The Gospel of Jesus Christ

[GwJ]

Cassio- The reason why people are so hesitant to accept the Bible as historically reliable is because it speaks of supernatural phenomena.

If it didn't do that most skeptics wouldn't be so hesitant to accept it as historically reliable.

That's because of what it implies.

If we had a book that talked about Socrates (which we don't know for 100% certain even existed) and all the stuff he did, we would care if it was fake or not. The wisdom is there in the book, it doesn't make any claims that require Socrates to exist for it to be true, so it doesn't really matter if he existed or not.

The bible however is different. The bible claims stuff that require god to exist. We don't know god exists, so there's more hesitation in believing it.

 

[Cassio]

Cassio- The reason why people are so hesitant to accept the Bible as historically reliable is because it speaks of supernatural phenomena.

If it didn't do that most skeptics wouldn't be so hesitant to accept it as historically reliable.

People get too hung up on its literal interpretation and use by religious institutions. At a very basic level the bible is very similar to many other texts during its time. We see that phenomena and tales were frequently described in super natural ways. This doesn't necessarily mean they lacked understanding either. For instance take a movie like The Dark Knight. It conveys a deeper message on society and ethics, and theres a lot that can be drawn about our culture from studying it. An outsider researching our culture, values, societal issues, etc. could draw useful information from studying its context. But taking it as a literal interpretation about our society would be silly, we dont really have or believe that masked vigilantes run the streets saving us from domestic terrorism.

1984 is not a very parallel example, it isn't to be taken as something factual or something that is suppose to give you objective meaning and goals. The Bible tries to do this, and it fails terribly to meet the standards of such, philosophy books describing ethics do a better job in giving value and morality to a person than that book does, and it even claims to be the word of some infallible being. As for history books, there aren't innumerable ways to help induct the Bible like history, and there aren't innumerable accounts of things in history, and history also doesn't tell you how to live your life, you fail to realize it is immeasurably more difficult to put stock in the Bible as opposed to history, that goes without even mentioning all of the supernatural and illogical properties it possesses and other factors.

Anyone that tries to peddle the bible as straight up factual is heavily misinformed. Its jam packed with so much symbolism and historical context you could spread it on your toast and have enough for the next morning.

Also lol at philosophy books doing a better job at instilling value and morality to people.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You've never read any books on philosophy if you haven't encountered any that teach you how to live and view things in life. I'm sorry, but that must be true. Stoicism, Absurdism, Taoist philosophy, any ethic principle books can work, they are definitive, don't have inconsistencies, don't tell you to have faith in anything, do not ask to believe in absurd things, so many things, you are ignorant of this, it is rather astounding.

 

[Cassio]

Simmer down bro, Ive read and studied plenty on ethics. But consistency hardly matters when you cant even define the word good in the first place. For that reason I find normative ethics to be rather BS.

Secondly numbers speak louder than words (or texts). Christianity has hundreds of milions of followers, so you let me know how absurdism or stoicism measure up when it comes to instilling their moral values.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm quite simmer, you're not very good at finding indications of people being emotionally compromised.

Not all ethics are normative, in fact a lot of that is ancient in terms of all the things I have read, and not to mention every philosophy book goes in great detail to describe things and make sure the point comes across, which isn't the case in the Bible.

Also, as for Christianity's populace, it is divided upon itself, and I'd say the philosophic community is greater than it considering it isn't confined by a religion. A lot of the appeal of religion is its supernatural and eternal temptations. You think Christians have an easier time being instilled moral values? How am I, who isn't a perfect individual, have not met many if not any Christians who behaves as well as myself, it is essentially meaningless to most (even when I used to "be" one when I didn't think much about such things), and to some they simply think they know what they have interpreted is the true way to do so. Theists in general find no value in themselves, they find value in their idea of God, and they think happiness and all other things are not possible without Him, so I'm sorry, but they don't really have much instilled in themselves at all.

And I don't think most Christians really know much of philosophy or care for it, so they wouldn't really know that other books possess much more intelligence and clarity.

 

[ElvenKing]

Not all ethics are normative

They have to be normative, assuming they are acting as the rules for what ought to happen, and so reflect claims of what "should happen." There are other elements present to ethics which can exist outside a normative claim(for example, a description of what an individual feels is ethical, which is the case whether or not it is justified as a normative position), but they cannot are not ethics in the sense of truth that obligates proper action.

 

[Dre89]

The question of what good is is a meta ethical question. Normative ethics (eg. Things like the Ten Commandments, or anything that tells you what is moral and what isn't) assume meta ethical propositions.

As for Christianit being huge, it only became huge because it became the official religion of the Roman empire. It didn't achieve this through popularity or numbers, but simply because Constantine, one individual, became emperor and was Catholic.

Also, over 80% of Christians are Christians before the age of 14, so it owes its size from being a cultural tradition, not to its objective truth.

Islam has also surpassed Christianity as the biggest religion in the world.

Thousands of people also believed that women were all irrational and that black people didn't have souls.

So how many people believe something has nothing to do with its credibility.

Pretty much every religious person os either uneducated in philosophy of religion and epistemology, or was religious before they became educated in those fields.

I don't think any neutral who actually understands informal logical fallacies would ever consider religion rational to believe.

 

[ElvenKing]

The question of what good is is a meta ethical question. Normative ethics (eg. Things like the Ten Commandments, or anything that tells you what is moral and what isn't) assume meta ethical propositions.

Correct, however, any given example of a code that sets out what is appropriate behaviour, that is to say that a truth obligates action, is also normative in nature, as it has set out a "should." This means that under any circumstance where some is making a claim of what is justified action, they are presenting a normative claim with the meta-ethical assumption that there is such a truth. There can be truth about the nature of ethics without there being a normative element(i.e truth of ethics non-existent), but there cannot be a truth OF ethics(i.e. the justified action is X) without it being normative in nature.

 

[Vermanubis]

Also, as for Christianity's populace, it is divided upon itself, and I'd say the philosophic community is greater than it considering it isn't confined by a religion. A lot of the appeal of religion is its supernatural and eternal temptations.

Just want to point out that from a Biblical standpoint, there's actually very little that's not disconcerting on some level to the average person regarding these soi-disant "eternal temptations." Christianity's idea of heaven and the "afterlife," is radically different than from Islam, Judaism and so forth. To be perfectly honest, Christianity's heaven, should anyone bother to read the Bible without eisegetic motives, would find that just about every earthly decadence is dissolved. Not a very tempting prospect to someone who isn't fully invested for other more concrete reasons. Not to mention the very real idea that Christians will have to endure the most severe persecution in history before Christ returns. That's not something one is tempted by. Nowhere in the Bible does it definitively state a Rapture, either. It's faintly implied, but it's an implication that one would be a fool to value over the, conversely, very explicit mention of the possibility of martyring oneself in Christ's defense.

You think Christians have an easier time being instilled moral values? How am I, who isn't a perfect individual, have not met many if not any Christians who behaves as well as myself, it is essentially meaningless to most (even when I used to "be" one when I didn't think much about such things), and to some they simply think they know what they have interpreted is the true way to do so. Theists in general find no value in themselves, they find value in their idea of God, and they think happiness and all other things are not possible without Him, so I'm sorry, but they don't really have much instilled in themselves at all.

That is a positively huge claim, and a habit you should really work out. Anecdotal claims like that are magnetic to fallacies. Behavior and actuality are antipodes. Behaving well and adhering to a rigorous moral foundation are worlds apart. If a man tries his hardest to subdue his vice, and just happens to behave only as well as another naturally mild-mannered person whose vice may be less apparent, then his efforts place him on a moral pedestal, as I think it's reasonable to agree that intention presides over action, even if the burden of his weakness becomes too weighty.

And how is ascribing one's happiness to God any less axiomatic than finding it in something else? Ultimately, every moral substrate is arbitrary. I could just easily say that Atheists find self-worth in arbitrary foundations. You're not considering the second side of the coin here.

And I don't think most Christians really know much of philosophy or care for it, so they wouldn't really know that other books possess much more intelligence and clarity.

First, let's agree upon one thing: that unless the criteria (or at least most of it) as stated in the Bible is met, or a person is selective about which rules to follow in Christianity, they are not, by definition an actual Christian. That being said, that eliminates a sizable chunk of "Christians" who don't seek to validate their beliefs. To further my point:

". . . holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. – Titus 1:9"

"Now sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (minds); and always be prepared for (presenting) a logical defense to everyone who requests a reason from you concerning the hope which is among you, (doing so) with meekness and fear . . .
– 1 Peter 3:15."

"'Test everything. Hold on to the good. -1 Thessalonians 5:21"

Plainly, it is doctrine to examine the Bible and validate your faith for yourself. If a person doesn't follow this very fundamental doctrine, then it's not entirely fair or right to group them with the Christians that do (I know you said Theists, but I'll assume you meant Christians in particular) and don't eschew philosophy, since the study/practice of it is expressly encouraged throughout the Bible. The urge to acquire wisdom and knowledge and to explore one's faith and reason is pervasive throughout Scripture. To boot, no other religion/faith urges its followers to do such a thing to such a degree.

A pertinent passage is: "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'" (Matthew 7:22-23). In other words, Christ determines one's status as a Christian by action and adherence; not the person themselves, no matter how much they may long to profess it so.

As for Christianit being huge, it only became huge because it became the official religion of the Roman empire. It didn't achieve this through popularity or numbers, but simply because Constantine, one individual, became emperor and was Catholic.

Christianity has nearly uncountable reasons for its endurance and several historic instances that beg questions regarding its longevity, such as the Diocletianic persecution in its infancy. I don't buy that Constantine's legalization of Christianity helped it endure one of the most intense collective records of persecution in history. It couldn't hurt to mention also, that Constantine interpolated a lot of aberrant theology, such as when the Arch of Constantine was built, there were sacrifices made to Roman gods. So its relative dogmatic purity (by relative, I mean schismatic discrepancies, not fundamental changes) begs many questions regarding that.

Also, over 80% of Christians are Christians before the age of 14, so it owes its size from being a cultural tradition, not to its objective truth.

That's a fallacy of popularity. Even if those numbers are true/accurate, it doesn't subtract from the notion that it's its truth value that's attractive.

Pretty much every religious person os either uneducated in philosophy of religion and epistemology, or was religious before they became educated in those fields.

Though I can't say that any of these people were Atheists before becoming educated, I think it stands to reason that such influential and piercing minds would've been able to notice and circumvent the ugsome burden of an unexamined belief set.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm#app1

Richard Deem, the microbiologist who authors the God and Science site, was an, as he calls it, agnostic atheist, until he became educated. Though I don't know if I'd qualify as educated on that level, I was agnostic until I began learning about logic, philosophy, math and so forth.

I don't think any neutral who actually understands informal logical fallacies would ever consider religion rational to believe.

I was neutral and I studied logic deeply.

 

[Vermanubis]

Double post. Whoops. D:

 

[Holder of the Heel]

They have to be normative, assuming they are acting as the rules for what ought to happen, and so reflect claims of what "should happen." There are other elements present to ethics which can exist outside a normative claim(for example, a description of what an individual feels is ethical, which is the case whether or not it is justified as a normative position), but they cannot are not ethics in the sense of truth that obligates proper action.

Normative ethics describes ethical action, and some times there is no obligation or any acts demanded to be made because they are right, such as stoicism or Taoism, that simply just speak of mentalities and never really acknowledge right or wrongs. Also Absurdism speaks of humans as being amoral, and yet it speaks ethically in nature because it makes that proposition, although denying morality, it has ethical implications and leads to mentalities of living. (I mention those three because those three probably describe who I am the best.)

Just want to point out that from a Biblical standpoint, there's actually very little that's not disconcerting on some level to the average person regarding these soi-disant "eternal temptations." Christianity's idea of heaven and the "afterlife," is radically different than from Islam, Judaism and so forth. To be perfectly honest, Christianity's heaven, should anyone bother to read the Bible without eisegetic motives, would find that just about every earthly decadence is dissolved. Not a very tempting prospect to someone who isn't fully invested for other more concrete reasons. Not to mention the very real idea that Christians will have to endure the most severe persecution in history before Christ returns. That's not something one is tempted by. Nowhere in the Bible does it definitively state a Rapture, either. It's faintly implied, but it's an implication that one would be a fool to value over the, conversely, very explicit mention of the possibility of martyring oneself in Christ's defense.

You are the first I've ever heard that thinks reuniting with God in the place that is described as the holiest and most pleasant place isn't all that interesting. In addition, living eternally has tempted humans since the idea first came up in human's heads, and it even avoids the general "drawback" that most literature writers and movies around immortality profess such as watching everyone you love die around you, for in heaven those who die will be with you, not gone.

That is a positively huge claim, and a habit you should really work out. Anecdotal claims like that are magnetic to fallacies. Behavior and actuality are antipodes. Behaving well and adhering to a rigorous moral foundation are worlds apart. If a man tries his hardest to subdue his vice, and just happens to behave only as well as another naturally mild-mannered person whose vice may be less apparent, then his efforts place him on a moral pedestal, as I think it's reasonable to agree that intention presides over action, even if the burden of his weakness becomes too weighty.

Semantically I was meaning them one in the same. And it was my point that simply having the general beliefs that a Christian possesses does not equip them with practical social skills and the ability to remain consistent, that is only something that thinking philosophically will only grant you.

And how is ascribing one's happiness to God any less axiomatic than finding it in something else? Ultimately, every moral substrate is arbitrary. I could just easily say that Atheists find self-worth in arbitrary foundations. You're not considering the second side of the coin here.

Ascribing the source of happiness in yourself, I'm sure most would agree, is the greatest of all achievements.

First, let's agree upon one thing: that unless the criteria (or at least most of it) as stated in the Bible is met, or a person is selective about which rules to follow in Christianity, they are not, by definition an actual Christian. That being said, that eliminates a sizable chunk of "Christians" who don't seek to validate their beliefs. To further my point:

". . . holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. – Titus 1:9"

"Now sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (minds); and always be prepared for (presenting) a logical defense to everyone who requests a reason from you concerning the hope which is among you, (doing so) with meekness and fear . . .
– 1 Peter 3:15."

"'Test everything. Hold on to the good. -1 Thessalonians 5:21"

Plainly, it is doctrine to examine the Bible and validate your faith for yourself. If a person doesn't follow this very fundamental doctrine, then it's not entirely fair or right to group them with the Christians that do (I know you said Theists, but I'll assume you meant Christians in particular) and don't eschew philosophy, since the study/practice of it is expressly encouraged throughout the Bible. The urge to acquire wisdom and knowledge and to explore one's faith and reason is pervasive throughout Scripture. To boot, no other religion/faith urges its followers to do such a thing to such a degree.

So people who believe in the Commandments, believe in God, and may or may not go to Church doesn't automatically achieve "Christianhood"? That is a hefty thing to agree to, and I'd also say that the people I have encountered in my days all try to do the things up above, it is simply whether they know what is good in situations. However, I could be wrong in that point, but it'd surprise me if these more subtle and important practical aspects that the Christians I have seen miss are a result of either intentional neglecting of their beliefs or from being incapable of controlling themselves in some sort of fit of "moral blindness" if you will.

Oh and I would never say that Christianity is anti-philosophy, notwithstanding I still also find the claim that philosophy is most demanded by Christianity of all religions is a bit hefty as well.

 

[Vermanubis]

You are the first I've ever heard that thinks reuniting with God in the place that is described as the holiest and most pleasant place isn't all that interesting. In addition, living eternally has tempted humans since the idea first came up in human's heads, and it even avoids the general "drawback" that most literature writers and movies around immortality profess such as watching everyone you love die around you, for in heaven those who die will be with you, not gone.

I never said it wasn't interesting; I have quite a bit of faith in God that it'll be a state of existence far beyond imagination. However, my point still stands that in most religions, eternal life is presented as something much more carnally tantalizing, such as Islam's explicit acknowledgement of sex in heaven. No other "religion" has such strict guidelines for entry, and such <seemingly> low rewards (that is, low to those who value carnality above spirituality). People aren't drawn to Christianity because it's easy to believe in, follow or be lured into by promises of eternal life, as each one is quite contrary. The thought of being dissolved from your marriage in heaven? No sex? Already sounds like a place that a person who's just looking for a meal ticket would shy from.

Semantically I was meaning them one in the same. And it was my point that simply having the general beliefs that a Christian possesses does not equip them with practical social skills and the ability to remain consistent, that is only something that thinking philosophically will only grant you.

I don't buy this, primarily because you'd be making the assertion that you knew all these people's intentions and their internal struggles to follow a more righteous path. I think you were referring just to behavior, even aside from the fact that there's no way intention and behavior can be semantically substituted for each other.

And yes, Christianity actually does, as as I wrote above, it stressed the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom. Christianity is <predicated> on consistency of character. When Christ said that liberty is found through faith in Him, He meant that by following God's Law, man was not bound to seek happiness or validation externally through sex, objects or otherwise. Rather, through a consistent record of knowing you did your best and maintained your character, integrity and dignity in the process. In addition, the entire purpose of the Bible is to provide guidelines so that one may remain consistent in their intentions, behavior and character. Philosophy itself can have a hand in that, but philosophy does not provide a stringent moral substrate; it only examines them and allows room for a person to potentially fabricate a belief set that coincides best with their preexisting belief set. God is the standard, and living up (or trying to, anyway) to such a standard is no different than what one may distinguish as finding happiness in oneself without God. The liberty Christ spoke of is being able to resist physical things and be in full control of one's actions so that they don't stumble. In a situation with a hot girl who wants to get busy? That's one of the hardest things for a man to say no to, but the tremendous amount of willpower and control it takes to resist the deluge of hormones is phenomenal, and anyone who does so is bound to feel wonderful, should they recognize the difficulty of what they did, and how much it speaks to their character.

I'm questioning whether you really understand the Bible or not by that remark, Holder. The very fundaments of Christianity are predicated on being consistent to the best of one's ability with Christ's teachings through knowledge and reasoning of the Biblical scriptures. To augment this notion:

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists_morality.html

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html

Though a small statistical example, it provides a valid reference for my point that consistency with God's Law is paramount in Christianity. The ultimate moral foundation that Christianity provides provides structure.

Ascribing the source of happiness in yourself, I'm sure most would agree, is the greatest of all achievements.

This doesn't constitute a sound argument, and is ad populum. This doesn't subtract from the fact that any source of validation is ultimately as arbitrary as the next. Not to mention, most people that say God is the reason for their happiness do not literally mean that the thought of God makes them feel validated. It typically refers to someone who lives well and finds solace in their strength and individuality through adherence to God's Law. Successfully meeting a standard is inherently satisfying, and that's ultimately what every incarnation of self-validation simplifies to: living up to an expectation. God's expectations are high, so feeling as though you've done a good job trying to meet them is validating no differently than a person creating an arbitrary standard by which to set themselves.

So people who believe in the Commandments, believe in God, and may or may not go to Church doesn't automatically achieve "Christianhood"?

It's a matter of if they <truly> do. This is the same passage I rebuked you with in Mura's blog:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

Christianity is determined by one's love for God and intentions to follow Him; not by works.

That is a hefty thing to agree to, and I'd also say that the people I have encountered in my days all try to do the things up above, it is simply whether they know what is good in situations.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left" - Hebrews 10:26

It's a person's intentions that are taken into account. If a person doesn't know any better, then he/she is not held accountable. Innocence is violated by intention; not action.

However, I could be wrong in that point, but it'd surprise me if these more subtle and important practical aspects that the Christians I have seen miss are a result of either intentional neglecting of their beliefs or from being incapable of controlling themselves in some sort of fit of "moral blindness" if you will.

Many of them might be that way. The Bible itself acknowledges on several occasions, such as Matthew 7:21 above, that there will be pretenders and hypocrites in numbers greater than those who aren't. Those who are the latter though are only nominally Christian.

Oh and I would never say that Christianity is anti-philosophy, notwithstanding I still also find the claim that philosophy is most demanded by Christianity of all religions is a bit hefty as well.

It's a claim I can back up. I personally can't provide an entire Qur'an, Sruti or otherwise to prove that they neither exhort believers nor challenge opponents to test what it says with reason in such a way that the Bible does, but I can certainly encourage you to investigate for yourself.

 

[Cassio]

I'm quite simmer, you're not very good at finding indications of people being emotionally compromised.

Dude you just accused me of a lot of things for no reason, lol. idc what your emotional state is but simma down now.

(1) Not all ethics are normative, in fact a lot of that is ancient in terms of all the things I have read, and (2) not to mention every philosophy book goes in great detail to describe things and make sure the point comes across, which isn't the case in the Bible.

Spoiler

Also, as for Christianity's populace, it is divided upon itself, and I'd say the philosophic community is greater than it considering it isn't confined by a religion.

A lot of the appeal of religion is its supernatural and eternal temptations. (3) You think Christians have an easier time being instilled moral values?

Spoiler

How am I, who isn't a perfect individual, have not met many if not any Christians who behaves as well as myself,

(4) it is essentially meaningless to most

Spoiler

(even when I used to "be" one when I didn't think much about such things), and to some they simply think they know what they have interpreted is the true way to do so. Theists in general find no value in themselves, they find value in their idea of God, and they think happiness and all other things are not possible without Him, so I'm sorry,

but they don't really have much instilled in themselves at all.

(2)And I don't think most Christians really know much of philosophy or care for it, so they wouldn't really know that other books possess much more intelligence and clarity.

I struck through meaningless assumptions and blacked out everything irrelevant. You can feel free to restate them in a better way. I underlined the points Ill address.

1. All the examples you provided are normative or dont discuss ethics at all. Almost anything that will occur in this discussion will either be normative or applied.

2. Philosophy texts are not good at making their points come across, lol. Fables and sermons go a long way towards connecting with people than proof based text and complicated vocabulary on a page. [Most likely you enjoy philosophical texts because their consistency is explicitly stated. That says little about connecting with the average person.]

3. No, I didnt say that.

4. Believing in values is not the same as living by them. There are many reasons why an individual may be better than another at living by their values, but that isnt the discussion atm. The bible is da bess at getting people to believe in its values.

Also holder from reading your responses to Vermanubis and myself it seems like you dont have a very strong understanding of Christianity. You really want to apply what you see in common practice as the argument for Christianity, which is a taboo in any honest discussion. Generally you need to argue against the strong argument in any discussion, but that also requires knowing what the strong arguments are or at least not assuming.

@Dre you have a really good point about culture and upbringing. I still think philosophical texts are easily several tiers below the bible at instilling their values. Even children's television shows do a better job, lol.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I never said it wasn't interesting; I have quite a bit of faith in God that it'll be a state of existence far beyond imagination. However, my point still stands that in most religions, eternal life is presented as something much more carnally tantalizing, such as Islam's explicit acknowledgement of sex in heaven. No other "religion" has such strict guidelines for entry, and such <seemingly> low rewards (that is, low to those who value carnality above spirituality). People aren't drawn to Christianity because it's easy to believe in, follow or be lured into by promises of eternal life, as each one is quite contrary. The thought of being dissolved from your marriage in heaven? No sex? Already sounds like a place that a person who's just looking for a meal ticket would shy from.

I still don't understand, the average person thinks of heaven and immediately connects it to a better reality, it by definition is like that, my point still stands that I have never met anyone who would prefer life on Earth as opposed to Heaven.

I don't buy this, primarily because you'd be making the assertion that you knew all these people's intentions and their internal struggles to follow a more righteous path. I think you were referring just to behavior, even aside from the fact that there's no way intention and behavior can be semantically substituted for each other.

Don't buy it? What're you talking about? XD Well, at any rate, that is the way I meant it, and I'd say that someone who has poor intentions behaves poorly. There intentions are self-evident because of what they say about their own behavior and/or how consistently they behaved as such.

And yes, Christianity actually does, as as I wrote above, it stressed the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom.

The thing is, religions commonly do that, my point wasn't that they don't, just that it is hard to say arbitrarily they tried to get more knowledge, that is a claim that you'd probably get onto me for if I had some something similar.

Christianity is <predicated> on consistency of character.

As is all codes of conduct, nothing is going to give justification for inconsistency with itself.

When Christ said that liberty is found through faith in Him, He meant that by following God's Law, man was not bound to seek happiness or validation externally through sex, objects or otherwise. Rather, through a consistent record of knowing you did your best and maintained your character, integrity and dignity in the process. In addition, the entire purpose of the Bible is to provide guidelines so that one may remain consistent in their intentions, behavior and character. Philosophy itself can have a hand in that, but philosophy does not provide a stringent moral substrate; it only examines them and allows room for a person to potentially fabricate a belief set that coincides best with their preexisting belief set.

Can you explain that last part better? For I am quite sure philosophy doesn't assume any preexisting belief, the book knows nothing of myself and how I live, it simply describes what is right or wrong, or in other books describes the nature of things and how to think about life (and thereby giving you actions in which lie consistently with those ideas).

God is the standard, and living up (or trying to, anyway) to such a standard is no different than what one may distinguish as finding happiness in oneself without God. The liberty Christ spoke of is being able to resist physical things and be in full control of one's actions so that they don't stumble. In a situation with a hot girl who wants to get busy? That's one of the hardest things for a man to say no to, but the tremendous amount of willpower and control it takes to resist the deluge of hormones is phenomenal, and anyone who does so is bound to feel wonderful, should they recognize the difficulty of what they did, and how much it speaks to their character.[/QUOTE]

I am not a big fan of the idea that if morality it exists, its foundation is found within the intention of upholding the standards of something, it turns it out to be rule-following or obedience. However, this is where we'd divide personally, because that is basically what morality is said to be, laws for which imply obligation which imply good for fulfilling it and bad for not, just as breaking the law is unlawful and abiding by it is lawful. You are given rules, and your intention to follow said rules gauges your morality. Without philosophical examination to justify the placed rules it is rather shallow, so philosophy seems to be that which is more apt, even you yourself apply it to Christianity, you simply MUST, or else it'd be like the people that are typically encountered for me. So yes, Christianity does need acquisition of knowledge of wisdom, as would all religions for them to be anything other more than that.

This doesn't constitute a sound argument, and is ad populum. This doesn't subtract from the fact that any source of validation is ultimately as arbitrary as the next. Not to mention, most people that say God is the reason for their happiness do not literally mean that the thought of God makes them feel validated. It typically refers to someone who lives well and finds solace in their strength and individuality through adherence to God's Law. Successfully meeting a standard is inherently satisfying, and that's ultimately what every incarnation of self-validation simplifies to: living up to an expectation. God's expectations are high, so feeling as though you've done a good job trying to meet them is validating no differently than a person creating an arbitrary standard by which to set themselves.

I wasn't using the 'I'm sure most would agree' as the reason putting it forth, besides, that is circular reasoning to begin with, that doesn't explain why people would feel this or that way. Nonetheless I anticipated you'd be familiar with how people generally say such things as finding things in themselves or only depending on themselves. As for arbitrary choices for happiness, I'm not so sure about that. There is plenty of sense and meaning in find yourself as the source of these things, for these are things that one can understand and participate in, and in a life with no God they'd still be the same way, as opposed to people who'd think they way you describe would lose everything in such an existence and would have to either depend on what most people do, depending on themselves, or depending on things external to it and leaving yourself open to existential suffering etc.

Also, where is the talk of standards coming from? If you find happiness in yourself, there wouldn't be any standards? You'd just stoically handle it. If you are speaking of morality, to say it is arbitrary to choose which standards to apply to yourself is quite the big claim, and I'd have to disagree.

It's a matter of if they <truly> do. This is the same passage I rebuked you with in Mura's blog:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

Christianity is determined by one's love for God and intentions to follow Him; not by works.

Hey, I like this honestly, as a result it would mean non-philosophically inclined followers aren't really followers. Not that I'm arguing against the idea.

It's a claim I can back up. I personally can't provide an entire Qur'an, Sruti or otherwise to prove that they neither exhort believers nor challenge opponents to test what it says with reason in such a way that the Bible does, but I can certainly encourage you to investigate for yourself.

It'd take quite a long time to go through all of the religions which area all philosophically inclined and pick one out. I'm hardly qualified to make that decision either, nor would you be I'm sure.

Dude you just accused me of a lot of things for no reason, lol. idc what your emotional state is but simma down now.

Not sure of your reasoning is this time, and it is still insufficient to prove any emotion, I'm not going to get angry with anyone, that's rather silly. ^^

1. All the examples you provided are normative or dont discuss ethics at all. Almost anything that will occur in this discussion will either be normative or applied.

None of them tell you to do anything, all of them are greatly against such a notion in fact.

2. Philosophy texts are not good at making their points come across, lol. Fables and sermons go a long way towards connecting with people than proof based text and complicated vocabulary on a page. [Most likely you enjoy philosophical texts because their consistency is explicitly stated. That says little about connecting with the average person.

Philosophy books do a REAL good job at getting their point across, especially ethical ones because those are generally the simplest of the branches in terms of content and audience direction. You are speaking to the average person this very moment, I might add.

I've also never heard of any philosophy book bearing thousands upon thousands of official interpretations. It is true, there is a sense of interpretation that must be taken into any non-fiction book; however, philosophy books leave little room to the imagination because that could construe the meaning, whereas the Bible welcomes the idea, with multiple secret meanings to boot!~

3. No, I didnt say that.

Christianity has hundreds of milions of followers, so you let me know how absurdism or stoicism measure up when it comes to instilling their moral values.

Yes, you did. XP

4. Believing in values is not the same as living by them. There are many reasons why an individual may be better than another at living by their values, but that isnt the discussion atm. The bible is da bess at getting people to believe in its values.

If someone doesn't follow values they believe in... there is some sort of problem, don't you think? That doesn't quite follow.

 

[Dre89]

Verm- My 80% statistic was in response to Cassio's appeal to the masses where he used the size of Christianity as an argument for it not being irrational to believe. So I wasn't using it as an argument against Christianity.

Educated Christians do one of two things, or both. They either make positive arguments for God, which I don't have too much of a problem with (I think they're approach is wrong, but that's a different story). Except they really only justify a deistic God, most of the theological properties they ascribe to God are never justified.

The other thing they may do is defend Christianity against skepticism, for example theodicies to deal with the problem of evil. The problem is, as I've mentioned to you before, all they ever do is show what they believe is logically conceivable. They never show why it is the most reasonable alternative for the neutral to believe. They would basically have to show that it's unreasonable to believe the other alternatives. In some cases, such as the problem of evil, this is simply impossible.

 

[Cassio]

Holder I never said you were angry, I just dont want to be accused of things that arent true. But thats fine.

Point 4, yes it is a problem but not whats being discussed atm. Point 3 was in regards to my saying that the bible does a good job of gathering followers to its value system, not that the Christians are more receptive to value systems. I agree that had the latter been my point it would be silly. There doesnt appear to be confusion on point 1, looks like we agree. Im not sure what youre point is for 2, I dont disagree with anything you said, but the most effective way to communicate a message generally is not through explicit explanations. Its why we value art so much. That can leave some confusion on interpretation, but that doesnt remove an explicit explanation from existing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Oh, my apologies, generally when I have seen or heard such an expression it means that the recipient is angry, so I felt confused, sorry I accused you of things. With point 4, yeah it isn't the topic, but I do think if one doesn't follow a certain set of values, either he/she was in a fit of emotion (in which the deviation is brief), or that he/she doesn't actually believe in them, and since we're not referencing brevity and more so the state of belief, the latter applies.

As for point 2, I do understand what you mean, and agree actually, in terms of inspiration, but that is what I typically have problems with and go on about when the Bible is brought up, since with a piece of art people all have different reactions, perhaps none of them being what the artist intended, or perhaps he didn't intend for anything at all, which makes interpretation difficult. Christianity isn't for inspiring, although is does it very good, you are certainly right in a sense that stories are much more interesting and easier to sympathize with etc. but as for instilling values, it is a lot of the time left to the interpreter for him/her to decide what they want to feel about the art, whereas while reading a philosophy book the point is clear and we have a clear believe in this/do not believe in this scenario. That is my point, it isn't really explicit, it is just very likely for one to take interest.

 

[Vermanubis]

I still don't understand, the average person thinks of heaven and immediately connects it to a better reality, it by definition is like that, my point still stands that I have never met anyone who would prefer life on Earth as opposed to Heaven.

Personal anecdotes don't supersede the Biblical scriptures in its own validity. Eternal life is tempting, of course, but to anyone who's read Revelations, they'd know they'll have to suffer greatly. The truth is that most people do not actually read the Bible and thus are free to fabricate their own ideas of what heaven is. Islam promises sex and carnal indulgences in heaven with no mention of tribulation; Judaism mentions Gehenna, where the wicked only have to spend a maximum of twelve months before they can reach Gan Eden and no tribulation is involved. Christianity, on the other hand, offers what would be summarized as spiritual purity, and a great deal of suffering for something that is not ostensibly tempting for most. For example of something that many couples might find uncomfortable at first:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." - Matthew 22:30

Don't buy it? What're you talking about? XD Well, at any rate, that is the way I meant it, and I'd say that someone who has poor intentions behaves poorly. There intentions are self-evident because of what they say about their own behavior and/or how consistently they behaved as such.

I don't buy it, as in, I don't buy that you meant that. If by "behavior" you meant "intentions," which you claim you did, you'd be asserting that you knew of these people's intentions and struggles to maintain spiritual and moral equanimity, which I doubt.

The thing is, religions commonly do that, my point wasn't that they don't, just that it is hard to say arbitrarily they tried to get more knowledge, that is a claim that you'd probably get onto me for if I had some something similar.

Not in the same way Christianity does. Since you've now burdened yourself with that counterclaim, you need to find me a passage in any religious text that parallels "Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good" in Thessalonians. Many religions stress the acquisition of religious wisdom, but rarely, if at all, of knowledge and they certainly don't emphasize the skeptical testing of what they say.

As is all codes of conduct, nothing is going to give justification for inconsistency with itself.

What does "justification for inconsistency with itself" mean?

Can you explain that last part better? For I am quite sure philosophy doesn't assume any preexisting belief, the book knows nothing of myself and how I live, it simply describes what is right or wrong, or in other books describes the nature of things and how to think about life (and thereby giving you actions in which lie consistently with those ideas).

You're way off mark. I didn't say it assumed anything. I said that its ambivalence allows the reader to justify their actions and current belief system with its neutrality. Philosophy itself doesn't teach you consistency, nor "give you actions" to be. A template is required, and should one be allowed to justify their own belief set based on desires, vices and an unwillingness to sincerely acknowledge their pervasive human weakness, they'll drift and stumble. Christianity sets an impossible expectation of the follower, but in that expectation and standard, one always has a set Law to follow and has no excuse for amending their beliefs to accommodate a moment of weakness.

Philosophy is not law. It's a suggestion. Laws provide structure and absolution; philosophical thinking alone may facilitate that, but does not itself provide.

I am not a big fan of the idea that if morality it exists, its foundation is found within the intention of upholding the standards of something, it turns it out to be rule-following or obedience. However, this is where we'd divide personally, because that is basically what morality is said to be, laws for which imply obligation which imply good for fulfilling it and bad for not, just as breaking the law is unlawful and abiding by it is lawful. You are given rules, and your intention to follow said rules gauges your morality. Without philosophical examination to justify the placed rules it is rather shallow, so philosophy seems to be that which is more apt, even you yourself apply it to Christianity, you simply MUST, or else it'd be like the people that are typically encountered for me. So yes, Christianity does need acquisition of knowledge of wisdom, as would all religions for them to be anything other more than that.

Then you don't like the idea of anything in this world, and are a nihilist, because ultimately everything decomposes into an arbitrary axiom which is given a posteriori meaning through experience. However, you're treating philosophy and Christianity as if they're different; they're not. Philosophical thought is just a frame of mind in which one examines something. It can create structure, but an unreliable one which will change in perpetuity with the variable and ideologically vulnerable person that weaved it.

I wasn't using the 'I'm sure most would agree' as the reason putting it forth, besides, that is circular reasoning to begin with, that doesn't explain why people would feel this or that way. Nonetheless I anticipated you'd be familiar with how people generally say such things as finding things in themselves or only depending on themselves. As for arbitrary choices for happiness, I'm not so sure about that. There is plenty of sense and meaning in find yourself as the source of these things, for these are things that one can understand and participate in, and in a life with no God they'd still be the same way, as opposed to people who'd think they way you describe would lose everything in such an existence and would have to either depend on what most people do, depending on themselves, or depending on things external to it and leaving yourself open to existential suffering etc.

Way of mark again. You're not grasping the notion of arbitrariness. Every fraction of "meaning" one might find in self-validation is no less arbitrary or more meaningful than one who predicates their fulfillment on God. Validation is synonymous with meeting an arbitrary expectation. Your claim that Christians don't seem to have "much instilled in them" is just flagrantly flawed under the premise that validation without God is, for some reason, superior. The "find strength in yourself" maxim is nothing more than a hallmark platitude. The standard that God sets is for the person to commit themselves to, and by such a choice, thus becomes internal in the very same vein of that which you speak.

Also, where is the talk of standards coming from? If you find happiness in yourself, there wouldn't be any standards? You'd just stoically handle it. If you are speaking of morality, to say it is arbitrary to choose which standards to apply to yourself is quite the big claim, and I'd have to disagree.

So, if happiness isn't achieved through a standard, how does it manifest? Is one supposed to conjure magical forces to impart a sense of validity without cause or reason? One needs a reason to feel happy about themselves. Stoically handle it? I'm confused by what you're trying to say. In the Disney universe, these might apply, but in reality, validation is found through a standard by which one lives. You can be <happy> without such standards, but such happiness would be based on external objects.

As for morality, a person's morals define who they are. Their moral code is their programming; their algorithm. It's not a secret (and hopefully an absurd request to cite such a self-evident claim doesn't appear) that some of the greatest existential crises people endure are through a feeling that they haven't found themselves, or have betrayed some visceral calling that has led them on a path to decay. It's due to an amorphous moral structure; they're subservient to physical things and shortcomings since they have no code to live by, whose ramifications for failing to follow would result in such a crisis. That's the bane of not having a standard to which one continually strives and meets their goals with.

As for you disagreement, how is a following God's standard inferior to "finding happiness without God"? Both are arbitrary frames.

It'd take quite a long time to go through all of the religions which area all philosophically inclined and pick one out. I'm hardly qualified to make that decision either, nor would you be I'm sure.

Qualified to what? See if it stresses the explicit testing of its truth? That doesn't require qualification. Well, literacy, but you're obviously literate, so you're therefore perfectly qualified to do so.

 

[GwJ]

This sounds like you guys are thinking way too far into this.

 

[Vermanubis]

This sounds like you guys are thinking way too far into this.

Excellent contribution.

 

[GwJ]

You're quite welcome. I was totally serious by the way. This is getting to a point where you're not really accomplishing anything.

 

[Vermanubis]

Debates don't typically end after three exchanges. What specifically about the exchange is "unproductive"?

 

[Orboknown]

You're quite welcome. I was totally serious by the way. This is getting to a point where you're not really accomplishing anything.

the point isnt to convince anyone " im right and you are wrong"
its to get people to think and consider other views beside their own.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

This sounds like you guys are thinking way too far into this.

I somewhat understanding where you are coming from, considering it is mostly been narrowed down to debating very small and less significant things to the point where it seemingly doesn't have a point

Personal anecdotes don't supersede the Biblical scriptures in its own validity. Eternal life is tempting, of course, but to anyone who's read Revelations, they'd know they'll have to suffer greatly. The truth is that most people do not actually read the Bible and thus are free to fabricate their own ideas of what heaven is. Islam promises sex and carnal indulgences in heaven with no mention of tribulation; Judaism mentions Gehenna, where the wicked only have to spend a maximum of twelve months before they can reach Gan Eden and no tribulation is involved. Christianity, on the other hand, offers what would be summarized as spiritual purity, and a great deal of suffering for something that is not ostensibly tempting for most. For example of something that many couples might find uncomfortable at first:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." - Matthew 22:30

You're still not showing how people don't overwhelmingly think of heaven as the best, even with that knowledge, people know it will be too perfect to care about. In fact, even YOU think like that, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

I don't buy it, as in, I don't buy that you meant that. If by "behavior" you meant "intentions," which you claim you did, you'd be asserting that you knew of these people's intentions and struggles to maintain spiritual and moral equanimity, which I doubt.

It isn't hard to deduce when it is people you know and encounter a lot, I recommend not assuming that I walk along the street, see Christians and see them behave badly and then go home venting about their evil intentions. These are people who are passionate about their beliefs, act prudent to insignificant things (particularly my family, which I obviously know well), etc, I could go on and on, so yeah, don't assume?

Not in the same way Christianity does. Since you've now burdened yourself with that counterclaim, you need to find me a passage in any religious text that parallels "Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good" in Thessalonians. Many religions stress the acquisition of religious wisdom, but rarely, if at all, of knowledge and they certainly don't emphasize the skeptical testing of what they say.

What? A quote from the Bible does not invoke that Christianity in of itself as a force was more starving for knowledge, you are way off the mark.

What does "justification for inconsistency with itself" mean?

It means it isn't going to justify being inconsistent with its own beliefs, as it says. ???

You're way off mark. I didn't say it assumed anything. I said that its ambivalence allows the reader to justify their actions and current belief system with its neutrality. Philosophy itself doesn't teach you consistency, nor "give you actions" to be. A template is required, and should one be allowed to justify their own belief set based on desires, vices and an unwillingness to sincerely acknowledge their pervasive human weakness, they'll drift and stumble. Christianity sets an impossible expectation of the follower, but in that expectation and standard, one always has a set Law to follow and has no excuse for amending their beliefs to accommodate a moment of weakness.

No, I'm pretty sure philosophy books suggest how to act and explain why you it is logical to do as such. You can't give your own little "spin" on reading a philosophy book, the only difference between you and another reading the same philosophy book can be two possible things: first one can fail to understand what the book is trying to get across, the other being the fact that they are simply fulfilling the things they learned in different situations. The Bible gives you something you put your own spin on, you read it and receive you personal belief about it, if anything is to be neutral at all.

Then you don't like the idea of anything in this world, and are a nihilist, because ultimately everything decomposes into an arbitrary axiom which is given a posteriori meaning through experience. However, you're treating philosophy and Christianity as if they're different; they're not. Philosophical thought is just a frame of mind in which one examines something. It can create structure, but an unreliable one which will change in perpetuity with the variable and ideologically vulnerable person that weaved it.

First off, I am not a nihilist, close, but no, I am hard to label, but what I can say that fits most appropriately right now is an Absurdist. However, first off, not all things are equally arbitrary, in fact, there are things that are more consistent and logical than others, and that is what I do. It's like saying one things that is more beneficial or likely in a two-option decision are both equally arbitrary to pick. It isn't arbitrary to pick the aforementioned one over the other. Not a whim or personal choice, but in accordance to a system; by definition not arbitrary.

Also, Christianity also isn't philosophic, although you can derive a "philosophy" from it or whether it is the writers' "philosophy". Philosophy books are books with arguments. That is why Christianity is looked at philosophically so people can argue for what the Bible says, the Bible itself doesn't argue, it may only be used against those who are disputing what the book is trying to say, which takes philosophic argument to help it, at any rate.




Way of mark again. You're not grasping the notion of arbitrariness. Every fraction of "meaning" one might find in self-validation is no less arbitrary or more meaningful than one who predicates their fulfillment on God. Validation is synonymous with meeting an arbitrary expectation. Your claim that Christians don't seem to have "much instilled in them" is just flagrantly flawed under the premise that validation without God is, for some reason, superior. The "find strength in yourself" maxim is nothing more than a hallmark platitude. The standard that God sets is for the person to commit themselves to, and by such a choice, thus becomes internal in the very same vein of that which you speak.

So, if happiness isn't achieved through a standard, how does it manifest? Is one supposed to conjure magical forces to impart a sense of validity without cause or reason? One needs a reason to feel happy about themselves. Stoically handle it? I'm confused by what you're trying to say. In the Disney universe, these might apply, but in reality, validation is found through a standard by which one lives. You can be <happy> without such standards, but such happiness would be based on external objects.

If you find happiness in yourself, there aren't any standards, like myself, who has no standards and is simply content, that is what it means to "Stoically handle it". I'm not sure of your Disney reference, but people are capable of doing that. I know most aren't, even those who claim they are like that, but it is possible to not really have a standard to be "happy". There are standards for excitement and disappointment for everyone, but those things are a bit separate from happiness and are more like fleeting emotions about a specific object.

Qualified to what? See if it stresses the explicit testing of its truth? That doesn't require qualification. Well, literacy, but you're obviously literate, so you're therefore perfectly qualified to do so.

Obviously that is not what I meant, I am talking about an expansive knowledge of religions and how they are. Neither of us I'm sure can be qualified for making such statements.

 

[ElvenKing]

First off, I am not a nihilist, close, but no, I am hard to label, but what I can say that fits most appropriately right now is an Absurdist. However, first off, not all things are equally arbitrary, in fact, there are things that are more consistent and logical than others, and that is what I do. It's like saying one things that is more beneficial or likely in a two-option decision are both equally arbitrary to pick. It isn't arbitrary to pick the aforementioned one over the other. Not a whim or personal choice, but in accordance to a system; by definition not arbitrary.

No, all values are equally arbitrary. The "arbitrary" being referred to here is in the taking of which system of values are to be the governing ones. That the axiom that defines the system you are using can only be true in itself, meaning one cannot derive what system they should use. The "arbitrary selection" being talking about is when you select a system of Absurdism over any other(let's say, for an example, the system of Christianity).

 

[Vermanubis]

You're still not showing how people don't overwhelmingly think of heaven as the best, even with that knowledge, people know it will be too perfect to care about. In fact, even YOU think like that, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

I have <faith> that it'll be amazing. However, that does not subtract from the idea that some people would reproach the idea of what may truly be required to enter heaven, and how unappealing it might be to someone who invests themselves into earthly things. The point is that in comparison, the Christian heaven requires far more to enter and to some, may seem to reward with far less. Christianity's appeal is heaven, indeed, but as we discussed earlier, there exists many "Christians" who don't understand the breadth and magnitude of the sacrifices that may be required to achieve heaven. Find me a well-read Christian who says that their status as an apologetic is owed to the thought of heaven alone.

It isn't hard to deduce when it is people you know and encounter a lot, I recommend not assuming that I walk along the street, see Christians and see them behave badly and then go home venting about their evil intentions. These are people who are passionate about their beliefs, act prudent to insignificant things (particularly my family, which I obviously know well), etc, I could go on and on, so yeah, don't assume?

That's precisely what you're doing is assuming. On the other hand, if you consort with these people regularly enough to assume their intentions, then that's a mighty small handful of people to be basing such a judgment as "acting as good, if not better" than Christians.

What? A quote from the Bible does not invoke that Christianity in of itself as a force was more starving for knowledge, you are way off the mark.

It very much does. If we're arguing against Christianity, we have to use what the Bible says. The Bible unequivocally exhorts a testing of all things so that belief may come through reason. No other religion does such a thing, and thus, invariably, invoke itself as more "starving for knowledge."

It means it isn't going to justify being inconsistent with its own beliefs, as it says. ???

I still don't get it. Justify being inconsistent with its own beliefs? You're tripping over words here. Where did anything justify being inconsistent with its beliefs?

No, I'm pretty sure philosophy books suggest how to act and explain why you it is logical to do as such. You can't give your own little "spin" on reading a philosophy book, the only difference between you and another reading the same philosophy book can be two possible things: first one can fail to understand what the book is trying to get across, the other being the fact that they are simply fulfilling the things they learned in different situations. The Bible gives you something you put your own spin on, you read it and receive you personal belief about it, if anything is to be neutral at all.

That's a silly thing to say. Philosophical texts don't suggest how to act, nor do they teach you how to think. They encourage reasoning, but ultimately, they strive to define ineffable truths which only the reader themselves can define, which consequently affects their behavior and frame of mind. Philosophy does not provide that structure. If it is up to the individual to set their own standard, they will repeatedly amend their belief set to make a violation of the previous one more comfortable. The structure of Christianity is meant to discourage one from being vulnerable to environmental triggers alone so that they can retain their character and spiritual wholeness. Philosophy is about finding truth, and morality has no objective truth that can be definitely determined a priori. You also cannot put your own spin on Christian morality, as its clarity on issues of morality is demonstrable and sobering.[/quote]

First off, I am not a nihilist, close, but no, I am hard to label, but what I can say that fits most appropriately right now is an Absurdist. However, first off, not all things are equally arbitrary, in fact, there are things that are more consistent and logical than others, and that is what I do. It's like saying one things that is more beneficial or likely in a two-option decision are both equally arbitrary to pick. It isn't arbitrary to pick the aforementioned one over the other. Not a whim or personal choice, but in accordance to a system; by definition not arbitrary.

You just repeated everything I said. Everything sans analytic truths are axiomatic and are given meaning via a posteriori reasoning, i.e. "in accordance with a system." What's beneficial is inherently arbitrary. What makes something <good>? How is goodness defined as <good>? It can't be by anything other than experiential means of what feels good. Every value and belief you hold is axiomatic and holds no valid truth to it beyond what can be agreed upon via a posteriori reasoning.

Also, Christianity also isn't philosophic, although you can derive a "philosophy" from it or whether it is the writers' "philosophy". Philosophy books are books with arguments. That is why Christianity is looked at philosophically so people can argue for what the Bible says, the Bible itself doesn't argue, it may only be used against those who are disputing what the book is trying to say, which takes philosophic argument to help it, at any rate.

The Bibles makes propositions. The Bible uses copulae, predications and logical connectors. It very much makes arguments and is very much philosophic. Just because something doesn't discretely list lemmas doesn't subtract from its validity as an argument. The only reason the Bible may be unclear in making its arguments is because people try to weave justifications for their behavior to fit an eisegetic idea.

If you find happiness in yourself, there aren't any standards, like myself, who has no standards and is simply content, that is what it means to "Stoically handle it". I'm not sure of your Disney reference, but people are capable of doing that. I know most aren't, even those who claim they are like that, but it is possible to not really have a standard to be "happy". There are standards for excitement and disappointment for everyone, but those things are a bit separate from happiness and are more like fleeting emotions about a specific object.

The italicized is very quixotic and "Disney-esque" thinking. If you have morals, you have standards. You earlier stated that you knew Christians who said "evil" things, which is a moral prescription. You have morals, therefore you have standards. Happiness/contentment in oneself comes from fulfillment. If you hurt someone you love, you feel remorse because that standard of how you should treat someone you love has been broken, and you've failed. You're not Talos; you're not made of bronze.

Also, how are standards of disappointment any different from contentment/happiness? Please make that distinction. What principally differs?

Obviously that is not what I meant, I am talking about an expansive knowledge of religions and how they are. Neither of us I'm sure can be qualified for making such statements.

Then it's time to read up. You believe my claim about Christianity's exhortation for knowledge hefty, so it's proper that you show me why. You're literate, therefore you meet the qualifications to reinforce your skepticism.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I have <faith> that it'll be amazing. However, that does not subtract from the idea that some people would reproach the idea of what may truly be required to enter heaven, and how unappealing it might be to someone who invests themselves into earthly things. The point is that in comparison, the Christian heaven requires far more to enter and to some, may seem to reward with far less. Christianity's appeal is heaven, indeed, but as we discussed earlier, there exists many "Christians" who don't understand the breadth and magnitude of the sacrifices that may be required to achieve heaven. Find me a well-read Christian who says that their status as an apologetic is owed to the thought of heaven alone.

That wasn't the point, find me a well-read or ANY Christian that doesn't like the idea of heaven. Those who haven't read about it just think its bliss by hearing the name, those who have read and are strong with their belief have faith it'll be amazing. Yeah, both have no reason to think it, considering one is just assuming and one is having faith, but that still means they all think it. Christianity's heaven also is seemingly the greatest of eternal paradises I have ever heard of, better than living an earthly existence with a bunch of virgins, in fact, that doesn't even sound all that interesting to me, especially in comparison.

That's precisely what you're doing is assuming. On the other hand, if you consort with these people regularly enough to assume their intentions, then that's a mighty small handful of people to be basing such a judgment as "acting as good, if not better" than Christians.

Well yes, I am inducting it, but within better reason than you are in this instance. And again, you are assuming I have a small handful of experience? What're you getting this from? Surely nothing from what I've SAID.

It very much does. If we're arguing against Christianity, we have to use what the Bible says. The Bible unequivocally exhorts a testing of all things so that belief may come through reason. No other religion does such a thing, and thus, invariably, invoke itself as more "starving for knowledge."

You're not understanding, you can probably find any religious text that supports knowledge seeking, in fact why would they even need to say it? That is self-evident in all things. So what is your criterion, how many times in the Bible it says it or how badly they describe how much you need the knowledge? No, you need to know the history of knowledge seeking of the followers and important individuals related to the religion.

I still don't get it. Justify being inconsistent with its own beliefs? You're tripping over words here. Where did anything justify being inconsistent with its beliefs?

Nothing... that was the point. I am being blatantly clear hear. Look at the posts that have been exchanged.

That's a silly thing to say. Philosophical texts don't suggest how to act, nor do they teach you how to think. They encourage reasoning, but ultimately, they strive to define ineffable truths which only the reader themselves can define, which consequently affects their behavior and frame of mind. Philosophy does not provide that structure. If it is up to the individual to set their own standard, they will repeatedly amend their belief set to make a violation of the previous one more comfortable. The structure of Christianity is meant to discourage one from being vulnerable to environmental triggers alone so that they can retain their character and spiritual wholeness. Philosophy is about finding truth, and morality has no objective truth that can be definitely determined a priori. You also cannot put your own spin on Christian morality, as its clarity on issues of morality is demonstrable and sobering.

Philosophy is not law. It's a suggestion.

I'll pass over the fact that you said yourself it was a suggestion. More to the point, philosophy and religion both define truths, neither of them leave the reader to define, how do the writers define it and we define it differently? Then we aren't taking what has been written at all, we would be simply not following it. As for the rest of what you said, I'm not sure of what you are trying to get across.

You just repeated everything I said. Everything sans analytic truths are axiomatic and are given meaning via a posteriori reasoning, i.e. "in accordance with a system." What's beneficial is inherently arbitrary. What makes something <good>? How is goodness defined as <good>? It can't be by anything other than experiential means of what feels good. Every value and belief you hold is axiomatic and holds no valid truth to it beyond what can be agreed upon via a posteriori reasoning.

Can you reword this, I'm not sure how this shows how all things are equally arbitrary, and thus makes things no better to choose over the other. In fact, that isn't even what you are saying at all here.

The Bibles makes propositions. The Bible uses copulae, predications and logical connectors. It very much makes arguments and is very much philosophic. Just because something doesn't discretely list lemmas doesn't subtract from its validity as an argument. The only reason the Bible may be unclear in making its arguments is because people try to weave justifications for their behavior to fit an eisegetic idea.

Is what you are saying is that different interpretations are arisen because people want to justify how they behave?

The italicized is very quixotic and "Disney-esque" thinking. If you have morals, you have standards. You earlier stated that you knew Christians who said "evil" things, which is a moral prescription. You have morals, therefore you have standards. Happiness/contentment in oneself comes from fulfillment. If you hurt someone you love, you feel remorse because that standard of how you should treat someone you love has been broken, and you've failed. You're not Talos; you're not made of bronze.

Evil by the standards of Christianity, I don't know what you are getting at with me believing there are obligations we must follow. ???

Also, considering my Disney belief, contentment with oneself isn't based off of fulfillment. I don't care if you think it is silly to say, I'm not made of Bronze and have emotions, of course that is the case, but right now I haven't fulfilled much of anything. There are goals, yes, but regardless if I fail them I won't lose my contentment. Call it Disney if you want (although much more serious philosophies make claims like that), I'd still prefer to be that way than not. The reason why the standards are different is for the simple fact that there aren't any standards for happiness in oneself, whereas there are standards when expectations are involved.

Then it's time to read up. You believe my claim about Christianity's exhortation for knowledge hefty, so it's proper that you show me why. You're literate, therefore you meet the qualifications to reinforce your skepticism.

No, I believe that falls upon you who makes the claim, I'm not saying it is or is not, it's just something you aren't in the position to state.

 

[Orboknown]

That wasn't the point, find me a well-read or ANY Christian that doesn't like the idea of heaven. Those who haven't read about it just think its bliss by hearing the name, those who have read and are strong with their belief have faith it'll be amazing. Yeah, both have no reason to think it, considering one is just assuming and one is having faith, but that still means they all think it. Christianity's heaven also is seemingly the greatest of eternal paradises I have ever heard of, better than living an earthly existence with a bunch of virgins, in fact, that doesn't even sound all that interesting to me, especially in comparison.

I might be wrong, but the catholic version of heaven at least isn't some miraculous city of which there is no comparison on earth. The catholic heaven is the same thing as earth,but all acts of evil are gone and thus everything has a pure sense about it. Its obviously different from some holy paradise which is completely seperate form earth.

Or i just misinterpreted what you were saying.

You're not understanding, you can probably find any religious text that supports knowledge seeking, in fact why would they even need to say it? That is self-evident in all things. So what is your criterion, how many times in the Bible it says it or how badly they describe how much you need the knowledge? No, you need to know the history of knowledge seeking of the followers and important individuals related to the religion.

St augustine Was a doctor of the church and a professor of rhetoric in rome, as well as a philosopher. Many other Saints in the catholic religion(its what i know, so im sorry for using it so often) were highly educated as well. They then used that knowledge for the good of the church. It isn'y necessary for a religious text to say " you need to learn" but its followers can still be learned men and women.

Can you reword this, I'm not sure how this shows how all things are equally arbitrary, and thus makes things no better to choose over the other. In fact, that isn't even what you are saying at all here.

Verm is saying that nothing is inherently good for all, I think anyways.
What one person judges good another might view as completely bad.

 

[_Keno_]

I might be wrong, but the catholic version of heaven at least isn't some miraculous city of which there is no comparison on earth. The catholic heaven is the same thing as earth,but all acts of evil are gone and thus everything has a pure sense about it. Its obviously different from some holy paradise which is completely separate form earth.

Or i just misinterpreted what you were saying.

Ehh, I never liked the "all acts of evil are gone" talk about heaven and creation. There are all these free will arguments about why sin exists and how humans having the ability to choose between good and evil is necessary. Then when you go ahead and look at the final life achievement in Christianity (heaven), your ability to choose evil is taken away and you are absolutely destroyed as a person.

There just seems to be this big gap where heaven is perfect yet there is no free will. I mean, I know you can have free will and still choose between two good things (chocolate or vanilla?), but why didn't God create humans to choose between only good things in the first place? Why all this run-around existence where only people predetermined to go to heaven are worthy? The whole point doesn't make sense.

 

[Orboknown]

Ehh, I never liked the "all acts of evil are gone" talk about heaven and creation. There are all these free will arguments about why sin exists and how humans having the ability to choose between good and evil is necessary. Then when you go ahead and look at the final life achievement in Christianity (heaven), your ability to choose evil is taken away and you are absolutely destroyed as a person.

Alright, i can see this. But what is the ultimate goal for post-life to be if not an arena where good reigns supreme? I mean, i guess you could go with a valhalla where fighting is ever present but fighting is actually morally acceptable in norse mythos, as long as it isnt stab-in-the-back kinda stuff.

Why all this run-around existence where only people predetermined to go to heaven are worthy? The whole point doesn't make sense.

What is it, puritanism or calvinism where only those predetermined enter heaven?
In some religions, it really is your choices in life that affect where you go. God knowing what choice you make before hand doesnt actually influence what choices you personally make.

 

[_Keno_]

Alright, i can see this. But what is the ultimate goal for post-life to be if not an arena where good reigns supreme? I mean, i guess you could go with a valhalla where fighting is ever present but fighting is actually morally acceptable in norse mythos, as long as it isnt stab-in-the-back kinda stuff.

I never said there had to be an ultimate goal for post-life. Should one that doesn't make sense be accepted just because all the others make even less sense?

What is it, puritanism or calvinism where only those predetermined enter heaven?
In some religions, it really is your choices in life that affect where you go. God knowing what choice you make before hand doesnt actually influence what choices you personally make.

Given that God is the christian omniscient deity (is this thread still about Christianity or now all religions?), there is no possible way that he does not know whether someone is going to heaven or hell upon creating them. God can't simply "randomize" a human being, as randomness is nothing more than a lack of absolute knowledge of something.

Even if it was not predetermined, the point still stands. It was simply a subpoint that further adds to the absurdity (I'm not necessarily giving up on this subpoint either).

 

[Orboknown]

I never said there had to be an ultimate goal for post-life. Should one that doesn't make sense be accepted just because all the others make even less sense?

No, but considering that almost all, if not all christian theology says there is, we should operate on the assumption that there is one.

Given that God is the christian omniscient deity (is this thread still about Christianity or now all religions?), there is no possible way that he does not know whether someone is going to heaven or hell upon creating them.
Even if it was not predetermined, the point still stands. It was simply a subpoint that further adds to the absurdity (I'm not necessarily giving up on this subpoint either).

We(humans) don't know that. So we have to make our choices on a basis of how morally(or otherwise) preferable(to us) one decision is over another. And most christians would do so with the goal of a place in the afterlife in mind, assuming they actually are religious and not merely a member of X faith because their parents told them to be as a kid.

 

[_Keno_]

No, but considering that almost all, if not all christian theology says there is, we should operate on the assumption that there is one.

That is exactly what I was doing in order to show that christian theology is absurd.

We(humans) don't know that. So we have to make our choices on a basis of how morally(or otherwise) preferable(to us) one decision is over another. And most christians would do so with the goal of a place in the afterlife in mind, assuming they actually are religious and not merely a member of X faith because their parents told them to be as a kid.

I mean to say that the entire process is meaningless for God himself. The whole "plan" is just a huge run-around for him that doesn't really accomplish anything in any way or form.

 

[Orboknown]

That is exactly what I was doing in order to show that christian theology is absurd.

Then why bother debating in a thread all about christian theology?

I mean to say that the entire process is meaningless for God himself. The whole "plan" is just a huge run-around for him that doesn't really accomplish anything in any way or form.

From Gods aspect, yes. But nothing really accomplishes anything in any way shape or form for God as he could start the apocalypse at this very second if he really wanted to.
Imo we have no way of knowing how or what God thinks, so we shouldn't even be trying to do so. He could think in logic patterns humanity hasn't even concieved of yet. Or humanity and history may just be one giant chess game between satan/lucifer and God(which christian theology kinda says is true[depending on the branch of theology you look at])

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Finding something absurd is a GREAT reason to talk about it in fact. If people thought things were absurd and never spoke about it, no one else could prove them wrong or learn that it is absurd themselves.

As for God doing meaningless things, you can't use the "we are pots and he is the potter so who are we to question what he does" argument, because that also means who are we to say we can't question it? And also that argument is like what MuraRengan (sp?) did in his blog post about saying God must be illogical and make no sense in order to have made the Universe. You're just saying something you don't get and playing it off as an answer. It isn't even understandable as to why we couldn't comprehend a reason, surely after it is all said and done God could be like, "Oh, this is why we did this nonsense..." and then we could be like, "Oh okay!" All things have sufficient reason, and if a sufficient reason cannot be surmised, then it isn't any reason, which just doesn't happen in reality. It is absurd.

 

[Orboknown]

Im not saying dont question it per se, but we never really will know what his line of thinking is.
thus, its no use trying to discern that

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That is a non-verifiable defeatist attitude, and is contrary to sufficient reasoning, for if we could not possibly surmise a reason for the nonsense, then there isn't some "Godly" one with "God logic" that we will never understand even if we were being told about it by the big guy himself.

 

[Orboknown]

ok, ill concede that.
what does questioning the logic of God do for us?

 

[_Keno_]

Then why bother debating in a thread all about christian theology?

Hopefully to
A. Allow people to consider my views
B. Consider other peoples' views
C. Improve my debating skills

Finding something absurd is a GREAT reason to talk about it in fact. If people thought things were absurd and never spoke about it, no one else could prove them wrong or learn that it is absurd themselves.

Yup. Pretty much the only debating I'm bothering with anymore is by absurdity. It's really the only type that conceivably convinces people in religious discussions.

It isn't even understandable as to why we couldn't comprehend a reason, surely after it is all said and done God could be like, "Oh, this is why we did this nonsense..." and then we could be like, "Oh okay!" All things have sufficient reason, and if a sufficient reason cannot be surmised, then it isn't any reason, which just doesn't happen in reality. It is absurd.

Pretty much this.

ok, ill concede that.
what does questioning the logic of God do for us?

Questioning it helps us learn about it. I suspect that is why people question and then discuss subjects. Obviously if it is assumed God is real etc, the logic should be considered absolute regardless. Discussing still helps if you want to learn anything about it.

 

[Orboknown]

Hopefully to
A. Allow people to consider my views
B. Consider other peoples' views
C. Improve my debating skills

admirable.

Yup. Pretty much the only debating I'm bothering with anymore is by absurdity. It's really the only type that conceivably convinces people in religious discussions.

Or they can just go on believing what they do, unconvinced by you saying its absurd to believe it because they believe it regardless of the empirical evidence for or against it..

Questioning it helps us learn about it. I suspect that is why people question and then discuss subjects. Obviously if it is assumed God is real etc, the logic should be considered absolute regardless. Discussing still helps if you want to learn anything about it.

Alright, yeah i deserved that, i asked a stupid question.