joe1776
Well-Known Member
No. You misread the question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Question for Christians
- Thread starter joe1776
- Start date
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I don't know. It's the first one that came up on a web search. It's also the one which I've been familiar with over my lifetime.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Would you please give me the post numbers that you thought gave me an intelligent answer to the question in the OP? I ask because I thought Shira and Axe came up empty.
Then help me out here.
"What was God's purpose in" = Why did
"inspiring men to write" = inspired men write
"in a language destined to..." = in their own language
What other language would someone inspired by their interactions with God write in but their own?
What people do in the name of their religion and what is actually approved of by their religion are two entirely different things. Stalin and Mao (avowed atheists) deliberately killed tens of millions of people. Does atheism as a position condone such behavior?
You must have conversational amnesia. Allow me to repost what I said:
About 2/3 of all Christians (1 billion Catholics and something between 300 and 500 million Orthodox) agree on almost every point of doctrine, outside of Catholic historical innovations concerning the Papacy and a few points of Scholastic theology which crept in around 1100 years ago. It's only been in the last 200 years or so that Protestant Christians decided to start going off the deep end and fracturing more ways than a window hit with buckshot.
AKA, progressive Christianity (the kind that denies the existence of Hell) is only 200 years old, tops.
What "logic"? The logic of your own egocentric cultural bias which you don't even appear to be aware of? Humanist philosophy which has only existed since the 1500's? You're asserting that a Viking from the 800's had the same exact moral compass as a 21st-century American, despite their vastly different cultures, upbringing and circumstances. You would have a monumental task of convincing anyone that such a position is true.
I would encourage you to take a cultural studies or world history course. I think you will very quickly find that the conscience of a Viking warrior offering himself as a ritual sacrifice to the gods for the success of his tribe's coming battle is different from that of a Buddhist monk or that of a Mongol raider or that of Julius Caesar or that of the poor street urchin living in 1300's Samarkand or an Early Woodland Period Native American or an Aztec priest. All of these people had different belief systems, cultures and circumstances that shaped their consciences differently. To assert that every single one of these people knew deep down in their conscience that 21st-century Western morality is correct (which none of them could even conceive of as having existed) is egocentric. Our current value systems evolved over centuries of interaction between Christian anthropology, the emergence of capitalism, and European Enlightenment-era humanism.
You said, and I quote, "However, I don't know how anything could be more useless to human understanding than old, mistranslated documents."
"old, mistranslated documents" would include anything from the Classic, Medieval and Early Modern eras. Shakespeare would fall under this category. As would Pythagoras. As would Copernicus. As would Galileo. Their documents are old and written in languages that we do not speak, therefore, as you claimed early in this thread, they must be translated. But translations are flawed and can't perfectly convey the full meaning of the original text. Frankly, I don't know how else anyone is supposed to read what you wrote.
Have you posted a single verse that even suggests the Bible says this?
As slavery was the norm back when the Bible was written, yes, God condoned it as long as the human dignity of slaves was respected.
And it doesn't prevent them from being bombed today. But that's irrelevant to when we decided to firmly say that killing civilians was wrong, which was well before World War 2.
Twisting your words? Hardly. I and others have directly answered the question in your OP several times throughout this thread, and you're the one twisting in the wind either pretending to not see our answers, or deciding that they're not good enough for you.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That doesn't mean that their definition is correct,
I... is this a rhetorical question? Because if you were unable to process their thoughtful and articulate responses as "intelligent answers" the first time, no amount of me spotlighting them will help with that. I'm thinking you might be conflating "intelligent answer" with "answer I personally agree with." And yeah, the second one of those obviously isn't going to happen if you're already set in your position and unwilling to see narratives from someone else's point of view.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
No. The question wasn't rhetorical at all.I... is this a rhetorical question? Because if you were unable to process their thoughtful and articulate responses as "intelligent answers" the first time, no amount of me spotlighting them will help with that. I'm thinking you might be conflating "intelligent answer" with "answer I personally agree with." And yeah, the second one of those obviously isn't going to happen if you're already set in your position and unwilling to see narratives from someone else's point of view.
Why would you assume that if I didn't see the responses as intelligent the first time that I wouldn't see it if you pointed it out?
Why would you assume that my mind is made up? I'm not going to appear stupid by denying obvious logic or truths.
It's possible that I missed a good, logical explanation for the question posed by the OP. I doubt it but it's possible.
So, which of the points made by Shira or Axe impressed you as good answers to the question posed in the OP? Or, if you prefer, you might offer your own answer standing in as a designated Christian.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
If the definition of the word is the way it's commonly understood, it's correct. Dictionaries report common usage.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That doesn't mean it tell facts.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
That's true, but when violence is the rule rather than the exception, the bloody history of Christianity is proof that the non-violent message you offered wasn't understood by most Christians.
I'm not an atheist but my atheist friends tell me that it take no moral positions at all.
Because you think I should remember all the marvelous points in your brilliant posts although occupied debating others?
I'll grant that progressive Christianity is fairly young but your estimate of 2/3 of all Christians ever agreeing on almost every point remains laughable.
This paragraph is evidence on its face that you haven't understood the very basic position on conscience that I've given you so far. I'll try again.
A bias is any idea that can throw judgment off its correct course. A cultural bias is one that almost all people within that culture hold. So, let's say a woman kills her husband in what our Western culture would consider an act of justifiable self-defense. But, because of the cultural bias against women in some cultures, we know that a woman committing the very same act would not get a fair trial in those cultures. Bottom line: It's not that conscience varies from culture to culture, it's that cultural biases make it appear that way. Those cultural biases though do disappear over time.
No, I made a logical deduction. Is that okay?
Didn't you say earlier that God's purpose in inspiring the Bible was to offer moral guidance? Was that guidance only meant for the people of Biblical times? If so, lots of Christians may be following out-dated moral guidance.
When and how did Christians churches bring this advance about as you claimed earlier?
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
[
No, you can argue that all-knowing means anything you want it to. But you better first explain that you aren't using the word as it's commonly understood.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I know, but for me, it's entertainment.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You don't need help. Your intention was to twist my words into a stupid question and you succeeded. (cue the applause)
And yet you apparently can't show him how his question was supposedly stupid.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I don't do brain transplants. I think he knows its a stupid question. That's what he intended.
Am I to understand that you don't think it's a stupid question ?
Do you read it the same as the question I asked?
Last edited:
It was understood. Most just didn't care, because while the Bible told them one thing, society told them another, and they chose society.
Then let's take Buddhism. Non-violence is a core virtue of Buddhism. So what do you make of it when Burmese Buddhists want to kill all the Muslims in their country? (Yes, this is a thing.)
One advantage of written communication mediums is the ability to scroll up and see what points people were responding to.
As I said before, Catholicism and Orthodoxy make up 2/3 of all of Christianity, and they do in fact agree on almost every single point. The traditional Protestant denominations like High Church Anglicanism and confessional Lutheranism are remarkably close as well. So it's not at all laughable if you know your Christian history and Christian demographics. I can even go point-by-point between Catholicism and Orthodoxy if you'd like.
I'm not talking about cultural biases against people of certain genders, ethnic backgrounds or belief systems. What you described is two societies having the same ideas about the justifiability of self-defense, but one culture simply decides to disregard the rights of women due to some kind of prejudice. That is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fundamentally different systems of morality. Allow me to use a small example that I used earlier, which you seem to have overlooked.
In our culture, drinking alcohol in moderation is seen as perfectly normal and socially/religiously acceptable behavior, according to both society and the dominant religion (Christianity). If I drink a beer or two, it doesn't bother my conscience. However, a Muslim friend of mine from Egypt grew up in a society and a culture where drinking any amount of alcohol is seen as sinful and morally wrong. So when he drinks a beer or two in moderation, he says that he knows it's wrong to drink alcohol, even though he now lives in a Western country. Drinking alcohol weighs heavily on his mind as a morally wrong action. That is an example of how society can form our consciences to be different.
You say that conscience does not vary from culture to culture, that cultural biases merely "throw judgement off its correct course". However, you yourself have a cultural bias, as does every human on the face of the earth. How can you say what our conscience would dictate in the absence of any sort of cultural bias? Even if a human were to grow up in the absence of any sort of cultural influence, that person would still create their own culture and thus introduce biases that would "throw judgement off its correct course". So how can you even say what our conscience is to begin with? Cultural indoctrination begins before we're even born.
Infants in the womb have heard enough of their mother tongue while still in utero to have accents on their cries when they're born, and this has been borne out by linguistic studies. The smallest of babies are able to observe what happens around them and imitate the behaviors that they see. They see what behaviors are rewarded and what behaviors are punished, and they begin to form associations with what behaviors are good (i.e. get rewarded), and what behaviors are bad (i.e. get punished), and their brains are stimulated in ways that make them feel good and look forward to doing things that are rewarded, or have an aversion and a repulsion to behaviors that are punished. This is basic behavioral psychology that has been developed by people like Skinner.
I've seen you make the assertion, but nowhere have you laid out any sort of logic to justify said assertion.
If a society has slaves, then God laid out how those slaves are to be treated--i.e. with full Christian dignity.
As I have already said, Christianity is directly responsible for the creation of humanist philosophy. It was pioneered by faithful Catholics like Erasmus (who debated Luther in defense of the Catholic Church). It takes its idea of inherent human value from Christianity. In Christianity, all humans (regardless of nationality, sex, socioeconomic standing, etc.) are made in the image of God, and thus are His sons and daughters, and they are to be treated as such.
When Peter took up a sword in defense of Jesus Himself and injured the servant of the high priest, Christ told Peter to put down his sword. Christ then healed the servant of the very man who wanted Him dead. Christ said that we are to love those who hate us, bless those who curse us, pray for those who persecute us. John the Baptist said that if a man sues us for our cloak, we should give him our tunic as well. If we are pressed to carry the burden of a soldier for one mile, we should go two miles. If we are struck on one cheek, we should offer the other as well. St. Paul said that there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus. Christ said that if we do not forgive our brothers from our hearts, then neither will God forgive us at the day of judgement. (Matthew 18:21-35)
If an enemy falls down, surrenders and pleads mercy from a Christian soldier, and that Christian proceeds to kill the one who had surrendered before him and asked for his mercy, then the Christian can expect God to do the same to him at the Judgement. As God is patient, merciful, loving and forgiving towards us, so are we Christians commanded to be towards everyone we meet, whether friend or foe. "As you did unto the least of My brethren, so you did unto Me," as Jesus says in Matthew 25:31-46. The old pagan religions had no such universal moral imperatives. That is how Christianity brought about the idea that civilians and prisoners of war should be treated humanely and with dignity.
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Their society was comprised of Christians. Sometimes their leaders were popes and others in authority with the churches. But the character who was the most vicious was a god capable of sending even well-behaved non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.
Non-violence isn't a "core virtue" in all Buddhism.
Conscience doesn't make moral rules: "One should not drink alcohol" is a moral rule created by the reasoning function of our brains. Conscience is an unconscious intuitive judgment (See Jon Haidt's research) It makes judgments case-by-case.
I doubt you're right on that, but I'll grant it for sake of argument. So what?
I can say it because conscience is the only moral authority we have. If the mind is unbiased, the judgment of conscience rules. I think even the Catholic Church bows to an individual's conscience when its moral guidance is questioned.
In the moral situations I face, I rely only on conscience. If an act feels wrong or feels unfair, I don't do it. It's obviously a lot more difficult than that, but it isn't difficult to understand.
The part you won't agree with is that any creation of the reasoning mind is a potential bias. For example, the Sixth Commandment is the product of a reasoning mind. If a Christian interprets that commandment to believe that killing is always wrong that belief will form a bias that will conflict with conscience given the facts in a clear case of self-defense.
You're the one who asked it, bub. I'll also note that how I took your question apparently resonates with others, so maybe consider that the issue isn't a malicious twisting of words, but a poor presentation of concept.
You've had at least two opportunities now to explain how the gross absurdity I saw in your question is wrong, and you haven't. The more you dance around redressing the glaring deficiency of your first offering instead of clarifying, the less inclined I am to believe this is a thoughtful honest inquiry.