Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

What did we gain from eating the fruit!? Nothing!

What we got, of course, was now what we wanted but exactly what we deserved. What God made out of that tragedy has been something much better: the ability to choose God freely.

So pain for no gain!

A strange conclusion. You must not like being an individual, or having free will, or having choice...if you see those as "no gain."

...if there is such a thing as God! In this case, we have to find the truth alone.

You'll have to show me how that conclusion follows. It's not obvious. If God exists, why cannot He speak?

[Immanuel Can]

"Far be it from me" is one of those expressions that gives the speaker permission to do what he freely acknowledges it is not his place to do. A bit like how starting a sentence with, "I don't want to offend you, but," gives you permission to go on and do that very thing.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you have "permission." In fact, I don't see any way somebody could even use a word without having some idea of what domain of meaning that word covered. So if you say "Christian," and use that label for some group of people, I'm sure you must have some conception of what makes them all "Christians."

I found this definition: A Christian is someone whose behavior and heart reflects Jesus Christ. Followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in Antioch....I have no idea when a heart reflects Jesus Christ, so I can only take the word of someone who claims to be a Christian.

It's a pretty poor definition, isn't it, when it doesn't even give you enough information to decide one single case. I'd keep looking.

I am only telling you of the impression I get.

From what group of entities you regard as "Christian"? Is it from all the people born in a "Christian country" as they call it? Or is it all the people in the C of E, which I believe is your personal frame of experience? Or is it all the people who use the term "Christian" as a self-description? Who are these people of whom you speak, and what makes them "Christians," so far as you are concerned?

What I said is based on conversations I have heard; some where I was present, and others on TV, etc.

Oh. So you're just going with whatever casual conversation or the mass media tell you about being a Christian? What makes you think the people to whom you were listening even know?

As for identifying someone as Christian, my only means of doing that is by accepting the word of those who make that claim.

That's about the weakest definition yet. Even secular scholars of religion reject the "self-definition" criterion...and not just in the case of Christians, but in any other ideology or religion as well. It just doesn't work. It's far too broad to be telling of anything.

I daresay there are many who would object to being stripped of the title, "Christian", by you, but that's not my concern.

Nor mine. Nor do I concern myself with a man who wants the title "woman," and has been "stripped of it." For he never had that title legitimately at all. Likewise, why should you or I cry over somebody who merely wanted the title "Christian" for some reason, but never bothered to consider what it takes to be one?

[bahman]

What we got, of course, was now what we wanted but exactly what we deserved. What God made out of that tragedy has been something much better: the ability to choose God freely.

So pain for no gain!

A strange conclusion. You must not like being an individual, or having free will, or having choice...if you see those as "no gain."

What is your ultimate goal? To be with God. We had God though in Paradise. So tell me what is the point of this meaningless cycle? To be with God, to get separated and live in a cursed world, and then be with God IF God chooses you by His grace! That is God's plan. Isn't it?

Moreover, what is my fault for being in the cursed world?

...if there is such a thing as God! In this case, we have to find the truth alone.

You'll have to show me how that conclusion follows. It's not obvious. If God exists, why cannot He speak?

Sorry, I mean if there is not such a thing as God then we have to find the truth alone.

[Immanuel Can]

So pain for no gain!

A strange conclusion. You must not like being an individual, or having free will, or having choice...if you see those as "no gain."

What is your ultimate goal? To be with God.

No: to be in a free relationship of love with God. But more importantly, we need to ask what His goal is, and whether or not that accords with His "ultimate goal."

Moreover, what is my fault for being in the cursed world?

That, you can answer yourself. The fact that you are pursuing "sinlessness" bespeaks that you know you don't have it.

...if there is such a thing as God! In this case, we have to find the truth alone.

You'll have to show me how that conclusion follows. It's not obvious. If God exists, why cannot He speak?

Sorry, I mean if there is not such a thing as God then we have to find the truth alone.

Well, one thing for sure: if we're on our own, we're not going to find the truth. We're small, local, frail, fallible, mortal, error-prone beings, any of us only holding a tiny portion of the insight we would need to put that together into any ultimate truth. So if there's no God, we can dismiss any realistic possibility of us getting enlightened as to that, as well.

[bahman]

A strange conclusion. You must not like being an individual, or having free will, or having choice...if you see those as "no gain."

What is your ultimate goal? To be with God.

No: to be in a free relationship of love with God.

Yes, that is what I meant.

But more importantly, we need to ask what His goal is, and whether or not that accords with His "ultimate goal."

Well, His ultimate goal is that we choose Him freely. But you ignore that weird cycle that we have to go through: To be with God, to live in a cursed world, and then return to Him IF He chooses us according to His grace, otherwise, we are doomed. Don't you think that something is wrong with this plan?

Moreover, what is my fault for being in the cursed world?

That, you can answer yourself. The fact that you are pursuing "sinlessness" bespeaks that you know you don't have it.

Don't take me wrong. I have a very good life right now despite all the difficulties that I had in the past. Now, I discuss things with others to make sure that my understanding is correct or not. I am in a permanent state of peace. I am trying my best to understand what is morally correct and do it accordingly. I however do not understand why there should be children with cancer, or children who suffer in Gaza and other places in the world! Why they shouldn't have the rights that Adam and Eve had? They could have a fabulous life in Paradise instead of here, on Earth, the cursed land!

You'll have to show me how that conclusion follows. It's not obvious. If God exists, why cannot He speak?

Sorry, I mean if there is not such a thing as God then we have to find the truth alone.

Well, one thing for sure: if we're on our own, we're not going to find the truth. We're small, local, frail, fallible, mortal, error-prone beings, any of us only holding a tiny portion of the insight we would need to put that together into any ultimate truth. So if there's no God, we can dismiss any realistic possibility of us getting enlightened as to that, as well.

Well, if the truth is limited then we can for sure find it given enough amount of time.

[Harbal]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you have "permission." In fact, I don't see any way somebody could even use a word without having some idea of what domain of meaning that word covered. So if you say "Christian," and use that label for some group of people, I'm sure you must have some conception of what makes them all "Christians."

I found this definition: A Christian is someone whose behavior and heart reflects Jesus Christ. Followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in Antioch....I have no idea when a heart reflects Jesus Christ, so I can only take the word of someone who claims to be a Christian.

It's a pretty poor definition, isn't it, when it doesn't even give you enough information to decide one single case. I'd keep looking.

I suppose I would keep looking were it important and it mattered.

What I said is based on conversations I have heard; some where I was present, and others on TV, etc.

Oh. So you're just going with whatever casual conversation or the mass media tell you about being a Christian?

Yes.

What makes you think the people to whom you were listening even know?

Know what; that the events described in the Bible are not factually true, you mean? I don't suppose they do know. They just have an opinion based on their own judgement, just like you do.

As for identifying someone as Christian, my only means of doing that is by accepting the word of those who make that claim.

That's about the weakest definition yet. Even secular scholars of religion reject the "self-definition" criterion...

I'm not a scholar of religion, and thus not bound by their rules.

and not just in the case of Christians, but in any other ideology or religion as well. It just doesn't work. It's far too broad to be telling of anything.

But what the followers of any ideology believe is quite trivial to none followers, so I don't see any harm in a bit of self-defining. If someone believes in God, and they value what are generally accepted as Christian principles, isn't that all that really matters? I tend to think it is.

I daresay there are many who would object to being stripped of the title, "Christian", by you, but that's not my concern.

Nor mine.

Nor theirs, beyond mere objection.

Nor do I concern myself with a man who wants the title "woman," and has been "stripped of it."

Actually, you seem to be concerned with men saying they are women a little more than seems healthy. It makes me wonder if you have been the unwitting victim of some kind of deception in the past that led to an alarming and embarrassing outcome.

Likewise, why should you or I cry over somebody who merely wanted the title "Christian" for some reason, but never bothered to consider what it takes to be one?

What does it take to be one? Does a proper Christian have to truly believe that Adam was the first human being, and was created as a fully formed adult by God? Does he have to believe that Noah built a boat and populated it with two of every living creature? I really hope you address that question, because I am very curious to see how you avoid answering it.

[iambiguous]

What's "normal" about a person claiming to be a Christian and yet insisting on believing something he should know that the Bible says isn't true?

Far be it from me to tell you what a Christian is, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of Christians (maybe most) don't regard everything in the Bible as literal truth.

Talk about a "slippery slope".

After all, once you suggest not everything in the Bible is literally true, who gets to decide which parts are and which parts aren't?

A "leap of faith" here would seem more reasonable [to me] if it revolved around the assumption that if the Bible is the word of God then of course it is literally true.

On the other hand, once you go down that path [fideism or not] you immediately run into this: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... adictions/

Then [for me] back to those like IC and William Lane Craig who go beyond a leap of faith and argue that there is in fact both scientific and historical evidence that the Christian God does exist.

But if in fact He does, doesn't how we interpret the Bible become just one more component of Judgment Day?

In other words, it's one thing to defend a point of view about the Bible here among mere mortals and another thing altogether to defend it before God Himself.





Still nothing from the Reasonable Faith folks: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/contact-us

I'd appreciate it if IC and other Christians here would contact them about all this as well. In regard to objective morality, immortality and salvation, what could possibly be more important than in establishing whether or not it is reasonable [beyond a leap of faith, a wager, or "because the Bible says so"] to believe that the Christian God exists?

[Harbal]

A "leap of faith" here would seem more reasonable [to me] if it revolved around the assumption that if the Bible is the word of God then of course it is literally true.

A leap of faith only makes sense if the possible consequences of not making it are too terrible to risk. Even then, one has to ask how justified is that faith; how likely is the thing you put your faith into to be worthy of it? In the case of the Bible, I would say zilchamundo. That's Latin, btw.

The one thing we can say for sure about the Bible is that it was written by human beings. They may have claimed they were merely writing it down on behalf of God, but why the fcuk would you believe them?

Then [for me] back to those like IC and William Lane Craig who go beyond a leap of faith and argue that there is in fact both scientific and historical evidence that the Christian God does exist.

And yet there are people who are far more qualified in the fields of science and history who would say they are talking bollocks.

[Immanuel Can]

To be with God, to live in a cursed world, and then return to Him IF He chooses us according to His grace,

No, that's determinism. That's not good Christian theology.

Moreover, what is my fault for being in the cursed world?

That, you can answer yourself. The fact that you are pursuing "sinlessness" bespeaks that you know you don't have it.

I am trying my best...

Who told you that your "best" is good enough? I thought "sinlessness," moral perfection was your aim.

Well, if the truth is limited then we can for sure find it given enough amount of time.

What reason do you have to imagine that truth is "limited"? And you'll need it to be "limited" enough for the amount of "time" you have...which is about 78 years, on the average, and for the fact of your bodily limitedness, in that you can't be everywhere, or even most places, to discover the relevant sufficiency of truth...

Looks like you've cut yourself a task you'll never do.

[Immanuel Can]

I found this definition: A Christian is someone whose behavior and heart reflects Jesus Christ. Followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in Antioch....I have no idea when a heart reflects Jesus Christ, so I can only take the word of someone who claims to be a Christian.

It's a pretty poor definition, isn't it, when it doesn't even give you enough information to decide one single case. I'd keep looking.

I suppose I would keep looking were it important and it mattered.

Well, you know what's a great idea? That when you try to challenge or even insult something, that you're able to locate the thing you're actually trying to criticize, rather than completely missing the mark. But it's just a suggestion, if you want to make your point.

What I said is based on conversations I have heard; some where I was present, and others on TV, etc.

Oh. So you're just going with whatever casual conversation or the mass media tell you about being a Christian?

Yes.

Well, then you're only going to know as much as they can tell you.

What makes you think the people to whom you were listening even know?

Know what;

Know how to tell you anything about what you're looking for.

As for identifying someone as Christian, my only means of doing that is by accepting the word of those who make that claim.

That's about the weakest definition yet. Even secular scholars of religion reject the "self-definition" criterion...

I'm not a scholar of religion, and thus not bound by their rules.

I'm gathering that.

...what are generally accepted as Christian principles,...

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

[Harbal]

...what are generally accepted as Christian principles,...

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

Well I said that not all Christians seem to regard the Bible as being literally true, and then you challenged it. Does that mean that you don't consider someone to be a Christian if they don't accept that the events described in the Bible actually happened as written?

[FlashDangerpants]

...what are generally accepted as Christian principles,...

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

Well I said that not all Christians seem to regard the Bible as being literally true, and then you challenged it. Does that mean that you don't consider someone to be a Christian if they don't accept that the events described in the Bible actually happened as written?

I am told that there is a story in the Bible about two women fighting to claim ownership of the same baby, and then this super wise king offers to split the baby in two to share it, and then one of the women says yes and the other says no, so the super wise king gives the baby to that second woman. Surely only somebody stupid enough to be one the complete idiots inside that utterly ludicrous story would be thick enough to think it was literally true?

[Harbal]

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

Well I said that not all Christians seem to regard the Bible as being literally true, and then you challenged it. Does that mean that you don't consider someone to be a Christian if they don't accept that the events described in the Bible actually happened as written?

I am told that there is a story in the Bible about two women fighting to claim ownership of the same baby, and then this super wise king offers to split the baby in two to share it, and then one of the women says yes and the other says no, so the super wise king gives the baby to that second woman. Surely only somebody stupid enough to be one the complete idiots inside that utterly ludicrous story would be thick enough to think it was literally true?

I've heard the story, and always wondered what the woman who said yes intended to do with her half of the baby.

[Atla]

Are you guys telling me that snakes can't actually talk to people?

[Harbal]

Are you guys telling me that snakes can't actually talk to people?

You have to call them serpents if you want to talk to them.