gotigrz's Christianity topic, part 2 Options

[thefunkyredcaboose]

When we are all in hell together will we still be posting on this message board?

Or will we be forced to listen to SFBM and Dirty Water, Lotus Flower on repeat?

If it's the second I'm siding with gotigrz...

[Wambangalang]

we live in a pitiful corner of the universe on a planet that just happens to support life on some of its surface, some of the time. And its source of heat is on its way out. Theres no divine intelligent plan there.

As for natural disasters, we live on a cooling planet whose crust hasnt quite settled yet. shit's gonna move.

I loathe statements like "you have to find it within yourself" and "its a relationship that is unexplainable". Do you reaslise how blindly pathetic that is? You "found" it because you were indoctrinated at a young age. Has god ever spoken to you? What did he say?

IM DONE TOO MAKES ME ANGRY GRRRRRRRR

[Wambangalang]

This is an image of the hubble ultra deep field. Every single dot you see in this image is a galaxy. Every one.

The telescope was aimed at one unremarkable inch of sky and what resulted blew scientists away. 10,000 galaxies in this one image alone. There are billions upon billions more.

Science is ever more piling on the evidence that our universe is larger and older than we know. Religion simply cannot not fit inside.

[Deku]

I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems

[Senghe]

The telescope was aimed at one unremarkable inch of sky and what resulted blew scientists away. 10,000 galaxies in this one image alone. There are billions upon billions more.

Beautiful, isn't it.

[OutToDry]

I look at the nice pic of the galaxies and still see this image....

[Sonic Tonic]

Oh, I've argued with this dude on here before, and don't plan to again. No need, everything I wanted to say has already been said by pretty much everyone here. I've just been +ing a lot.

This post has been edited by Sonic Tonic: Mar 21 2010, 4:49 pm

[ridley]

I loathe statements like "you have to find it within yourself" and "its a relationship that is unexplainable". Do you reaslise how blindly pathetic that is? You "found" it because you were indoctrinated at a young age.

I understand where you're coming from, as I said in an earlier post I used to be a pretty staunch athiest. Statements like those you mentioned used to frustrate the hell out of me (still do actually) and don't get me started on quoting scripture to back up an argument.

Just like not all athiests are like Dawkins, not all Christians are the same either and "found it" because they were indoctrinated at a young age. I grew up as an athiest and was sure that the idea of God was a human invention to make us all feel better about our pointless lives, until I took the time to investigate the idea of human morality.

If this life really is all a glorious accident then morality, love etc can't be anything other than a human invention also. This seems like an okay answer until you delve a little deeper into the philosophy of good vs evil. I again implore anyone with any interest in the God vs No God debate (which anyone reading this thread must have to some degree right? ) to read the first few chapters of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity which looks at the question of the existence of 'moral law' from a logical perspective (and not a Christian perspective believe it or not).

Here's the basic premise (which I warn is very simplified, I'm no philosopher ):

1. Though the execution of morality is very complex and often subjective, right and wrong is not simply a matter of opinion - it is objective. e.g. "Torturing babies for fun is wrong" is regarded as a statement of fact, not opinion:
   

   "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some 'Real Morality', admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."

   
   
2. It is different to other "laws of nature" in that we can choose to disobey it (unlike gravity, mathematics etc)
   
   
3. This "moral law" is understood instinctively to humans - we did not create it, yet know we should obey it.
   
   
4. There must be something behind the moral law, compelling us to obey it.
   
   
5. The idea of a 'God/Guide/Director' is a better explanation for the existence of the "Moral Law" or "Real Morality" than any materialist explanation.

.


The first few chapters are actually online here for anyone who's interested in reading further...

I'm not trying to 'evangelise' anyone here, just perhaps encourage some serious engagement in this issue. It's healthy to challenge what you believe so that you can continue to grow and better understand why you believe what you do.

I certainly have times of doubt over all this, after all it is FAITH in God, not KNOWLEDGE of God. We would need scientific proof for the latter and as I think we've pretty much established in 5 pages of this thread, we all agree that just isn't possible.

Science is ever more piling on the evidence that our universe is larger and older than we know. Religion simply cannot not fit inside.

While "creationist" religion (i.e. man was literally created from dust 10,000 years ago) cannot fit inside this, there is nothing to say that Christianity is not compatible with science/astronomy. I'm pretty sure the vastness of the universe is actually mentioned several times in the bible...

[Wambangalang]

we have instinctive moral law because if we did not we couldnt have gotten very far as a species. We know we do not kill each other if we want to survive. Are you telling me that we learned this only when we got to the foot of mount sainai and were given the commandments? We would never have gotten there if we didnt know that raping and killing was wrong.

And dont get me started on the morals preached in the new and old testament. Lisence to hold slaves, divine instruction to stone adulterers. The list is long and horrific. We abolished slavery, got womens rights, are getting there with tolerating gays, all this without help from the bible.

fuck this now im DONE.

[ridley]

Hey mate, don't mean to get you angry or offend - just trying to present another point of view on the topic that's a bit 'calmer' than some of the inflammatory stuff that's been posted to date.

we have instinctive moral law because if we did not we couldnt have gotten very far as a species. We know we do not kill each other if we want to survive.

I used to think that's what the moral law referred to as well until I read this rebuttal by C.S. Lewis. It's a bit lengthy and if you're 'DONE' you probably don't want to read it - but I just thought I'd post anyhoo as it explains what is actually meant by 'the moral law' better than I could:

Some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct--by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Are you telling me that we learned this only when we got to the foot of mount sainai and were given the commandments?

I'm not saying that at all, in fact I'm saying the exact opposite - since we have evolved, humans have always known right and wrong. The moral law is a fact of human existence but is above human instinct, it is not necessarily essential for survival (in fact it often puts us at risk). Every other species on the planet has evolved and survived until today without a "moral law" - animals are driven purely by instinct, humans are unique in their knowledge about a "higher good", a "real morality" that exists outside of us.

All other laws of nature: gravity, mathematics etc are observations are how things are. Instincts are the same, observations about how things behave, that can be explained in terms of biological/chemical processes. What is different about the moral law is that it is about the ways things ought to be, a moral standard that all people (besides the mentally ill) feel pressing on them, a standard that some of us live up to some of the time and which none of us live up to all of the time.

The question is how does this kind of law (which is outside of us, not based in biological instinct, but still definitely real) exist in a purely material universe in which we are simply animals with no spiritual dimension?

To me it suggests that there has to be something out there resembling a "conscious mind" that prefers us to behave in a certain way, even when it is not always in our best interests for survival.

The alternative, that our world is just an accident without purpose in which life is "just a bunch of stuff that happens", I find much harder to believe...

And dont get me started on the morals preached in the new and old testament. Lisence to hold slaves, divine instruction to stone adulterers. The list is long and horrific.

I certainly can't explain all the inconsistencies between the old and new testaments and yeah, I get that it's pretty weak to claim that they're a product of the societies they were written in, divine instruction is always questionable, blah blah, but hey - that's what we're dealing with - an imperfect book with many authors from many different times. To me the only "perfect morality" found in the bible that can't be questioned are the 10 commandments and the life and teachings of Jesus.

We abolished slavery, got womens rights, are getting there with tolerating gays, all this without help from the bible.

Good point with women's right and homosexuality (while they are plenty of churches in favour of these causes there are definitely more against at present), but I would argue that the bible had a HUGE influence of the abolishment of slavery (Martin Luther King Jr?) and that the vast majority of advocacy and charity organisations have their origins in Jewish/Christian ideals.

Sorry for the long post, I think just about DONE too

This post has been edited by ridley: Mar 22 2010, 12:25 am

[gotigrz]

thanks, for the long post... i might have to get that book.

i think it's clear that i'm not one to argue for Christianity. i tend to step on a few toes. but, i think it's also safe to say that no one here should argue atheism. cause using foul language and just insulting people isn't gonna get you anywhere fast. as far as i can tell, ridley has posted the most relatable argument that neither side can say is biased.

[Pokey]

I dont get why Ridley isn't more convinced of God's existence, afterall he's a Geelong supporter who had God and now God's son play for them



This post has been edited by Pokey: Mar 22 2010, 10:13 am

[Merica]

i think it's clear that i'm not one to argue for Christianity.

[gotigrz]

not sure why that's funny. all i meant was that i'm not too keen on getting through to people that don't feel the way that i do.

but, i think everyone, atheists and believers alike, should read that c s lewis link that ridley provided. it shines an entirely different light on the subject.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

thanks, for the long post... i might have to get that book.

i think it's clear that i'm not one to argue for Christianity. i tend to step on a few toes. but, i think it's also safe to say that no one here should argue atheism. cause using foul language and just insulting people isn't gonna get you anywhere fast. as far as i can tell, ridley has posted the most relatable argument that neither side can say is biased.

It isn't that you step on toes, it is that you rarely know what you are talking about. You argue from your own personal experience, not taking into account the experience of anyone else. Until you learn to do that you will always "step on toes."