-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"I don't think there is (a 'right' that is beyond each person's opinion).
Ok, now... when we were talking about Hitler, I had the impression that you thought he was wrong, and that it went beyond just you having one opinion and he having another.
"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law."
No rule of law can change the fact that the more of a gene strand that's spread, the more there is of it... making it more likely to be spread again. If it's the spreading of genes that makes something right, then it's right if the genes are spread.
Ok, now... when we were talking about Hitler, I had the impression that you thought he was wrong, and that it went beyond just you having one opinion and he having another.
"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law."
No rule of law can change the fact that the more of a gene strand that's spread, the more there is of it... making it more likely to be spread again. If it's the spreading of genes that makes something right, then it's right if the genes are spread.
"But it's a slippery slope you can go down when you start conceding things, and I found that I was making so many concessions in so many different areas that my faith ended up unraveling altogether."
I had a different experience... I found that letting go of things that I didn't need to defend, or that didn't make sense to me, strengthened my faith.
"... crushed my beliefs in a young earth."
I can understand that... though, really, is belief in a young earth required? I know some folks will say yes, but I don't think so.
"...Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve..."
This implies that the gospel accounts of Jesus doing that are accurate... I remember talking to a Jewish person who said that Jesus couln't be the Messiah because of the geneologies in the gospels... I asked him if those gospels were accurate, and he said 'no'... he didn't seem able to grasp the oddness of his position...
"Hmm, what do you mean by that?"
Similar to what you said above, "Belief and faith were important values in my Christian life, and I think they still have a place in my life. And besides, anyone who isn't agnostic is making some kind of faith statement one way or another." I took from that that you have beliefs and faith, just different ones than you had before...
"Do you believe that ex-Christians exist?"
I'm going to say 'yes'... going with the definition of 'Christian' as 'one who believes Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)... or C.S. Lewis' approach of 'a person is a Christian if they claim to be.'
I had a different experience... I found that letting go of things that I didn't need to defend, or that didn't make sense to me, strengthened my faith.
"... crushed my beliefs in a young earth."
I can understand that... though, really, is belief in a young earth required? I know some folks will say yes, but I don't think so.
"...Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve..."
This implies that the gospel accounts of Jesus doing that are accurate... I remember talking to a Jewish person who said that Jesus couln't be the Messiah because of the geneologies in the gospels... I asked him if those gospels were accurate, and he said 'no'... he didn't seem able to grasp the oddness of his position...
"Hmm, what do you mean by that?"
Similar to what you said above, "Belief and faith were important values in my Christian life, and I think they still have a place in my life. And besides, anyone who isn't agnostic is making some kind of faith statement one way or another." I took from that that you have beliefs and faith, just different ones than you had before...
"Do you believe that ex-Christians exist?"
I'm going to say 'yes'... going with the definition of 'Christian' as 'one who believes Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)... or C.S. Lewis' approach of 'a person is a Christian if they claim to be.'
"Morality is a human phenomena..."
I think this is an opinion.
"...it's interpretive and subjective..."
You can choose to believe that... but it is a belief.
"As for your question on whether there can be a 'correct' interpretation to the bible's moral ethics..."
Did I ask that question? Maybe, but I'm not sure where you're looking...
"...absolutely no idea what the exact objectively correct interpretation..."
This assumes the non-existence of a god capable of communicating with us. You can assume this if you want, of course. I have more joy when I don't assume it.
"...dangerous..."
By whose standard?
"...you consider your interpretation of biblical moral ethics to be incontrovertible commandments..."
I don't think I said that.
"... a supreme creator God..."
Well, if there is one, it would make sense to follow his/her principles, I think.
"...were you to believe... ...what in your mentality would stop you from doing that?
Nothing... but this simply means that people act according to their beliefs.
"...your own sense of offence... ...which is by its definition a personal feeling..."
Yes, ...that's starting to sound like a belief, to me.
I think this is an opinion.
"...it's interpretive and subjective..."
You can choose to believe that... but it is a belief.
"As for your question on whether there can be a 'correct' interpretation to the bible's moral ethics..."
Did I ask that question? Maybe, but I'm not sure where you're looking...
"...absolutely no idea what the exact objectively correct interpretation..."
This assumes the non-existence of a god capable of communicating with us. You can assume this if you want, of course. I have more joy when I don't assume it.
"...dangerous..."
By whose standard?
"...you consider your interpretation of biblical moral ethics to be incontrovertible commandments..."
I don't think I said that.
"... a supreme creator God..."
Well, if there is one, it would make sense to follow his/her principles, I think.
"...were you to believe... ...what in your mentality would stop you from doing that?
Nothing... but this simply means that people act according to their beliefs.
"...your own sense of offence... ...which is by its definition a personal feeling..."
Yes, ...that's starting to sound like a belief, to me.
a variable moral compass is the seed of all kabbalaisim.
aka the law of thelema
the standard of the masonic order....
lol
a weak, pitiful, squirmy, wormy, doctrine
self justification for destroying others life, minds, souls, and bodies all for ones personal gratification....
it real cute when your on top, but as soon as you realize you are heir puppets and they are destroying you along with everyone else.... it not so funny any longer, unless one lives in complete denial....
(the following sentence is a joke)
that is why I propose the the religion of the nwo should be people doing the "wave" in front of a 66.6 ft tall solid gold ostrich statue sticking its head in the sand, you know a "god" many can relate to....
(the previous sentence is a joke)
"some truthers want to scream the bankseters
but they will never tell you who's supreme with gangsters....
jewish papers brag as far back as 100 years ago that without judaisim (talmud/kabbala)
there would be no freemasonry so.....
all you apple pie bakin mason silly guys
you better come clean
all your perks gonna be worth
whats going to happen when they break down the machine?
your smirkin like a cheshire cat
just forget all that
they can not serve 2 masters
thats where the problem occurs-ur-urs
they praise god on the surface but they really worship lucifer-er"
“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
Malakyah 4:1-4,"For, behold, the day comes that will burn like an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all who do wickedly, will be stubble--the day that comes will burn them up, says Yahweh of hosts; and it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who reverence My Name, the light of righteousness will arise with healing in its wings; and you will go out, leaping like calves released from the stall. And you will tread down the wicked; for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I will do this, says Yahweh of hosts. Remember the Law of Mosheh My servant, which I commanded through him in Horeb for all Israyl, with the statutes and judgments."
aka the law of thelema
the standard of the masonic order....
lol
a weak, pitiful, squirmy, wormy, doctrine
self justification for destroying others life, minds, souls, and bodies all for ones personal gratification....
it real cute when your on top, but as soon as you realize you are heir puppets and they are destroying you along with everyone else.... it not so funny any longer, unless one lives in complete denial....
(the following sentence is a joke)
that is why I propose the the religion of the nwo should be people doing the "wave" in front of a 66.6 ft tall solid gold ostrich statue sticking its head in the sand, you know a "god" many can relate to....
(the previous sentence is a joke)
"some truthers want to scream the bankseters
but they will never tell you who's supreme with gangsters....
jewish papers brag as far back as 100 years ago that without judaisim (talmud/kabbala)
there would be no freemasonry so.....
all you apple pie bakin mason silly guys
you better come clean
all your perks gonna be worth
whats going to happen when they break down the machine?
your smirkin like a cheshire cat
just forget all that
they can not serve 2 masters
thats where the problem occurs-ur-urs
they praise god on the surface but they really worship lucifer-er"
“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
Malakyah 4:1-4,"For, behold, the day comes that will burn like an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all who do wickedly, will be stubble--the day that comes will burn them up, says Yahweh of hosts; and it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who reverence My Name, the light of righteousness will arise with healing in its wings; and you will go out, leaping like calves released from the stall. And you will tread down the wicked; for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I will do this, says Yahweh of hosts. Remember the Law of Mosheh My servant, which I commanded through him in Horeb for all Israyl, with the statutes and judgments."
I do think he was wrong, but that does not mean I believe the deciding factors that determine right and wrong are carved into the heavens. We make decisions as a society, and as individuals, and we must make such decisions or face anarchy. It is the dominant view of Western society that Hitler was wrong, and I agree with that view.
"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law." – Cycel
Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes? I have never heard anyone make this claim. I think this is the argument of someone who doesn’t like evolution and seeks to denigrate it by associating it with absurd claims.
As I said earlier, “It is a cultural belief on my part that we should apply the Golden Rule, and permit empathy for others to guide our actions.” If you are looking for an evolutionary explanation I could give one, but I would need to write a long essay to explain myself. I don’t have the time and you don’t likely have the patience, but if you truly want an explanation then start with Frans de Waal’s book, Our Inner Ape.
"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law." – Cycel
Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes? I have never heard anyone make this claim. I think this is the argument of someone who doesn’t like evolution and seeks to denigrate it by associating it with absurd claims.
As I said earlier, “It is a cultural belief on my part that we should apply the Golden Rule, and permit empathy for others to guide our actions.” If you are looking for an evolutionary explanation I could give one, but I would need to write a long essay to explain myself. I don’t have the time and you don’t likely have the patience, but if you truly want an explanation then start with Frans de Waal’s book, Our Inner Ape.
Cycel I want to ask you something, not trying to argue I just want to ask because evolution screams this ideal to me....
doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?
I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?
the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?
doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?
I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?
the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?
That's right Dan. Obviously different cultures have different moral values. This is as true today as it was in the past. Our history and our cultural background has given us a unique perspective on how we judge right from wrong. However, it should be obvious from the great diversity of codes around the world and throughout history that there is no single moral code that reigns supreme. As a Christian you might wish that the code you stand by is writ in the heavens, but if this were so we would not see the diversity of moral values that we do.
The facts of the case are clear. Humans design their own morality, and some go so far as to compose sacred literature demonstrating that their gods, coincidentally, holds the same moral views they do. This accounts for and explains the sacred dominance of men over women (in a patriarchal society and approved by a patriarchal god), and the approval of slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. It should be no surprise that the God of the Old Testament approved the level of violence that men of that time saw fit to perpetrate on their enemies.
The facts of the case are clear. Humans design their own morality, and some go so far as to compose sacred literature demonstrating that their gods, coincidentally, holds the same moral views they do. This accounts for and explains the sacred dominance of men over women (in a patriarchal society and approved by a patriarchal god), and the approval of slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. It should be no surprise that the God of the Old Testament approved the level of violence that men of that time saw fit to perpetrate on their enemies.
Well that points to the main argument Christians have against a fallible Bible. If certain parts are in error, how do you know which parts? How can you trust any of it? It gives someone permission to formfit the Bible to fit what they believe, disregarding things they don't like/agree with as error or inaccuracy, or as figurative and not literal.
I suppose it's possible, but once again, when you start adding concession upon concession it becomes a slippery slope. The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity, the more you end up with your own personalized version of Christianity that you will find both Christian and atheist alike sharing disbelief in.
Furthermore, all of those things listed so far are not even the main reason why I no longer believe. And that is the problem of evil. The God of Christianity is not good. Even if He did exist, I would not want to worship someone so cruel and arbitrary.
Now, what I am about to say is not directed to you personally, but it is something I have come across time and time again when discussion with Christians about why I no longer believe.
There is not one singular reason why an ex-Christian no longer believes. It was not just because of one specific thing, but rather a collection of things. If asked, they will give some of the main reasons, but they alone aren't all of them. What Christians will often do, and once again, I'm not saying this is you, but what they will do is grab one of those reasons and say something like this: "Oh, you stopped believing because of this one thing? How foolish. Clearly you don't understand how that thing can be resolved." They say it in a manner to suggest that one's deconversion was based on some trifle, shallow reason, and hints at that person's lack of understanding. This is incredibly annoying to deal with because it's never just one reason. It is a collection of reasons and realizations that build off of eachother.
I suppose it's possible, but once again, when you start adding concession upon concession it becomes a slippery slope. The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity, the more you end up with your own personalized version of Christianity that you will find both Christian and atheist alike sharing disbelief in.
Furthermore, all of those things listed so far are not even the main reason why I no longer believe. And that is the problem of evil. The God of Christianity is not good. Even if He did exist, I would not want to worship someone so cruel and arbitrary.
Now, what I am about to say is not directed to you personally, but it is something I have come across time and time again when discussion with Christians about why I no longer believe.
There is not one singular reason why an ex-Christian no longer believes. It was not just because of one specific thing, but rather a collection of things. If asked, they will give some of the main reasons, but they alone aren't all of them. What Christians will often do, and once again, I'm not saying this is you, but what they will do is grab one of those reasons and say something like this: "Oh, you stopped believing because of this one thing? How foolish. Clearly you don't understand how that thing can be resolved." They say it in a manner to suggest that one's deconversion was based on some trifle, shallow reason, and hints at that person's lack of understanding. This is incredibly annoying to deal with because it's never just one reason. It is a collection of reasons and realizations that build off of eachother.
Last edited:
"It is the dominant view of Western society..."
So, the answer to the question 'Who's to say Hitler was wrong', the answer, if I understand you, is 'Western society.' Myself, I'm not really into the 'most people think this, so it must be right' approach, if that's what you're endorsing...
"Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes?"
That's what I understood from your post 1068,
"He who demonstrates empathy contributes to the survival of the group and passes on more genes. That is what Darwin called survival of the fittest."
So, the answer to the question 'Who's to say Hitler was wrong', the answer, if I understand you, is 'Western society.' Myself, I'm not really into the 'most people think this, so it must be right' approach, if that's what you're endorsing...
"Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes?"
That's what I understood from your post 1068,
"He who demonstrates empathy contributes to the survival of the group and passes on more genes. That is what Darwin called survival of the fittest."
Just because the idea that the physically fittest specimen in a given emvironment survives offends you in that you automatically equate it with a sociopolitical-moral ideology that places value on killing, stealing and lying, doesn't mean that evolution (a scientific theory regarding physical characteristics with no moral implication in and of itself) leads people to kill, steal and lie and not give a hoot about it.
Incase you don't remember, Christians are several times more likely, throughout the developed and undeveloped world, to commit a prison-worthy offence than atheists. In America, Christians are 103 times more likely.
A person can have beliefs about the method by which humanity came to be that do not have to define their moral ideologies. I can believe you and I are physically, at the most fundamental level, the exchange of electrons, because it's true. That doesn't mean I place absolutely no value on your life. Quite the opposite actually. The complexity that those energetic exchanges give rise to makes me appreciate just how undeniably astounding this Earth and the things in it are. They gain value.
Incase you don't remember, Christians are several times more likely, throughout the developed and undeveloped world, to commit a prison-worthy offence than atheists. In America, Christians are 103 times more likely.
A person can have beliefs about the method by which humanity came to be that do not have to define their moral ideologies. I can believe you and I are physically, at the most fundamental level, the exchange of electrons, because it's true. That doesn't mean I place absolutely no value on your life. Quite the opposite actually. The complexity that those energetic exchanges give rise to makes me appreciate just how undeniably astounding this Earth and the things in it are. They gain value.
Last edited:
It does have to involve ignoring that your own will to survive, you own will to not be violated or murdered, would be violated by being murdered and that by murdering someone else your actions are not in interpersonal solidarity (you violate another's desire not to be killed against their will) because of that. It's really a matter of equilibrium; no person on this entire planet wants to be caused any suffering or caused a death they do not want to be inflicted with. So, it logically stems from there that in order to have that desire recognized one should not cause another to suffer unconsensually nor should one murder another unconsensually. Just the same, nobody on this Earth wants to be unwantedly violated in any means; by theft, by rape, by adultery, by violence. It is logically conclusive then that to see these things recognized, a person should not do these to another person.
Not everyone wants to steal, not everyone wants to rape, not everyone wants to murder, but EVERYONE doesn't want to be unconsensually violated in any of these ways. Thus, there is a universal human desire to not be unconsensually violated upon which a human being can base their moralities, and such a moral system is self-regulating and coherent and consistent in that it must always, constantly, take into account that principle. If I should at any time believe some desire of mine not inherent in all others, thus not universal (to rape, to kill, should I have such desires) is at any point warranted I should only need to ask myself whether carrying out that desire contradicts the universal desire not to be unconsensually violated or inflicted with suffering.
If it does, then I have my answer on whether it's right or wrong.
Take you for instance. You, like every other human, do not desire to be inflicted with unconsensual suffering nor to be violated unconsensually. Say I felt like punching you. I would ask if that violates your will not to suffer unconsensually. The answer is that it would indeed violate that will. Thus, I would decide not to punch you.
As for the suffering my own anger and suppressed desire to hit you causes, that is a product of my own cognition and emotion. You did not cause it, thus you have not caused me to suffer. I have caused myself to suffer and I should learn in future how to recognize and detachedly view that anger rather than be sucked into any tempting situation by it.
Not everyone wants to steal, not everyone wants to rape, not everyone wants to murder, but EVERYONE doesn't want to be unconsensually violated in any of these ways. Thus, there is a universal human desire to not be unconsensually violated upon which a human being can base their moralities, and such a moral system is self-regulating and coherent and consistent in that it must always, constantly, take into account that principle. If I should at any time believe some desire of mine not inherent in all others, thus not universal (to rape, to kill, should I have such desires) is at any point warranted I should only need to ask myself whether carrying out that desire contradicts the universal desire not to be unconsensually violated or inflicted with suffering.
If it does, then I have my answer on whether it's right or wrong.
Take you for instance. You, like every other human, do not desire to be inflicted with unconsensual suffering nor to be violated unconsensually. Say I felt like punching you. I would ask if that violates your will not to suffer unconsensually. The answer is that it would indeed violate that will. Thus, I would decide not to punch you.
As for the suffering my own anger and suppressed desire to hit you causes, that is a product of my own cognition and emotion. You did not cause it, thus you have not caused me to suffer. I have caused myself to suffer and I should learn in future how to recognize and detachedly view that anger rather than be sucked into any tempting situation by it.
Last edited:
Yes, I believe so, but being fit only means to pass on more genes. There are plenty of ways to do that without being violent, and in fact, maybe violence and force are the least effective ways of achieving this.
I think you can answer that for yourself. If you did these things how long do you think it would be before you were hunted down or simply incarcerated, perhaps for life, or until you were well past reproductive prime? In small human groups the key to survival is cooperation and effective conflict resolution techniques among community members. Not every act affecting evolutionary outcome is red in tooth and claw.
Natural for the lions, yes, but not acceptable to the gazelles, and kid yourself not, early humans residing on the African plains were often the prey. They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind.
I think you can answer that for yourself. If you did these things how long do you think it would be before you were hunted down or simply incarcerated, perhaps for life, or until you were well past reproductive prime? In small human groups the key to survival is cooperation and effective conflict resolution techniques among community members. Not every act affecting evolutionary outcome is red in tooth and claw.
Natural for the lions, yes, but not acceptable to the gazelles, and kid yourself not, early humans residing on the African plains were often the prey. They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind.
I'd like to sum up a lot of these morality arguments with one simple phrase.
You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?
You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?
