[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
miniross wrote:
All theologians do is philosiphise and muse over meanings that on the whole are self evident. i mean, socialistic morals outdate any moral text by milennia. it has always been bad to murder, always been bad to steal (why trade exists). these were self evident, and even if the weren’t, i dont see any tangiable thing that theologians have done to add to the world that say, aristotle hadn’t.
1- A theologian is one who applies a system of principles to actually experience what they have studied - God. A theologian is also one who can teach others how to replicate this experience. In a nutshell, that’s basically what Christianity is about. Saints teaching others how to become Saints through a belief system anchored in the Lord Jesus Christ and all His teachings. This is significantly different from a philosopher who merely speculates about ideas or concepts which can not be produced.
So, as i have said, added nothing, just passed a message on.
2- God endowed mankind with innate judgments in the beginning of Creation, but these natural God-given judgments were corrupted by the Fall. Additionally, the atmosphere which man thrives in can also shape man’s judgments, whether for a healthier or an unhealthier manner, in the spiritual sense. To you it may seem bad to murder but go read the profiles of American serial killers. They kill in cold blood with absolutely no remorse. I inherently believe they express sick behavior but a superior measuring stick than my own personal conviction is God’s laws. In this case, my judgment parallels the moral code which God conveys.
Conversely, the Mayans used to sacrifice each other to appease their gods. Murder, in this regard, was not a sacrilegious act but a holy one. If you had lived in their culture, you’d be primed as a baby to feel the same way.
OK, all kinds of things are done in the name of “god”, and butchery and war are just 2 of them. granted, it is more than likely that nice things are done in the name of “god”, but there you go.
wrt serial killers, and psychopaths in general, they are few in number, and using this group to parry the “social morals” issue has no legs. i am sure that many a serial killer were christians and had an interpretation of what they took it to be.
Some truths may be self-evident to you but not to everyone ELSE in the world. Although this is NOT the main function of Christianity, ascribing to one system of belief creates a measuring stick amongst followers to discern between what is right and what is wrong. Morally speaking, I had qualms with homosexuality long before researching any particular religion. Coincidentally, my judgment parallels what God conveys. Clearly, what was/is self-evident to me may not be self-evident to you. People use reference points when settings boundaries on moral issues; some use personal experiences while others rely on divine authority to guide them. I believe it’s best to rely on the moral code which God has conveyed rather than that of our own judgment which has been corrupted by the Fall.
The homosexuality bit is getting way off line here, not with your post, but others. its has turned to a bit “hes alright cos i know him, but the rest…”
WHat does this say about gay christians, and what does it say about people who are not christians, but also are “non lovers” of gays. where do they get their moral judgement from, if that is what it is. same as everything, socialistic and groupish morla guidelines, self evident thosands of years before JC. if there hadn’t have been some guidelines, we would not be here to waffle.
You mentioned Aristotle, a fellow Hellene. What a brilliant mind who actually devoted lots of contemplation on the metaphysical realm. He wrote:
On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature. And it is a life such as the best which we enjoy, and enjoy for but a short time (for it is ever in this state, which we cannot be), since its actuality is also pleasure. (And for this reason are waking, perception, and thinking most pleasant, and hopes and memories are so on account of these.) And thinking in itself deals with that which is best in itself, and that which is thinking in the fullest sense with that which is best in the fullest sense. And thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought in coming into contact with and thinking its objects, so that thought and object of thought are the same. For that which is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e. the essence, is thought. But it is active when it possesses this object. Therefore the possession rather than the receptivity is the divine element which thought seems to contain, and the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.
use some punctation! well, that told me. i used him as an example, to philsophise can produce some great insights, but looking at the meaning of man, god, life is well fruitless. we all know what the meaning of life is, and if you dont, finding it any book (except hitch hikers guide)may then yield some result for you.
good luck, i’m off to make another bonfire,
Peace be with all!
[/quote]
He’d still be a good guy, even if he were Jewish, Christian or whatever.