How To Tell Right From Wrong

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

artisticsolution
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by artisticsolution »

Immanuel Can wrote: But you're an agnostic...what rational process helps an agnostic "know" anything about morality? For surely you don't want to excuse yourself from the discussion, do you? :shock:

So perhaps you could take your own question, and answer it. :) That would seem to be the least you could do in return for Christians agreeing to spend some time in the dock answering your questions.
It seems to me, you thought I was pretty good at knowing right from wrong in the beginning of this thread, when you wanted me to help my sister be a 'better Christian" with my impeccable understanding of right vs. wrong. :lol:

Oh how the Christians can change their idea of morality like a chameleon changes it colors! It would call it lying if I didn't want so badly to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't aware of what you do.

I have answered you time and time again. I was raised with christian values. I know exactly what it is to be christian. The fact that I call myself agnostic is because I can't lie, to save my soul, that there is a God, when I have not seen one. I do feel the holy spirit, but feeling is not seeing. Feelings are not proof of God. What I call 'the holy spirit' is probably present in everyone who has ever seen a sunset and felt 'gratitude.' This does not necessarily mean there is a God. Just because you believe since you have identified God in a 'feeling' , does not make it the truth.

The feeling you are attributing to "God" is no more proof of God than feeling horny is proof of loving someone. So, I think that is why no atheist can answer your question honestly. Because your question is a desperate attempt to prove God without tangible evidence. It is lying in order to have an axiom to base all your fears about your existence because you are terrified.

Your anthropology is wrong. You suppose that human beings are well-equipped to judge the morality of their own actions through nothing more than an imaginary exercise of standing in front of some conception of God they have. But there's nothing to guarantee that their imagination of God is anything like the real one, and there's nothing to warrant the blithe assumption that they are fair judges of their own actions.
No...be honest here...I suppose that CHRISTIANS are 'well-equipped to judge the morality of their own actions through nothing more than an imaginary exercise of standing in front of some conception of God they have.' And shame on you, as a Christian, you should KNOW that there is absolutely a guarantee that their imagination of God IS the real one (if there is a God). Hello, it's called HAVING A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. Or are you lying about believing in that too?

The individual is a fair judge as no one else is going to stand up for him on judgment day. YOU YOURSELF said that if one is not aware of one's wrong doings, one is not culpable.
In what court does the judge ask the accused if he "feels" guilty, and in what court does the sentence depend on the willingness of the guilty to acknowledge his or her crime? In none of which I know.
Boy, for a christian you sure don't understand God. You know this one...come on! OKay....let's go back to Sunday School cause obviously you've forgotten...God is good....God knows everything about you...You can't lie to God...you can tell God anything and he will still love you....so duh....there is no use in lying to God. He knows. What court on Earth can say the same?


Here you say:
Now, in its limited application to your sister, perhaps it made her think -- but perhaps not, too. And when she thought, did she think rightly? How will we know? For you have insisted that objective moral standards do not exist: therefore, if she now has qualms about...shooting Mexicans, wasn't it?...how can she know if those qualms are real moral insights or merely the sort of provincial squeamishness that people sometimes have to get past in order to do something necessary? She can't. And we can't know if she should, absent objective moral standards.
AND then you say:
One is not culpable for something about which one has no knowledge. You can't be "dishonest" unless you know what the "honest" truth is, and are refusing to use it.
And the Christian, IC, brings out Moral relativism when it suits him.

'Nuff said.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by attofishpi »

Obvious Leo wrote:It beggars belief that one could encounter a statement of such colossal stupidity in a philosophy forum. What the fuck is a "genuine" experience and how could one distinguish it from a "non-genuine" one? Luckily this is the 21st century and those afflicted by bizarre personal experiences can be treated with cognitive behaviour therapy and psycho-active chemicals. Fishy can count himself lucky not to have been around a few hundred years ago when he would have been marched off to the exorcist and had all sorts of foreign objects shoved up his arse, including body parts still attached to the priest. Unless Fishy was unlucky enough to be a sheila, in which case she would have been raped, flogged and then burnt at the stake.
lol.
This won't benefit my cause, but i reflect upon it with a wry smile. I once went in to see a psychiatrist of my own accord, pretty much to bounce some of my experiences of God and see what a "qualified" medical practitioner might think. My first question to him was 'do you believe in God?' to which he replied that he is a Christian.
I told him about re abortion and certain things that i had experienced over the years, and proceeded to tell him about the certain quirks upon the very globe of our dear planet. When i had finished he said just wait here a moment Mr... To which i replied that i had to go as my shift at work was soon to start, to which he replied 'it's a little more serious than that Mr...' and proceeded to hit a button under his desk. An alarm rang out and a whole bunch of people came flying through a side door. As you can imagine i was now quite distraught. I remained calm in the office and proceeded to tell them all how crazy they all are, like, you people are crazy not me!!
So i stood there surrounded by idiots, i could tell by some of their faces they were rather puzzled that i was talking normally, not fretting and making a scene and generally questioning why since i came in of my own accord to discuss a few things that i was now being committed to the nut job asylum.
I had to wait there as their protocol meant an ambulance had to arrive accompanied by some police officers. And there it was, a bed on wheels that i was instructed i had to climb aboard! So there i am, a fully functioning sane individual having to climb on to an ambulance bed\stretcher on wheels and be wheeled out to the ambulance! I found it all rather hilarious even at the time, but thoughts of one-flew-over the cuckoos nest remained at the back of my mind, and i was a little concerned about where things were about to head now.
So i got to this place where there were a lot of mentally troubled people. I called work and rather embarrassingly stated i couldnt make it in cos i was locked up in the funny farm. I demanded to see another shrink, but the earliest i could see one was in the morning. When i did see him i bullshitted my way out basically, yeah like all this shit is in my head, yeah i'll take yer meds and i'll be fine...etc...and hey presto - i walked out!
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Obvious Leo »

I hope you're taking this seriously enough, Fishy, because what you're describing is neither a trivial condition nor a particularly rare one but the pathology of such illnesses can be very debilitating and occasionally fatal. Even though I enjoy milking theists for every drop of comedic potential I can assure you that delusional thinking of the type you describe is no laughing matter.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by attofishpi »

Obvious Leo wrote:I hope you're taking this seriously enough, Fishy, because what you're describing is neither a trivial condition nor a particularly rare one but the pathology of such illnesses can be very debilitating and occasionally fatal. Even though I enjoy milking theists for every drop of comedic potential I can assure you that delusional thinking of the type you describe is no laughing matter.
Ooo Ooo..so serious. I assure you if i thought i was deluded in even the slightest way, i wouldn't bang on about God. I know the entity exists 100% fact - panentheism is IT. I can only assume the medical moron that i bothered to see being Christian, didn't like what i had to say.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Obvious Leo »

attofishpi wrote: I assure you if i thought i was deluded in even the slightest way,


You are the person least qualified in the entire world to make this assessment and I don't intend this comment as a personal slight. This applies equally to all of us.
attofishpi wrote: I can only assume the medical moron that i bothered to see being Christian, didn't like what i had to say.
It's far more likely that he was a competent medical professional acting according to the ethical standards of his profession.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by attofishpi »

Obvious Leo wrote:
attofishpi wrote: I assure you if i thought i was deluded in even the slightest way,


You are the person least qualified in the entire world to make this assessment and I don't intend this comment as a personal slight. This applies equally to all of us.
attofishpi wrote: I can only assume the medical moron that i bothered to see being Christian, didn't like what i had to say.
It's far more likely that he was a competent medical professional acting according to the ethical standards of his profession.
So by that logic, i should still be locked up.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Obvious Leo »

attofishpi wrote:So by that logic, i should still be locked up.
I have no authority to comment on your individual case and no taste for pursuing this line of conversation further.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by marjoram_blues »

Previously - M wrote: let me get this right...you think that the Bible's beauty lies in the way it is written to 'get to the heart of a Christian's heart'.
You think this is a clever way for God to know what is in a person's heart?
AS: No. Not God so much as other people.

M: ??? but, but...
AS earlier: What a clever way for a God to know what is in a person's heart than to give him some commandments. ..then write a book with all types of stories..and sit back and see what the person does.
AS: Meaning, it is written in such a way, that there can be many different interpretations…So that, the interpretations of the bible are not so much the problem as the hateful interpretations…The only thing we can do if follow our heart and mind. I am talking about accountability on a personal level.

M: ??? follow??? No. As has been said before – people can follow what is in their heart and minds to commit atrocities. Accountablity: is where we are required to or expected to justify actions or decisions. This is done from an early age and operates within our human system, not a divine one.

AS: Here's the thing, IC admits that you should follow God and not the church or him. But he also thinks you should follow his interpretation of the bible, which for me, his interpretation is flawed. Now mine might also be flawed....at least in IC's eyes. My point is, if I use his interpretation, then I am not following what God has put in my heart. I am not being authentic. I am following IC. One of the commandments is thou shalt have no other God's before me. Now that AND taking into account that I am the only one who will be held responsible for my sins when I die, I am going to go with what I know in my heart. Not what IC knows in his.

M: So basically, each person can make his own mind up about the contents of the Bible; and how it might tell them the difference between right and wrong. However, understanding this man-made ‘Word’ or text is different from any ‘knowledge’ you believe was implanted in your heart/soul/mind by something you call ‘God’. You might be authentic about following this feeling or knowledge [of what is right and wrong]. However, this knowledge, and its source, can clearly be questioned.

AS: That is why the test I came up with when I was little is so important. We all have different mindsets. Some of us are more capable of understanding than others. However, we all can be honest in our own minds, at least...even if we can't be honest to others for what ever reason.
M: Are you sure about that 'being honest in our own minds'? We might think we are being honest – as in being ‘sincere’. However, honesty also means being free of deceit. The mind can hold mistaken impressions – wrong interpretations of events - and there is great capacity for self-deceit. However, I agree that a test such as yours is invaluable in critical thinking.

AS: The voice in our mind will let us know our own understanding of right and wrong. And if it differs from someone elses. That is neither here nor there, as I am not discussing human law here. I am discussing God's law.

M: Hmmm. A ‘voice in the mind’ can mislead. Isn’t that what philosophy is about. Questioning what we ‘hear’ and think? Thank God, we don’t all think the same way – that would be as boring as hell. However, it does matter that we have some common understanding of what might be right and wrong action in our personal, social and spiritual lives. The question is ‘how do we know what is right and wrong?’ The answer might cause personal or societal conflict – the Bible (Father) tells me one thing; my mother another – and it just don’t feel right.

AS: This Christian idea of being saved gets you into heaven no matter what, I reject. Why would one even need to read the bible and follow the rules if this was the case?
M: I reject the whole idea of heaven/hell; also, the religious concept of sin and being saved.
Previously M wrote:
Nor can I see how it is the same as your personal testing of others to the sweet and kind part of AS - to assess reaction as to whether or not they are dicks. You admit it is 'not nice' but it entertains you to have lulled them into some sense of false security. Do you think, if there is a God, that God's Judgement Day will be so hugely amusing...
If there is a beauty in the Bible, then I don't think this is where it lies.
If there is a sweet kindness in AS, then I don't think this is where it lies.
AS: I agree that I am accountable for this behavior. And this is why everyone and I always joke I am going to hell. Because I think I am the only person I know that pretty much wears on her sleeve her sin. I hold myself accountable for my sin. I think it is impossible for me not to sin. I'm a huge sinner.I know this precisely because , I know how to tell right from wrong.

M: I’m tempted to write what rubbish you talk. But that would be wrong. What do you mean by ‘sin’? One meaning ( from OED) is: an immoral act considered to be a digression against divine law’. Or: ‘ an act regarded as a serious offence’.
Some might say that sin like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, the Bible might contain a certain beauty or beauties but not if written to mislead in the way you appeared to suggest (but now deny). I interpreted your words as: Lulling people into following certain rules, then on their Judgement Day telling them they are going to hell because they have been dicks.
Anyway, I’m beginning to tire of all this…fascinating as it is. It takes me forever to read and reply.

AS: Remember when I asked my sis the other day to take the test on her racism? Well it helped....she is trying not to be racist. However, because she is not used to applying the test on a habitual basis, yesterday, she said another thing that I had to remind her yet again, was not quite right in her thinking.
…. where to begin with taming the insanity? It goes from one crazy thought to another?
M: Keep up the good work. It’s called clear and critical thinking.
Previously M wrote: How to tell right from wrong. Think about it. It's tricky but not that dicky.
AS: You are absolutely right. Tricky not dicky is the way to be... But, as you said in the Argh thread. Sometimes you have to put your foot down so others do not take advantage. And THAT is where Moral relativism comes in to play...lol. Oh dear...did I just open THAT can of worms?!?

M: Nope. To clarify, I meant that ‘thinking about how to tell right from wrong’ is tricky, not that we should be tricky. (Perhaps I was being too much of a clever dick here?) Precisely because of all the variables to consider in real life. I can’t remember what I said in your ‘Aaaagh’ thread – but it was probably something about setting boundaries.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Necromancer »

Shouldn't here be a reference to Necessity of Atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Necessity_of_Atheism)?

Just in case the soul finishes discussion:
Van Lommel studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-deat ... el_studies
Phantom feelings just like Descartes' describes them in "Meditations" - http://www.em-consulte.com/en/article/126149
Finally, the ongoing experiments (Ganzfeld room standard) of Telepathy with Zener cards involved - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy, rather bad, no university studies cited. But what about "somatic experiencing" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_Experiencing

Well, well, I'm not going to push any, life is tiring in other ways. I have no strong feelings regarding the issue.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Immanuel Can »

artisticsolution wrote:I have answered you time and time again. I was raised with christian values.
Well, see, that's the bit that makes no sense. You seem to be arguing that Christian values are objectively right, but also that nothing is objectively right. If you can make those two statements work together, I'm happy for you to go ahead and show how.

You learned your values from some variety of Christians...okay. But what gave you the confirmation that they had taught you the right values? That's what I'm not seeing from you, and that's what I'm asking for.
Just because you believe since you have identified God in a 'feeling' , does not make it the truth.
Indeed. So from where do you you get your certainty about your morals?
Because your question is a desperate attempt to prove God without tangible evidence.
No it's not. I'm not asking Atheists to "prove God." (Honestly, I can't imagine where you get your ideas sometimes. :? ) On the contrary: it's a plain attempt to have Atheists and agnostics do exactly the same task you put to Christians -- to show they know how to tell right from wrong.

That's perfectly fair. Sauce for goose is sauce for gander, no?
No...be honest here...
It would seem this is the line you use when you don't have an answer to something. You accuse the asker of being "dishonest." Personal attacks are, of course, merely ad hominem, and completely off topic.
And shame on you,
Here we go again...
...as a Christian, you should KNOW that there is absolutely a guarantee that their imagination of God IS the real one (if there is a God). Hello, it's called HAVING A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. Or are you lying about believing in that too?
You're quite wrong about this. You're even contradicting what you yourself said above. You said,
Just because you believe since you have identified God in a 'feeling' , does not make it the truth.
Right on: someone can claim to have all kinds of feelings, and all it might mean is they're mistaken, hallucinating or on drugs. Or it might be a genuine experience, and we wouldn't know for sure it did. But there is absolutely no guarantee that imagination yields truth. Truth is what corresponds to reality, not what corresponds to imagination.

Consider that mass-murder Charles Manson thinks HE's God...And if your theory holds, then if he really believes it, it has to be true. :D
The individual is a fair judge as no one else is going to stand up for him on judgment day. YOU YOURSELF said that if one is not aware of one's wrong doings, one is not culpable.
Ah, but we also lie about what we know. We pretend not to know things we do know. That's the mendacity of the human heart. At the end of the day, there's but one Judge, and one final Court in which guilt or innocence is decided. And it's presided over by a Judge who sees hearts, not just the twisted rationalizations of the human tongue or the twilight judgments of the human mind.
...you can tell God anything and he will still love you...
And just pass over whatever you tell him, like an indulgent uncle? Chapter and verse for that one? :D
One is not culpable for something about which one has no knowledge. You can't be "dishonest" unless you know what the "honest" truth is, and are refusing to use it.
And the Christian, IC, brings out Moral relativism when it suits him.
Ha! Nonsense. It's not relativism. You've created a non-sequitur there. And you're ad hominem again, so you've got two fallacies in one sentence. :wink:

The concept in law is called "intent." You have to have intent-to-deceive, or you are not charged with fraud, you merely made an honest mistake. "Deceiving," by definition, can only pertain to situations in which the perp knows the truth and deliberately conceals or misrepresents it to the victim. Otherwise, the deceiver is himself/herself also deceived...self-deceived...and is a victim of the lie as well.

No "intent" means that you did the action of deceiving unknowingly, accidentally, or in good faith but with bad information. And you could not have done otherwise, given what you thought you knew. So no one ever goes to jail for that.

But if you DID know, or if you SHOULD HAVE known, and you chose not to "know" or "couldn't be bothered" to know, then you had intent, and you're guilty of deception.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Immanuel Can »

We I are having a bit of persistent difficulty in communication, I think it's obvious, particularly based on what you suppose I "ought" to believe, as a Christian. I'm guessing this may account for your assumption that because I'm not on the same page as your sister, I must be somehow being "dishonest."

So instead of assuming you're intending to be merely insulting, let me take your comment seriously: is there a rational way you could imagine I was misrepresenting something to you? :shock:

Maybe. It would depend on how much you knew about Christian epistemology. And I'm guessing that other than your sister and her friends, you don't have many examples to draw on. If you were going, then, purely on what you see in her, or were taught in her group, you might mistakenly think I was leading you off track. But I'm not.

So at the risk of being a little pedantic, I'll summarize what I've found out about your view since I started to look into it. This should also help explain the misunderstandings expressed by Atheists like OL. And it might show you're both not crazy, or on the contrary, I'm not dishonest. That would help further conversation, wouldn't it? :D

Here goes. On epistemology, there's a range among Christians.

One one extreme end of this range are people called "Fideists." Christian Fideists believe essentially what you and OL think of as "necessary" Christianity -- that is, they claim there is, and can be, no connection between "belief" and evidence. Christian Fideists also claim that to add evidence to "belief" or "faith" would taint it, and inevitably not make it real faith at all.

On the other extreme end of the range are people called "Rationalists." Christian Rationalists believe that evidence is everything; that in principle, an average person plus data is adequate to prove the existence of God and to generate a relationship with Him. Nothing supernatural is required as a preliminary, and no faith has to be involved. On can be 100% convinced, based on the physical or logical evidence alone.

In between these extremes somewhere are the vast majority of Christians. They are labelled things like "Presuppositionalists," "Classical Apologists," "Veridicalists," "Pragmatists," and "Combinationalists," among others; and they describe almost all major denominations and groups that are generally seen to be within "Christianity." All of these hold some degree of the following to claims to be true, though they disagree on the percentage balance between the two claims:

1) Facts, data, evidence and reason are relevant to the knowledge of God.

2) Human reason must be supplemented with belief in God or faith in God, or it is inadequate to produce a genuine knowledge of, or relationship with God.

The communication problem we're encountering is that (without realizing it, it would seem) you are using a Fideist model as descriptive of "true" Christianity. On the Fideist model, faith is everything and facts are nothing. Maybe that's your sister's view, although I don't think it can be held rationally or consistently. :? After all, even your sister must admit she needs, say, her Bible and some thinking on her part, to get any understanding of God. So I don't think it's really ever possible for someone to be a true Fideist, even if they claim to be.

The reason I'm not agreeing with you is that I am not the kind of Christian you take to be typical (nor are most Christians). If you want to pin me down further, I would be on the Combinationalist-Classical Apologist borderline. And almost all other Christians would be somewhere in the middle, not on the extreme end with your sister and the Fideists. For the folks in the middle, that is, for most Christians, facts, evidence, reasoning and logic are always relevant to faith.

Fair enough?
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
artisticsolution
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by artisticsolution »

marjoram_blues wrote:
Previously - M wrote: let me get this right...you think that the Bible's beauty lies in the way it is written to 'get to the heart of a Christian's heart'.
You think this is a clever way for God to know what is in a person's heart?
AS: No. Not God so much as other people.

M: ??? but, but...
AS earlier: What a clever way for a God to know what is in a person's heart than to give him some commandments. ..then write a book with all types of stories..and sit back and see what the person does.
AS: Meaning, it is written in such a way, that there can be many different interpretations…So that, the interpretations of the bible are not so much the problem as the hateful interpretations…The only thing we can do if follow our heart and mind. I am talking about accountability on a personal level.

M: ??? follow??? No. As has been said before – people can follow what is in their heart and minds to commit atrocities. Accountablity: is where we are required to or expected to justify actions or decisions. This is done from an early age and operates within our human system, not a divine one.
Had to quote all of that above to clarify what I am getting at. This is the reason I wanted to keep this thread about 'how Christians can tell right or wrong. I am not coming from the place that there is no God, here in this thread. I am coming from a place that, if there is a God, and it is like most Christians say...that He is a good God, then the stories in the bible (Christians believe the stories where divinely inspired by God) are there for us to know Him better and how he wants us to behave.

As a child, I was indoctrinated with Christianity. I was brainwashed, pure and simple. Now that brainwashing, coupled with the fact that when I became aware of right and wrong, I had a desire to understand myself, in relationship to God. I think most Christians do this...in their own minds. Try to sort out what God is telling us. It has never left me entirely, and this is the thing atheists don't understand about Christians. That having faith is not our fault, nor is it us wanting to blow smoke up the atheists skirt. It just is...it is always present in our minds. The God thing is apart of us. And while I can't tell you my beliefs are true, as I don't know that they are...I might just have mental issues caused christian childhood trauma...I still pray to a God I don't know is there. everyday. Sometimes with gratitude and sometimes just with the lord's prayer. Please don't be like most atheists and be cynical or suspicious about that. I do not do it in an attempt to be better than anyone, or to guarantee me a spot in heaven or whatever else pisses off atheists. I do it simply because that is how my mind has been trained to think. I can't help it...it is ALWAYS present. Even if I can step aside and truthfully admit. I have not seen God. I don't know if there is a God. The feeling I have inside just might be a mental illness. I DON'T KNOW! All I know is I feel alone and the running conversation, in my head, makes me feel less alone. No reason or rhyme to it. It just does.

This is why I come from a christian perspective. because I am aware that atheists don't have this running commentary in their heads. How could they know what it is to be Christian? I don't expect them to know. I do, however, expect Christians to know (At least the ones who have been taught God is a good God).

Okay so that was that explanation. Now onto the other point of the above quote. Okay, so...as a person, who was indoctrinated with Christian values, I, still being an inquisitive human, took those values very seriously as a youth. I wanted to understand what God was telling me to do, as I did not want to go to hell. And I totally 100% believe what they told me in Sunday school when I was a kid (meaning this is how i fell...hook line and sinker) ...that 'God was Good'. Now imagine my fear when I got a little older and they stopped telling me God was good and switched to, God will make you burn in hell if you so much as masturbate (seriously...they took us to bible camp and this is what they preached) well, I figured was done...I was definitely going to hell! Who the fuck can not masturbate? Not me, certainly! LOL Anyway, I just started thinking the church was fucked up to believe in a God so mean he could give a person a desire for pleasure, and then send them to hell for it. It just didn't make sense. So, in my head, I decided to read the bible from the viewpoint of "God is a good God". From the viewpoint of Christianity, that he is is better than me who is a wretch....and I thought about the scriptures in a different way. I was coming from the place of "God said this, how can I interpret with the knowledge that God is good...i.e. better than me. It lead me to purity of heart is to will one thing...basically. That the world was not going to cave in if I loved a sinner. If I only wanted fair play and good things for , say, mexicans and blacks, I don't think God would send me to hell for that. If I only wanted equal rights for homosexuals, I don't think God would send me to hell for that. If I wanted my atheist friends to go to heaven, I don't think God would send me to hell for that...do you see the pattern? It was the only way I could cope.

It is still the only way I can cope, internally, with the words of God in my head. I am sorry if you think it's rubbish...it might just be. But I can only be as honest with myself as I can be, right? I mean , it is impossible to be as honest as you think I should be. right? At least until I become aware that I am wrong and even then, it's hard to change. But at least one has more to think about.
M: So basically, each person can make his own mind up about the contents of the Bible; and how it might tell them the difference between right and wrong. However, understanding this man-made ‘Word’ or text is different from any ‘knowledge’ you believe was implanted in your heart/soul/mind by something you call ‘God’. You might be authentic about following this feeling or knowledge [of what is right and wrong]. However, this knowledge, and its source, can clearly be questioned.
Yes. basically each person can make up his own mind, and does. This is why all the fighting among Christians. If there was a consensus then Christians would not look suspiciously at each other. They would not even think, "God said, I will know them by their fruits..." when it comes to other Christians. This is my whole point about Christianity. If a christian can take that statement and truly believe that it meant that God wants us to judge others, then it is not in keeping with their other thought, "God is good'. Because a Good God would not want us to point fingers. It says as much in the bible. I think a good god would instead want us to take a look at our own fruit first. How are christians to know who (others) thinks right or who thinks wrong...(on a christian scale...not talking about the secular law here) except for by the bible. And how else to interpret the bible, with all it's complex ideas/stories, than with the 10 commandments and the quiet contemplation of what God would think of our thoughts and actions on judgment day.

Then you get a confusing story, like Abraham and Issac, which blatantly shows they confusion in Christian thought. The fact that Christians hold this story as an good story of obedience, when in reality...if they looked upon a person nowadays, who said, I must kill my son cause God told me to, they would think that person either evil or nuts. The fact that they believe a good God would tell someone to kill in his name, but that a good god wants us to stop evil when we see it, are in conflict of each other. It's those 2 opposing thoughts that give Christians the 'fear and trembling. As in God has placed upon us an impossible task. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

The thought that a good god would ask us to kill a person, but at the same time a good god would want us to stop a person from killing a child, is merely one little tiny story in the bible that leads to misunderstanding depending on who is doing the reading. The insanity of obedience as an absurd ideal , is present, in the back of most Christian minds. It is the natural 'logic' of man that nags at them.... that the story of a good god, AND, an Abraham (mean) god can't quite mesh. And it is in this application of Christianity, that begets the christian lie, that no matter what god does, he is good. When if they really believed God was good, then they must believe any wrong doing would be a consequence of free will. As in ...evil...is a man made construct. As most Christians, who believe the bible is the word of God, also believe that God is not capable of evil. So, if a story in the bible, makes a christian believe that it is okay to , not love thy neighbor...then by their very own account of God, they must be reading the bible wrong!

So is it any wonder, that when a christian will interpret the bible to say, jesus wants me to 'hate' (The homosexuals, athiests, mexicans, etc.) Oh, but I forgot...they use their double speak.,...and say...'hate the sin, not the sinner' but if that was the case, then they would not actively campaign against the people...instead they would love the people but campaign against the sin. Which means, Christians should want to help the people by giving them the same rights as Christians enjoy, as God gave everyone free will, or so Christians believe,but they don't, they actively campaign for unequal rights. which is akin to a punishment for the sin. But only other's sins...Christians rarely campaign for unequal treatment for themselves...i.e. to be punished for their own sins. Have you ever seen a christian hold a sign that read "No marriage for me because I have sinned!" No.
AS: I agree that I am accountable for this behavior. And this is why everyone and I always joke I am going to hell. Because I think I am the only person I know that pretty much wears on her sleeve her sin. I hold myself accountable for my sin. I think it is impossible for me not to sin. I'm a huge sinner.I know this precisely because , I know how to tell right from wrong.

M: I’m tempted to write what rubbish you talk. But that would be wrong. What do you mean by ‘sin’? One meaning ( from OED) is: an immoral act considered to be a digression against divine law’. Or: ‘ an act regarded as a serious offence’.
Some might say that sin like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, the Bible might contain a certain beauty or beauties but not if written to mislead in the way you appeared to suggest (but now deny). I interpreted your words as: Lulling people into following certain rules, then on their Judgement Day telling them they are going to hell because they have been dicks.
Anyway, I’m beginning to tire of all this…fascinating as it is. It takes me forever to read and reply.

What I mean by my sin, is whatever I think is sin to me in my head. I was having 2 separate thoughts, of the inner voice in my mind as opposed in the inner voice in other people's mind...lol. I can be privy to mine but not to theirs unless they tell me. Does that make sense? So if I believe something is wrong...that's just my thing. I am not going to make you believe it too. I am not trying to lull here or talk rubbish...only trying to relate my inner thoughts in relation to my experience as a Christian and possibly discuss why I think this or that using the christian bible...do you see how that can't work in a secular world? It can only work in a christian world because Christians know and believe what it says in the bible...or at least should know enough to talk about and defend what they believe. I am not advocating my thoughts about God for a secular world. Sorry if I gave that impression. It's hard to discuss Christianity.

*edited for clarity
Last edited by artisticsolution on Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote:We I are having a bit of persistent difficulty in communication, I think it's obvious, particularly based on what you suppose I "ought" to believe, as a Christian. I'm guessing this may account for your assumption that because I'm not on the same page as your sister, I must be somehow being "dishonest."
?
Again, and again we see the same delusion.

IC proceeds with the assumption that moral truths are objective. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, as he is here once again, his brain fails to draw a reasonable conclusion, and he persists in the delusion that:

1) Morality holds objective truths.
2) Other people might not have the right truths, but
3) Immauel Can, always knows the correct moral , and objective truth about any given situation.

His stated reason for this is that God exists and he knows what God expects of us morally.
What a lucky little prophet.

For the rest of humanity, we have to use reason and cajoling to promote ideas in moral thinking that we think are better than other ones. We have to understand the context; social, historical, and cultural to being to build ways we think are good morally. This requires work, effort and time.

It is hopeless to sit on your high horse pretending to have the hot-line to god. We've seen this all too often in history, from Bush and Blair; Constantine to Mohammed and from Mugabe to Dr President Field Marshal IDI AMIN Dada.

Urummph!
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by Necromancer »

Why not this version?

Christians know that the way to Heaven by God's word is the 10 Commandments. For sins they suffer the Purgatory, for much sinful life they go to Hell.
Now, the modern 10 Commandments are core of 10 Commandments, the spirit of it plus modern Laws and Regulations.

So the essential Christian life is according to the geist of the Bible, including the Jesus thing as saviour, guide to the Bible, plus accordance to laws and regulations (see respective country). Also to reject evil behaviour.

In addition, Christians are guided by the seven Cardinal Virtues and the seven Cardinal Sins in being prepared for Heaven.

But one should know that religious life is one thing, including the objective (Kantian) ethics and objective ethics by itself another. For Atheists to adhere to?

Objective ethics has own premises, such as truth of the World (as aforementioned).

Now what? Do we agree? :) 8)
uwot
Posts: 4961
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How To Tell Right From Wrong

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote:When I left I had put up an opportunity for all the Atheists out there. I had simply put to them HOW they know right from wrong. That is, what is their ground or legitimation for saying X is bad or good. For if, as AS assumes, Christians need some way of testing the matter of "right" and "wrong," then surely so do the Atheists (unless being "Atheist" means being amoral, as Nietzsche thought).

And all I've heard since I put up that opportunity is the crickets chirping.

So I want to put it out there one more time: Atheists, time to step up to the plate (or wicket). Take your best swing.
I thought I would bring this to your attention, Immanuel Can viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16386 . Ask and ye shall receive.
Post Reply