[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]
Tirib, I’ve read the link. It does not advance your cause.
Your argument makes a compelling case against the materialist and for a transcendent absolute upon which both truth and existence are contingent. In this, it does what Aquinas’ proofs have been doing for centuries: argues for a nonspecific entity not beholden to the laws of nature. We may call this entity “God” if you’d like, but you aver the truth of the Christian Bible and a very particular deity with very particular attributes, tastes, and wishes. Nowhere in this argument of any other do I see a single reason to believe that a single word of Genesis is true.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]
Tirib, I’ve read the link. It does not advance your cause.
Your argument makes a compelling case against the materialist and for a transcendent absolute upon which both truth and existence are contingent. In this, it does what Aquinas’ proofs have been doing for centuries: argues for a nonspecific entity not beholden to the laws of nature. We may call this entity “God” if you’d like, but you aver the truth of the Christian Bible and a very particular deity with very particular attributes, tastes, and wishes. Nowhere in this argument of any other do I see a single reason to believe that a single word of Genesis is true.[/quote]
So you’re saying the Bible saying its true because it’s the bible and it says so, is not compelling? Who’d would have thunk it!?
If you are trying to make that point that morality is something other than a man made apparatus designed to create guilt (another man made apparatus) then you should never bring religion into the conversation.
[/quote]
I never said it was designed to create guilt. You cannot ‘create’ guilt, you can only experience it, secondly, and I never brought religion into the conversation. If anything I avoided it at all costs because it’s not necessary to the discussion. You must be mixing up posts.
Dude what ever drugs you take, they are scrambling your brain. You are all over the map. how in the fuck did you get from Hitler thinking he was moral, to being a Christian of “some sort” then to being some what religious. Do you think before you type?
As far as what Hitler thought, it doesn’t really matter one hardy fuck what hitler thought, what he did was an abomination and exceedingly immoral. Do you not agree, or do you put what Hitler thought over those of his victims? Because the Hitler was the executioner of his own actions, does his will automatically supersede those of the people he murdered, tortured and oppressed?
Oh I know this shit totally went over your head.
What in the hardy hell are you talking about now? Introducing about 10,000 Red Herrings into the conversation does not prove that morality is a man made construct, nor that it’s relative. Brian I don’t mean this as insulting, but I don’t think you have actually given this a moments thought.
There is something called logic and reason that is designed to guide us in these discussions. Abandoning that completely is going absolutely no where. I have seldom run across thought patterns as fractured as this. Hell, I never even introduced religion into the conversation, you just did, I did not.
The point is, to get to the truth, you have to get past what people ‘think’ and drill down on what things actually are. THEN you can determine the morality of the action. Misunderstanding affects culpability, but it does not remove it completely.
You are very confused. That which is socially acceptable may or may not be moral. Social acceptability does not dictate morality. If it did, then slavery would have been moral. Sex slavery today is moral, killing people not like you would be moral. The point is, it’s not. Doesn’t matter what everybody thinks, it only matters what things are. Can you tell the difference.
How much shit do you want to drag into one conversation? Why are you passing political judgments on me, in the scope of a conversation where the topic is whether or not morality is relative or a static entity. You are as lost as lost can be.
You’re one of these surface thinkers. Do you understand what it is to take a single topic, drill down on the one single topic and hash out the truth from the fiction about that single topic? The topic is moral relativity. It’s ok to bring in examples to prove your point but to throw in everything to see if anything sticks is not going to work. Again, logic needs to drive this process. There is a complete absence of logic in your posts. None, zeta, nada, zero.
First I never said you thought morality was designed to create guilt, I actually said if you are trying to prove anything OTHER than that, you should leave religion out of the calculation.
As far as the rest, I am of the belief that you have either moral absolutism (or some farmclub of that belief), moral relativism (or again its minor league affiliates) or something more like the belief that morals are not anything but a man made construct designed to make us all better neighbors and co-workers (pretty much what I believe).
Your belief that there are “universal truths” regarding morality is only relative to you and yours, which means that they are not “universal”, labeling an action as immoral is limited to people that have the same beliefs as you. I’m not sure how this is so hard to understand for you, cultural morality is by its’ very nature unfit for universal consumption, I brought up Hitler and all the rest because if you look at the past it dictates the present. For example, if Hitler had won and somehow gained control of the world and eradicated all the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays etc, we would have a different idea of morality wouldn’t we? In a world run by Nazis’ the presiding morality would be formed by the winners, three or four generations after the war we wouldn’t even question the way things are, we would all accept it as the “right way” to live. You will of course deny this and say that you would hold on to your innate moral guidelines, but you would of course be full of shit because you would be born in a world where the cultural norm is whatever the fuck the Nazis’ were selling. Again, imagine the US if the South had won the Civil War, not pretty is it? We are who we are because of where we are, not just because we are human beings, our culture shapes our beliefs.[/quote]
I think this topic is way over your head apparently. The whole point of the discussion, is to prove that despite what people think, good and evil still exist. If everybody agrees with evil behavior that doesn’t make that behavior good, it makes it acceptable, which is not the same thing. You want proof? Look at the victims. Even if the whole world thought it was a good idea to kill all the Jews, the Jews wouldn’t think so. Why should the value of their own lives matter less than that of the greater society?
Relativism devalues some people and elevates others when it truth, people’s intrinsic value is the same.
I am really afraid you don’t understand this subject matter at all in any detail what so ever. It’s really not hard. Focus on on thing and not a million things at a time, and then it gets much clearer. Why should what people think devalue the experience of other humans? That’s relativism. It has no value what so ever. It’s moving target with no meaning.[/quote]
Pat,
I understand the subject matter just fine, what you seem to be missing is my very simple point, if somebody doesn’t explain to us that something is bad, we do not recognize it as such. Good and Evil can’t possibly be real things if they need an ad campaign. Good and Evil are not real, they are man made. When a Lion kills the cubs of a rival male we do not call it evil, we call it nature. It may be distasteful, it may be horrible but there really is no value placed on it. Gravity functions whether we want it to or not, but good and evil needs a rulebook. I agree that people are all worth the same, regardless of who/what they are, but that is just a by-product of being raised here and now.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]
Tirib, I’ve read the link. It does not advance your cause.
Your argument makes a compelling case against the materialist and for a transcendent absolute upon which both truth and existence are contingent. In this, it does what Aquinas’ proofs have been doing for centuries: argues for a nonspecific entity not beholden to the laws of nature. We may call this entity “God” if you’d like, but you aver the truth of the Christian Bible and a very particular deity with very particular attributes, tastes, and wishes. Nowhere in this argument of any other do I see a single reason to believe that a single word of Genesis is true.[/quote]
So you’re saying the Bible saying its true because it’s the bible and it says so, is not compelling? Who’d would have thunk it!?[/quote]
Not sure if sarcastic?
Not deriding believers, simply trying to make Tirib understand that his faith is exactly that–faith–despite his repeated attempts to act like Christian theology is the only worldview that is not logically impossible.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]
Tirib, I’ve read the link. It does not advance your cause.
Your argument makes a compelling case against the materialist and for a transcendent absolute upon which both truth and existence are contingent. In this, it does what Aquinas’ proofs have been doing for centuries: argues for a nonspecific entity not beholden to the laws of nature. We may call this entity “God” if you’d like, but you aver the truth of the Christian Bible and a very particular deity with very particular attributes, tastes, and wishes. Nowhere in this argument of any other do I see a single reason to believe that a single word of Genesis is true.[/quote]Trust me when I say that all the link was supposed to address was your charge of circular reasoning and that in a very cursory manner. Trust me further when I report that I have myself derided Aquinas’a (Aristoltle’s) so called proofs as establishing the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no God in particular. I don’t want to hijack this thread which I have been notoriously bad for in the past. Trust me even further still please when I say that I have fully addressed the entire inevitable line of thought that you are here embarking upon in other threads. I have a feeling you might actually read this: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/defense_VanTil.html
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]
Tirib, I’ve read the link. It does not advance your cause.
Your argument makes a compelling case against the materialist and for a transcendent absolute upon which both truth and existence are contingent. In this, it does what Aquinas’ proofs have been doing for centuries: argues for a nonspecific entity not beholden to the laws of nature. We may call this entity “God” if you’d like, but you aver the truth of the Christian Bible and a very particular deity with very particular attributes, tastes, and wishes. Nowhere in this argument of any other do I see a single reason to believe that a single word of Genesis is true.[/quote]Trust me when I say that all the link was supposed to address was your charge of circular reasoning and that in a very cursory manner. Trust me further when I report that I have myself derided Aquinas’a (Aristoltle’s) so called proofs as establishing the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no God in particular. I don’t want to hijack this thread which I have been notoriously bad for in the past. Trust me even further still please when I say that I have fully addressed the entire inevitable line of thought that you are here embarking upon in other threads. I have a feeling you might actually read this: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/defense_VanTil.html
[/quote]
I read up until : The Bible says that man is spiritually dead in sin. The Reformed creeds speak of manâ??s total depravity. The only cure for this spiritual deadness is his regeneration by the Holy Spirit on the basis of the atoning death of Christ.
Which was fairly early on. This is not a dig, just representative of the chasm between what we consider worthwhile arguments on these matters.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Trust me when I say that all the link was supposed to address was your charge of circular reasoning and that in a very cursory manner. Trust me further when I report that I have myself derided Aquinas’a (Aristoltle’s) so called proofs as establishing the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no God in particular. I don’t want to hijack this thread which I have been notoriously bad for in the past. Trust me even further still please when I say that I have fully addressed the entire inevitable line of thought that you are here embarking upon in other threads. I have a feeling you might actually read this: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/defense_VanTil.html
[/quote]
I will read it. I’m headed to the gym now, but it will be read by tonight.
Since this thread is pretty much about whatever we want it to be anyways (it started out as a call-out of a couple of posters, after all), I would like to ask you to do this: in the shortest and simplest way possible, provide your logical, non-circular defense of Christianity. I have already said that I accept as legitimate your attack on the materialist argument and also the proofs of a nonspecific entity not beholden to physical law, so treat those as conquered territories.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< provide your logical, non-circular defense of Christianity. >>>[/quote]It is not possible for any finite human being to make an objective non circular argument about anything including 2+2 equaling 4. To quote my friend Kamui again. “Every proposition in the end terminates in tautology”. That’s the basis for all modern skepticism. I agree. Everybody lives every second in a certainty that they have no basis in themselves for believing in. Even the statement “everything is uncertain” is a statement of certainty and around we go. Sin is what has authored this state of affairs at the philosophical level. Man is a derivative creature. This is mine. Forget the Van Til piece for now. The leadership of my church wanted a sampling of my writing and apologetic style and this is what I gave them. Make it through this whole thing and I will be most honored and gratified. It’s 7 pages I think. A collection of old posts from here. Some familiar names are there. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf
[quote]pushharder wrote:
C’mon people, chop out the walls of unnecessary text.
Please.[/quote]I also find it aggravating when somebody nests a half a dozen posts for 18 inches to say nine words. We get 4 scrollamatic posts on a page that way. Maybe they don’t know how. However, there are more important things to give attention to.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< his repeated attempts to act like Christian theology is the only worldview that is not logically impossible.[/quote]Let’s just assume for the sake of discussion that this God, described by the Westminster Assembly of 1640-1646 exists. This is what these men saw in th bible. I agree.
[quote]Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.[/quote]Let’s just pretend for a moment this God is real. If He were, do you really think that it would possible to avoid encountering Him… anywhere? To go on. How could a man who says he KNOWS such a mind numbingly powerful and magnificent being as this personally, allow for the possibility of His nonexistence and hence the possibility of the truth of a competing worldview? How? No. He IS the “foundation of all being” including of those who deny Him.
You’ve never heard of this kind Christianity have you? You’re used to the modern limp wristed hippified cotton candy Jesus who goes around wringing his hands hoping somebody will believe in Him and desperately trying to get folks to love each other. Here’s a tip. Jesus Christ ain’t runnin for the office of God. He said Himself He came to save His people from their sins, not to provide some cool lessons for life. He WILL save every last one and of them He will lose none. He said that too. It is not my job to presume to convince ANYBODY. My job, as His servant is to faithfully proclaim Him. Only He can raise them from the dead. Ya know what? Once He does. None of this is even a question anymore.
Meet the Jesus who defeated death on my behalf on the third day and is now seated at the right hand of His Father on high. Revelation 19:11-16 [quote]11-Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12-His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13-He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14-And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15-From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16-On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.[/quote]That’s the resurrected and ascended Son of God I worship and adore. It is my great privilege and joy to surrender all that I am and all that I have to His service and glory. If you believed what I believe? How could it be otherwise?
Not deriding believers, simply trying to make Tirib understand that his faith is exactly that–faith–despite his repeated attempts to act like Christian theology is the only worldview that is not logically impossible.[/quote]
Yes I was absolutely being sarcastic. It makes no sense to me how people think that their faith and their belief in the Bible is an authoritative stance over non-believers. I just think it’s absurd.
Bible talk should be reserved for those who have faith and believe in the bible. To say, it’s true because it’s in the bible, to somebody who doesn’t believe in the bible, is flat retarded.
The truth isn’t reserved to a book and bent to it’s will. A truth is true whether or not in the Bible. That’s the tact I use. Truth ‘X’ may very well be in the Bible, but it’s true regardless of it’s existence in the Bible. So I like to point out the truths, explain why they’re true and if it’s relevant to the topic, then I point out that that truth is also revealed in the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t make things true, it expresses things that are true. It didn’t become true when someone put pen to paper, it was true and somebody recorded the truth.
If I am determined to say help you believe or understand a Biblical truth, but you have no regard for the Bible, I will demonstrate how something is true and then tell you that it’s in the bible and you can find it in said book, verse and phrase. I may be wrong but I think that’s a far more compelling method then saying it’s true because the Bible says so and if you have no regard for it then you need to, just 'cause.
I understand the subject matter just fine, what you seem to be missing is my very simple point, if somebody doesn’t explain to us that something is bad, we do not recognize it as such.
[/quote]
How can you say you understand the subject matter fine and then end the sentence with a nature vs. nurture argument that is not related to anything in particular? Whether you were taught something being bad or good is irrelevant to that thing being bad or good. What you think about it does not matter. Your only two options are to be wrong or right. So based on this sentence alone, I do not think you have a grasp on the subject at all.
Case-in-point…WTF? Ad campaign? What the hell are you talking about now? What the hell do adverts have to do with morality? What Red Herring are you trying to drag in now?
So if man makes slavery, murder, rape, or any other assortment of abominations ok, they are okay? You don’t see the fault in this reasoning at all? Again, doesn’t the victim get a say? Who is to decide if it’s man made? Who’s the “Moralianator”?
If it doesn’t it starves, it’s acting out of nature not freewill. And you wonder why I think you don’t understand the subject matter at all? Where in the hell did the lion come from?
Nope, it needs an action and a recipient of the action.
[quote]
I agree that people are all worth the same, regardless of who/what they are, but that is just a by-product of being raised here and now. [/quote]
Oh brother. So again, if people all have the same intrinsic value, but some people choose do harm to others and call it good, who’s will is worth more? The perpetrator or the victim?
Let’s go back to slavery, the topic you conveniently evaded since you know you have no leg to stand on. Simple questions:
-Is slavery evil?
-Was it evil when it was accepted in society?
I am just interested if you can stay on point for even a second. Your ‘kitchen sink’ approach is a fail. Make a case with out lions, tigers and bears (oh my).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you believed what I believe? How could it be otherwise?
[/quote]
To be clear, I’m not attacking you for what you believe or trying to tell you that you shouldn’t believe it. I’m simply making the point that my disbelief is exactly as legitimate as your faith on the evidence available to me and using the tools–by definition flawed and mired in uncertainty, yes–available to me.
Not deriding believers, simply trying to make Tirib understand that his faith is exactly that–faith–despite his repeated attempts to act like Christian theology is the only worldview that is not logically impossible.[/quote]
Yes I was absolutely being sarcastic. It makes no sense to me how people think that their faith and their belief in the Bible is an authoritative stance over non-believers. I just think it’s absurd.[/quote]
Gotcha. And I agree with you that this is an immeasurably better way to approach religion when one side believes and one does not.
“Whether you were taught something being bad or good is irrelevant to that thing being bad or good. What you think about it does not matter”
This right here shows that you are the one that doesn’t understand the argument I am making. For you to be right (that things are either good or bad) I have to subscribe to the belief that things have that inherent value (being good or bad). Since I don’t subscribe to that belief, and since you have done nothing to demonstrate that such a thing exists I think you might be the one that doesn’t grasp the subject matter.
“Case-in-point…WTF? Ad campaign? What the hell are you talking about now? What the hell do adverts have to do with morality? What Red Herring are you trying to drag in now?”
If you are too slow to understand this I apologize. religion is essentially an ad campaign for morality, that is why religion exists, it’s goal is to get people into line with the fear of eternal damnation as its’ punishment. If good and evil were clear and obvious why would we have to write down morality guidelines?
"So if man makes slavery, murder, rape, or any other assortment of abominations ok, they are okay? You don’t see the fault in this reasoning at all? Again, doesn’t the victim get a say? Who is to decide if it’s man made? Who’s the “Moralianator”? "
I hope you don’t actually believe I said this. I said good and evil are man made, I never said any of this behavior was OK, as I said I am a product of the here and now, my outlook on the world is based in a very western view of things, that being said dismissing what other cultures do simply because it is against my beliefs is the height of cultural arrogance.
"If it doesn’t it starves, it’s acting out of nature not freewill. And you wonder why I think you don’t understand the subject matter at all? Where in the hell did the lion come from? "
The lion story is an analogy. The lion doesn’t kill the cubs so it doesn’t starve, it kills the cubs so that the lioness will be ready to breed again and carry on its lineage. We don’t seem to cast a moral condition on the lion (because it’s not human) but in reality if good and evil exist as immutable laws of the universe shouldn’t they affect everything? And if they don’t, and subsequently need to be taught and/or learned, how can they really be considered as universal?
“Nope, it needs an action and a recipient of the action.”
-Well that’s interesting, for something to be good or evil there needs to be an interaction. Is there a third choice? Something morally neutral? Can something change from one to the other?
“Let’s go back to slavery, the topic you conveniently evaded since you know you have no leg to stand on. Simple questions:
-Is slavery evil?
-Was it evil when it was accepted in society?”
-Is slavery “evil”? Well I know it is bad, and with that in place I can happily judge all existing slavery as bad as well (it still exists in some form or another to this day). Going back in time to when slavery was widely practiced and accepted it is easy to look at it and say it’s a bad thing, a bad system, at least for the slaves, but it appears that most people thought it was not only acceptable but also moral. Hell even those great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato thought slavery was moral and just and even natural. Socrates, although seemingly anti-slavery at some points did make a good point in “The Nature of Justice” pointing out that while deceit, theft and slavery were all bad things:
"“But,” said Socrates, “if a man being chosen to lead an army, should reduce to slavery an unjust and hostile people, should we say that he committed an injustice?”
“No, certainly,” replied he.
“Should we not rather say that he acted justly?”
“Indisputably.”
“And if in the course of the war with them he should practice deceit?”[300]
“That also would be just,” said he.
“And if he should steal and carry off their property, would he not do what was just?”
I’m sure you get the point. I find slavery awful and abhorrent, but I have only been alive since the 1960’s I do not presume to know what or why people felt hundreds or thousands of years ago.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me that moral absolutists are just one personal situation away from being a situational ethicist. Is there really such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality? [/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
Then tell me, what are these absolute values?
[/quote]
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
…
If good and evil were clear and obvious why would we have to write down morality guidelines?
…
[/quote]
Food for thought:
A thing does not have to be clear and obvious to have an objective existence.
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that acceptance of the objective existence of good and evil would necessarily follow from acceptance of the above statement. Here I am merely saying that any lack of clarity and/or obviousness regarding good and evil does not demonstrate that they do not objectively exist.