How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Obvious Leo]

Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.

At least you're honest, doc. Faith has got nothing to do with understanding.

[artisticsolution]

4. Then I asked Atheists to answer exactly the same question you asked Christians: namely, how they really tell right from wrong.

5. You got angry.

Now, why are you angry?

This thread is not about atheists, I said that in my opening post. That you want it to be about them is deflecting the topic. You have a whole forum. Make a thread for atheists about "how to tell right from wrong." If you look back, I said the same to Hobbes, in the beginning.

I want this to be a thread discussing christian morality. Atheists are free to post...I wouldn't want to stop them even if I could. But I have made it clear to them what I wanted to discuss. And I think a few made some very good contributions and asked some very good questions. Although, it is clear most don't understand the subtle 'thing' that comes from understanding Christianity...I will grant you. But I think it's cute...mostly. They are refreshingly naive in that way.Which is a compliment but I think they will take as an insult. It's just that I don't think a person can totally 'get it' if they have not been sufficiently abused by the church. (note that I said "Church" here...not God...this is a very important distinction).

I am interested in your comment here:

3. So I answered. And I criticized the test you proposed as premised on an inadequate epistemological model.

Can you explain what you mean?

[artisticsolution]

Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.

At least you're honest, doc. Faith has got nothing to do with understanding.

Yes, that is honest. That is what is expected of Christians...but so much more. Or else there would be no need for bible study or organized religion. The Christian believes that believing Jesus died on the cross for our sins is the only thing that will get you into heaven. So then, why all the fighting over the particulars if the particulars aren't important? I'll tell you why...because the Christian knows the particulars are way important deep down inside.

And Why fight the atheist because he says something you don't like? A christian can't know if the atheist is going to hell or not...and if he is going to hell...then why wouldn't you treat him with kindness? I mean, if you think the poor schmuck is spending eternity in hell, why on earth would you see to it he gets a preview from you! (You in general, Doc...I didn't mean YOU...lol) I think it the Christian thing to do to at least let his 70 years or so be relatively good. Am I right or am I wrong, Christians?

[Obvious Leo]

I know it's a bit silly to try and bring logic into this conversation but what was the fate of all the humans who lived and died before Christ came along? What of those born since who never heard the Christian message for a host of possible reasons? What of those who heard the message at the hands of perverts who exploited them as children who instinctively shot the messenger? Are they condemned to eternal damnation? What of the billions of other sentient civilisations presumably scattered throughout the universe? Is god sending Jesus out to die for all of them as well? I have countless more such questions for which Christianity has no answer.

This is the 21st century!! What the fuck are we doing with such an infantile story?

[artisticsolution]

I know it's a bit silly to try and bring logic into this conversation but what was the fate of all the humans who lived and died before Christ came along?

How I understand it, is before Christ came along is was almost impossible to go to heaven. Because you have to be ultra good, hardly anyone could do it. So in comes the new testament and lo and behold everyone who accepted Jesus Christ as his savior was saved. So the idea of being 'good' went out the window...or did it? It seems to me Christians get very upset when other Christians, don't follow the bible the way they think they should.

What of those born since who never heard the Christian message for a host of possible reasons?

The Christian thinks that everyone will have his or her chance to accept jesus. It could be anytime...even upon death.

What of those who heard the message at the hands of perverts who exploited them as children who instinctively shot the messenger?

That depends on if the person doing the abusing is aware they are abusing. But even the worst person in the world can go to heaven if they repent and accept jesus at the last second.

What of the billions of other sentient civilisations presumably scattered throughout the universe? Is god sending Jesus out to die for all of them as well?

Same as above I am guessing.

This is the 21st century!! What the fuck are we doing with such an infantile story?

The story is beautiful/interesting. The organized religion is what you don't like, as it would be silly of you to hate God when you don't believe in him.

[thedoc]

Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.

At least you're honest, doc. Faith has got nothing to do with understanding.

Yes, that is honest. That is what is expected of Christians...but so much more. Or else there would be no need for bible study or organized religion. The Christian believes that believing Jesus died on the cross for our sins is the only thing that will get you into heaven. So then, why all the fighting over the particulars if the particulars aren't important? I'll tell you why...because the Christian knows the particulars are way important deep down inside.

And Why fight the atheist because he says something you don't like? A christian can't know if the atheist is going to hell or not...and if he is going to hell...then why wouldn't you treat him with kindness? I mean, if you think the poor schmuck is spending eternity in hell, why on earth would you see to it he gets a preview from you! (You in general, Doc...I didn't mean YOU...lol) I think it the Christian thing to do to at least let his 70 years or so be relatively good. Am I right or am I wrong, Christians?

No, the Christians that I know believe that getting into heaven is by God's grace, and there is an important distinction. One is by the individual doing something, and the other is a gift. I believe that my salvation is only by God's grace, it certainly isn't from anything that I have done.

And even though many make it difficult, I still try to treat everyone with kindness. But as I say, I'm not perfect, only forgiven.

[thedoc]

Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.

At least you're honest, doc. Faith has got nothing to do with understanding.

In a way faith does have to do with understanding, the understanding of the human limits, compared to God's capabilities. I don't claim to understand God, so I acknowledge my limits and understand that I can't understand God completely, just enough to know that I don't undersatnd.

[Immanuel Can]

This thread is not about atheists, I said that in my opening post.

How ironic! An agnostic is proposing to tell how Christians should discern morality, and banning Atheists from any chance of justifying their own views. However, we may well suspect that the deathly silence from the Atheists speaks its own message. Perhaps they simply have nothing to offer. I would not at all be surprised, for I do not believe Atheistic morality has any justification whatsoever...a conclusion that accords with the findings of Philosophy Now's own resident ethicist, Joel Marks, who said as much in two lengthy articles.

But we can leave that aside. The Atheists are out, if you wish. But you're an agnostic...what rational process helps an agnostic "know" anything about morality? For surely you don't want to excuse yourself from the discussion, do you?

So perhaps you could take your own question, and answer it. That would seem to be the least you could do in return for Christians agreeing to spend some time in the dock answering your questions.

I am interested in your comment here:

3. So I answered. And I criticized the test you proposed as premised on an inadequate epistemological model.

Can you explain what you mean?

Your anthropology is wrong. You suppose that human beings are well-equipped to judge the morality of their own actions through nothing more than an imaginary exercise of standing in front of some conception of God they have. But there's nothing to guarantee that their imagination of God is anything like the real one, and there's nothing to warrant the blithe assumption that they are fair judges of their own actions.

In what court does the judge ask the accused if he "feels" guilty, and in what court does the sentence depend on the willingness of the guilty to acknowledge his or her crime? In none of which I know.

Unless the person's knowledge of God is grounded in reality, and unless their assessment sin is accurate, the whole exercise is bound to lead to false positives and negatives. And surely that's an obvious fault with your test.

Now, in its limited application to your sister, perhaps it made her think -- but perhaps not, too. And when she thought, did she think rightly? How will we know? For you have insisted that objective moral standards do not exist: therefore, if she now has qualms about...shooting Mexicans, wasn't it?...how can she know if those qualms are real moral insights or merely the sort of provincial squeamishness that people sometimes have to get past in order to do something necessary? She can't. And we can't know if she should, absent objective moral standards.

You assume a perfect moral epistemology on the part of the putative guilty. That is unreasonable to suppose.

So now, do you understand the objection?

[Immanuel Can]

In a way faith does have to do with understanding, the understanding of the human limits, compared to God's capabilities. I don't claim to understand God, so I acknowledge my limits and understand that I can't understand God completely, just enough to know that I don't undersatnd.

Despite OL's strenuous objections that ordinary people don't need anything like "belief" or "faith," I notice in your message above, thedoc, that we could easily replace the word, "I" with the word "scientists," and "God" with the word "universe." Then what you say would not only be true of religious people, but equally fairly said of every scientist who has ever lived.

The truth is that none of them has ever had a knowledge without limits. None of them, even the most brilliant physicist or pure mathematician, has ever claimed to understand all areas of his own speciality, let alone all the applications available in the universe. But it hasn't stopped them doing science, and doing great things with it. They've just had to have a little faith that what they don't know now, they could possibly come to know.

OL's afraid of the idea of faith. He insists it's only raw superstition. He doesn't see that he uses "faith" every day, and he's terrified of even considering that possibility, because it would shatter the comforting dichotomy he's imagined exists between people who believe and those who just don't have to. It would make him a person who "believes" things. And it would reopen the door to the possibility of a rational faith -- one that does not operate in absence of evidence, but rather projects rationally from the evidence to the yet-to-be-discovered. And he just cannot allow that, apparently.

However, you say you have "faith in God." Good. But how could you possibly have "faith" in a thing about which (as he insists) you have absolutely no knowledge? For that is what OL insists must be the case: you must have no facts, or what you have isn't "faith" or "belief" at all, according to him. But I don't think that's what you must mean at all. I think you must mean that you think you do know something about God, at least enough about him to warrant you placing faith in Him.

So could you clarify? Are you agreeing with OL that your conception of "faith" is believing in nothing substantial at all, or is it more like what I'm describing, a trusting in the further goodness of One whose goodness you have come (in some measure) to know?

[Obvious Leo]

IC. In the interests of clarity it might be better if you just stick to explaining your own views instead of re-interpreting the views of others to suit your own narrative.

[thedoc]

So could you clarify? Are you agreeing with OL that your conception of "faith" is believing in nothing substantial at all, or is it more like what I'm describing, a trusting in the further goodness of One whose goodness you have come (in some measure) to know?

Many years ago I had an experience that I attributed to the Holy Spirit acting on a group of people, and if the Holy spirit, then God. Since then I have realized that many coincidences in my life could only be accounted for with one explanation. So I attribute something substantial to what I believe, but I acknowledge that it was only for me and not anyone else. For me, I have substantial events that I attribute to God, but I accept that others may not see it as I do.

[thedoc]

IC. In the interests of clarity it might be better if you just stick to explaining your own views instead of re-interpreting the views of others to suit your own narrative.

OL, why don't you tell us what you believe, rather than criticizing what others have posted

[Obvious Leo]

IC. In the interests of clarity it might be better if you just stick to explaining your own views instead of re-interpreting the views of others to suit your own narrative.

OL, why don't you tell us what you believe, rather than criticizing what others have posted

Have you only just emerged from the bottom of a mine shaft, doc? I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I have no beliefs. I am a man of opinions, and have no shortage of them, but they are not beliefs because they are at all times subject to change on the basis of new information.

[attofishpi]

That is why, when a child does something wrong, it's the parents who are held accountable.

The Bible has many stories of God trying to deal with disobedient children.

You have a very innocent and naive understanding of God.

A very simplistic description, - God died for our sin, the parent was held accountable for the misbehavior of the children. How is that naive?
Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.
If you understand God so well, describe God and explain God for the rest of us.

Comparing God to the unconditional love of parents for their child, is an extremely naive understanding of God.
Sure it has been stated in the bible that Christ died for our sins, but for a sinner (and im not talking of fornication or stealing bars of chocolate) to deserve eternal life ones own path from experience is a burden just as large, courtesy of God.
I have described my understanding of God many times in this forum, you may need to pay more attention.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You have a very innocent and naive understanding of God.

A very simplistic description, - God died for our sin, the parent was held accountable for the misbehavior of the children. How is that naive?
Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.
If you understand God so well, describe God and explain God for the rest of us.

Comparing God to the unconditional love of parents for their child, is an extremely naive understanding of God.
Sure it has been stated in the bible that Christ died for our sins, but for a sinner (and im not talking of fornication or stealing bars of chocolate) to deserve eternal life ones own path from experience is a burden just as large, courtesy of God.
I have described my understanding of God many times in this forum, you may need to pay more attention.

Well this is just the sort of thinking that makes people, (even other theists), question your perception. So on the other thread about Atheism, maybe you can understand why atheists tend to reject this bizarre argument as an argument about wishing for a god of your own imagination rather than anything real.