Philosophy Now Forum

Vor wrote:Artisticsolution wrote:

People talk shit...it's the Christian people who I hold more accountable because they should know better.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-2

I am happy to accept those terms Vor. I am not afraid to meet my maker (if there is one) and tell him that I held Christians to a higher standard.

bobevenson wrote:How to tell right from wrong? Revelation 17:17: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

Bit puzzled, so we should give our kingdom to the anti-christ? No wonder you're the anti-baptist.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:How to tell right from wrong? Revelation 17:17: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

Bit puzzled, so we should give our kingdom to the anti-christ? No wonder you're the anti-baptist.

Your problem, of course, is that you don't understand "The Ouzo Prophecy" or the game of Ouzo, a simple bidding game of numbers, that provides an allegory to the spiritual concept that the pathway of evil in every society flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values.

This thread is a good example of lots of clueless idiots trying to be smart.

Is anyone right about an algorithm of how to tell right from wrong? ..no, not even on low lvl.

Does religious people in general do better than atheist, no, by far not! GW Bush and the vote for war was a definitive proof how clueless religous people are, that their religion only helps their stupidity excell.

Are OP on to something, no, he's only another completely clueless person.

artisticsolution wrote:Immanuel [Can], said he didn't have a problem with my test per se...but chose to toss it because he felt I was putting down Christians. At least that is my take on our conversation.

Then let me apologize for grossly misleading you, if indeed I did. That is certainly not the impression I intended you to have.

I believe I can simplify my intention as follows:

Premise 1: IF human beings had a good moral compass or were rightfully their own judges, then your test would be a good one.

Premise 2: Both of the above conditionals are actually false.

Conclusion: Your test is not a good one. It will yield erroneous results, and fail to impress the only Judge that matters.

That would be reflective of my true position on your question. And as I understood the progress of our conversation, I though your questions pertaining to the "bent compass" idea reflected your understanding of my key criticism of your test proposal.

Does this sufficiently disambiguate my position? I trust so.

Premise 1 and 2 contradict each other?

Conclusion: Your test is not a good one.

1. My test is God's test, as I've heard tale of something called a judgment day.

IF a person believes the bible, then all the have to do to understand right from wrong, is apply the 10 commandments to the scriptures. Moral compass or not. If they are not capable by way of mental illness or hadicapp, then they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

and fail to impress the only Judge that matters.

2. And now you can speak for God? Anyway, I am not trying to impress God. That's just silly. If I wanted to impress God , I would try never to sin. I am trying to bring to the forefront that there is a simple way for Christians to test to see if they believe their thoughts and actions are right or wrong. If they can imagine standing before God and say what they are thinking then they are confident they are on moral ground. If they can't look God in the eye, then chances are they know they are not on moral ground.

Don't you get it? It has nothing to do with what I think is wrong or right...it has everything to do with an individual's relationship with God.

Are you fighting me do hard because you believe me to be a non Christian? If it came out of the mouth of you fav Christian in your video, would you give it more consideration? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?

I am not understanding your beef with this concept as I didn't invent test, God did.

artisticsolution wrote:My test is God's test, as I've heard tale of something called a judgment day.

You think Judgment Day is the day when you get to excuse your own actions in front of God? Not on any Biblical account.

IF a person believes the bible, then all the have to do to understand right from wrong, is apply the 10 commandments to the scriptures.

Nope. As Romans 3 says, "By the deeds of the Law no person will be justified in His sight..."

Moral compass or not. If they are not capable by way of mental illness or hadicapp, then they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

We have different levels of accountability. Those who know more have more culpability. Those who have less knowledge have less culpability. That too is Biblical. But handicaps and mental illnesses are presumably not the issue for present company, and they're no problem for God either, since He knows what goes on in our relative understandings.

...and fail to impress the only Judge that matters.

And now you can speak for God?

Nope. But God can speak for God. He says, "...every mouth [will] be closed and all the world [will] become accountable to God." See Romans 3. He's the only Judge that matters, and we won't have a thing to say in our own defence, since He already knows the whole story. Or as Shakespeare puts it in Hamlet,

In the corrupted currents of this world
Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law; but 'tis not so above.
There is no shuffling; there the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compell'd,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.

I am trying to bring to the forefront that there is a simple way for Christians to test to see if they believe their thoughts and actions are right or wrong. If they can imagine standing before God and say what they are thinking then they are confident they are on moral ground.

No, Biblically speaking, they are then on terrible moral ground. For they are thinking that their own judgment -- not God's -- will have the final word. And they are quite wrong, so they are, as Pascal pointed out, gambling with their own eternal souls. So a Christian would have to reject your view entirely. It's just not a good test at all.

Don't you get it? It has nothing to do with what I think is wrong or right...it has everything to do with an individual's relationship with God.

Ah, now you've said your first true statement about that. I agree. It's not about 10 Commandments, and far less about whether I can self-justify: it's about whether or not I have a real relationship with God. That is indeed a Christian statement.

So have you entered into relationship with God on His terms, or are you simply hoping to excuse yourself before God on your own terms? I suppose that's the key question, isn't it?

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:My test is God's test, as I've heard tale of something called a judgment day.

You think Judgment Day is the day when you get to excuse your own actions in front of God? Not on any Biblical account.

No where did I say you can excuse your actions. Read my OP again. I said, the individual can tell if his actions are his will or God's will. You do believe in free will...right?

it's about whether or not I have a real relationship with God. That is indeed a Christian statement.

So have you entered into relationship with God on His terms, or are you simply hoping to excuse yourself before God on your own terms? I suppose that's the key question, isn't it?

Oh, I see where you are coming from now, I forgot...Christian's believe they can do anything they want and they will still get into heaven by way of simply believing in Jesus. So then, why do you even need the bible in the first place? Seems like an awful lot of superfluous words if all you're going to take from it is, "If I believe in Jesus, I will enter the kingdom of heaven."

I guess obvious leo was right, when he said:

Religious belief is fundamentally immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability for one's actions from the individual onto a non-existent being.

Well, I guess there is nothing left to say. I will leave you to your belief system. Talk about 'gambling' with ones own eternal soul...

artisticsolution wrote:No where did I say you can excuse your actions. Read my OP again. I said, the individual can tell if his actions are his will or God's will. You do believe in free will...right?

Ah, I see...you were suggesting it not as a reality, but merely as a heuristic technique.

Well, it won't be a good one if the results of the heuristic are incorrect. And if the rightness of one's actions depends on the accuracy of one's moral compass, it won't be.

Christian's believe they can do anything they want and they will still get into heaven by way of simply believing in Jesus.

Again, you fail to understand what Christians really think about that. We don't think morality simply, so to speak, 'goes away' if one has a right relationship with God; in fact, we think that Christians are indeed held to a higher moral standard. But there is still the matter of their moral failings past and present: as there is with all of us -- and Christianity does say those are dealt with by way of repentance and forgiveness from God. However, this does not issue in a license to live any way at all, but in an increased obligation to live in a godly way.

In terms of judgment, Christians are required to be harder on themselves then they ever are on those who simply do not believe. From non-believers, they have a mandate to expect rather less; from themselves, to demand much more.

I guess obvious leo was right, when he said:

Religious belief is fundamentally immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability for one's actions from the individual onto a non-existent being.

No, he was still wrong. But he was enthusiastically wrong.

bobevenson wrote:Your problem, of course, is that you don't understand "The Ouzo Prophecy" or the game of Ouzo, a simple bidding game of numbers, that provides an allegory to the spiritual concept that the pathway of evil in every society flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values.

Not a problem at all but by your definition the pathway of 'good' in every society would flow through the same channels.

You've not answered my point that your quote appears to say that 'God' says we should give over our kingdom to this 'beast', now why should we do that?

HexHammer wrote:...

Is anyone right about an algorithm of how to tell right from wrong? ..no, not even on low lvl. ...

You are mistaken, AS's question was about how a Christian can tell and from what I can see her approach is fairly sound with respect to Christians.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ah, now you've said your first true statement about that. I agree. It's not about 10 Commandments, and far less about whether I can self-justify: it's about whether or not I have a real relationship with God. That is indeed a Christian statement.

Then why did he say

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14.15

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:...

Is anyone right about an algorithm of how to tell right from wrong? ..no, not even on low lvl. ...

You are mistaken, AS's question was about how a Christian can tell and from what I can see her approach is fairly sound with respect to Christians.

..that's why so many Christians in USA voted for the 2nd Iraq War ?!?! ..yearh ..u don't have a fucking clue!

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Your problem, of course, is that you don't understand "The Ouzo Prophecy" or the game of Ouzo, a simple bidding game of numbers, that provides an allegory to the spiritual concept that the pathway of evil in every society flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values.

Not a problem at all but by your definition the pathway of 'good' in every society would flow through the same channels. You've not answered my point that your quote appears to say that 'God' says we should give over our kingdom to this 'beast', now why should we do that?

The only good is what God hath put in your heart, not what you hath received through an institutional grid. Giving your kingdom unto the beast means giving up what you hath received through an institutional grid in favor of what God hath put in your heart. Aren't you glad you've got a prophet to explain things to you (I mean beyond explaining the game of Ouzo, which I admit has been a total failure)?

bobevenson wrote:The only good is what God hath put in your heart, not what you hath received through an institutional grid. Giving your kingdom unto the beast means giving up what you hath received through an institutional grid in favor of what God hath put in your heart. Aren't you glad you've got a prophet to explain things to you (I mean beyond explaining the game of Ouzo, which I admit has been a total failure)?

So what have you given up?