjective morality
3. Even if it does exist we can’t necessarily unerringly understand it, meaning that in practice everyone can have an opinion on it and no one can definitively tell them they’re wrong, just like what you think of as subjective morality.
4. We can both tell someone they’re wrong and they’re at most only a small bit more likely to listen to you if they believe in the same god and if they have the same interpretation as you of the law and if they don’t have an agenda that makes them reinterpret the law and if they’re not honestly mistaken about the law and if they actually care that what they're doing is wrong and/or if you have some clout to force them to listen to you and if and if….

In practice the only difference between objective morality and subjective morality seems to be that you can take your understanding of morality, declare it to be the objective standard even though you admit your understanding of it isn’t necessarily correct, tell someone that what they’re doing is wrong in exactly the same way I do and when they don’t listen to either of us you can go back home (or die as the case may be) secure in the knowledge that they’ll be punished when they die. It seems to me there is no practical difference between subjective and objective morality, that the only difference comes after we’re dead. The only difference is it allows you to feel better about the horrors that are perpetrated in the world because you think that bad people will get the ultimate comeuppance

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

No malty you villainous fiend! without christian morals inspired by god your a monster that can and will do anything to anyone.

Someone quick, hand him a bible!

I suggest you and Malty try reading what Christians have actually posted rather than indulging in such muppetry.

So we don't need the bible or belief in god for our morals. Thanks for admitting it.

Again, stop playing games. As far as I see no-one has claimed that without faith in God or a Bible you won't have any morals - so there is nothing to 'admit'. What is your problem that you can't actually discuss Christian beliefs (the subject of this forum) without this silly gamesmanship?

The Christian position is that every person, irrespective of their religious beliefs or knowledge, has some sort of innate moral sense which ultimately has come from God. Therefore, as Romans Chapter 1 makes clear, lack of knowledge of biblical morality is no excuse for wicked conduct. So noboody here has any difficulty at all with your Piraha people having a sense of morality.

However, this sense of morality is, to at least some extent, marred by the effects of sin. So each person's code of morality will differ in one degree or another. Some people (eg Stalin) have radically different concepts of morality where they see things as good that the vast majority of us would see as evil.

It has also been argued in this thread that, for atheists, there is no reason to believe that Stalin's morality is in any way immoral. His morality may be different from that of a philanthropist - but you cannot say it is worse unless you hold to an objective morality that comes from an outside source (God). The most you can say is that Stalin's morality was different from that of most of us. I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing argument against that.

So, for example, some people believe it is morally correct to kill babies that are weak or sickly. Such a practice can be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint - it can improve the gene pool and increases the chances of survival for healthy babies. Other species also successfully practice such behaviour.

Therefore, is it necessarily immoral for our society to cut all funding for treatment of sick babies and to invest that funding into better educational facilities for healthy children? Or is such behaviour morally neutral (since there is no absolute morality) and we simply recoil from it because it fails to coincide with our popular, but totally relativistic, idea of what is right and wrong? The Christian would say that such a practice is immoral - full stop. I do not see that the atheist can meaningfully invoke such a moral argument, any more that they can say I am 'immoral' if I choose to wear red shoes when everyone else is wearing black shoes.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The Christian position is that every person, irrespective of their religious beliefs or knowledge, has some sort of innate moral sense which ultimately has come from God. Therefore, as Romans Chapter 1 makes clear, lack of knowledge of biblical morality is no excuse for wicked conduct. So noboody here has any difficulty at all with your Piraha people having a sense of morality.

However, this sense of morality is, to at least some extent, marred by the effects of sin. So each person's code of morality will differ in one degree or another. Some people (eg Stalin) have radically different concepts of morality where they see things as good that the vast majority of us would see as evil.

It has also been argued in this thread that, for atheists, there is no reason to believe that Stalin's morality is in any way immoral. His morality may be different from that of a philanthropist - but you cannot say it is worse unless you hold to an objective morality that comes from an outside source (God). The most you can say is that Stalin's morality was different from that of most of us. I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing argument against that.

The problem with the theist position is that it assumes that if we reject the idea of a god that we must also reject the idea that human beings have an innate sense of morality because they think the two are inextricably linked. The reality is of course that they're not, you can have one without the other. Everyone here accepts that human beings have a sense of morality, we just differ on where it originated. Religious people believe that it was given to us by god and atheists see it as an evolved instinct much like the fight or flight instinct or the compulsion to find food. We've always had an innate sense of morality because that's the way our brains evolved but because it's so hard to be conscious of it, gods were invented to explain it. As far as I'm concerned it's just another gap for a god to hide in

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with the theist position is that it assumes that if we reject the idea of a god that we must also reject the idea that human beings have an innate sense of morality because they think the two are inextricably linked. The reality is of course that they're not, you can have one without the other. Everyone here accepts that human beings have a sense of morality, we just differ on where it originated. Religious people believe that it was given to us by god and atheists see it as an evolved instinct much like the fight or flight instinct or the compulsion to find food. We've always had an innate sense of morality because that's the way our brains evolved but because it's so hard to be conscious of it, gods were invented to explain it. As far as I'm concerned it's just another gap for a god to hide in

The problem is that such a position is not using morality in a way that has any meaning (other than 'this is the most popular view'). It reduces morality to the same level as something being 'unAmerican'. The person with a different moralty (eg Stalin) is not necessarily worse than you, his standards are simply less popular.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that such a position is not using morality in a way that has any meaning (other than 'this is the most popular view'). It reduces morality to the same level as something being 'unAmerican'. The person with a different moralty (eg Stalin) is not necessarily worse than you, his standards are simply less popular.

What you describe is not morality, it's people doing whatever the hell they want and no one being able to say that anything is wrong. You started by saying that "nobody here has any difficulty at all with your Piraha people having a sense of morality" even though they had no belief in god and finished by describing a situation where where child rape is simply less popular than going to the movies but not necessarily so.

I don't see how those two positions are consistent. If anyone can do whatever they want and no one can tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong, in what way do people have a sense of morality? Why can't I appeal to this sense of morality that we both agree they have to tell them that what they're doing is wrong?

Edit: The way I see it, people know that human beings have an innate sense of morality and they use this to say that certain things are wrong. Both religious people and atheists do this. But religious people also use this to argue for the existence of a god because they think that if there was no objective external source intelligently imparting this sense on us then we wouldn't have it and indeed, child rape would be seen as no worse than wearing red shoes. Would it not occur to believers that maybe they're just wrong about the way they think the world would be if there was no god? That maybe if there was no god the world would be exactly as it is today? That we have a sense of right and wrong because that's the way our brains evolved and that our propensity to say god did it is no different to our propensity to ascribe anything we don't understand to the supernatural?