How I See Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(03-01-2013 11:54 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight. We are all born with a defect that makes us evil or "born in sin"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was born with no memories of anything. Just the insticts I was born with to suck on things (food) and of course no control of anything. I am pretty certain you and everyone else was born just the same. How the hell can someone that was just born be evil? How can they be anything at all, other than an eating, sleeping, shit machine? Until we are taught by the church (any/every church), to feel dirty. Explain this to me.

Born out of perfection or with the inclination towards a lifestyle or behavior that is not prime.

Not necessarily that we are born "evil" as evil may be interpreted to mean something to the likes of Hitler as much of Society sees him.

Given that there are two moral standards for this situation; ie. a 'Devine' Moral Standard and a Human Moral Standard.
The Devine standard is going to be more Absolute whereas the human moral standard will be relative and changing.

It is not by a human standard that anyone is born with the inclination to misbehave, but perhaps it is different if we put this up against a different standard.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 12:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It is not by a human standard that anyone is born with the inclination to misbehave, but perhaps it is different if we put this up against a different standard.
Don't think you've answered the question. How are babies evil by *any* moral standard ? And does baby spilling his cereal deliberately really equate to sin ? As in the kind of sin that results in hellfire & punishment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 01:44 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 01:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 12:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It is not by a human standard that anyone is born with the inclination to misbehave, but perhaps it is different if we put this up against a different standard.
Don't think you've answered the question. How are babies evil by *any* moral standard ? And does baby spilling his cereal deliberately really equate to sin ? As in the kind of sin that results in hellfire & punishment.

I indeed gave a response, so I think what you mean is that I didn't answer the question to your satisfaction.

This is honestly a Theological problem, so for me to babble along about something that even I am not even proficient in is firstly a "bad thing" to do.

Let me at least address your "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?" so I can at least show you where you're misunderstanding something -

If there are different moral standards than humans (Lets use freakn aliens for crying out loud since sometimes Atheists get pissy at me for using God), it would not be far fetched to see these morals as irrational morals from a human standpoint.

Ok, so lets say that these aliens are from a planet that is about 2 billion lightyears away (or whatever).
These aliens have an intelligence somewhat like humans (or whatever), that being said, they consequently have a moral standard (perhaps, but for the sake of this conversation - they do).

If in their moral standard, they believe it is morally wrong to be born of a certain material (ie. human flesh) than that is their standard. Albeit, the standard is relative to these aliens, but it is indeed their standard and not humans.

So back to your question - "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?"
Even if Humans are the only intelligent beings in existence, then we can still say that it is possible that babies are evil by someones moral standard. The reason is because people are generally relative in their moral standards. So someone from alabama could whole-heartedly believe that we are born with a morally flawed disposition just because that's what they believe (Without religious influence).

SO back to your question again - "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?" is a relatively flawed question given that we understand humans to have a relative, subjective outlook on morals. You're essentially saying that in all of humanity, you have running knowledge that every moral standard (for which there are as many as there are humans alive) does not include that which believes that babies are evil from birth.

Did I misunderstand you, or did I just OCD you?

lol

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 01:52 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
So... babies should go to hell because God's an alien ? About right ?

IOW God's moral standard is so different from humans that just about anything could be immoral according to him. Inc homosexuality, not believing in his existence etc ?

Hard to worship such a being no ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 02:22 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 01:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  So... babies should go to hell because God's an alien ? About right ?

IOW God's moral standard is so different from humans that just about anything could be immoral according to him. Inc homosexuality, not believing in his existence etc ?

Hard to worship such a being no ?

Again, this is quite the Theological issue in which I am not fully decisive yet.
I'm sort of trying to bring this whole thing to a different level so we can both understand it.
If we keep it at a Theological/denominational level then we'll have Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Presbyterians arguing with us about interpretation until this Thread is blown away.
I'm simply trying to bring to light the more broad issue of (I guess) sin. Or you could say 'not behaving right'.

I don't believe that God send children to hell if they die. I more favor the idea that after humans have been given a certain amount of time to make a definitive decision, then that's when they are held to a higher standard. Again, that's a Theological issue, and it gets shaky when talking about this with people who already have an issue with the very existence of the being in the first place.


Also, I didn't say God is an Alien - Are you bad with analogies? Not a big fan I guess lol
(Although, in different aspects, we could call God an alien. He is definitely foreign to Humans.. He just doesn't belong to a foreign country or nation.)


Here's something I feel I understand about Gods moral standard -

His standard isn't something to the likes of a list of what we should and should not do. That is more of a naive outlook.

Instead, His standard is that which, if we were to completely and fully adhere to, would be the prime of existence.
Every human being would live fairly and lovingly. Crimes would never happen, life would essentially be perfect in that regard.

Seeing it that way would change my perspective outlook on Gods standard thereby making it easy to "worship" him.

((EDIT: I think Vosur's right, I tend to avoid Theology and such things and try to look at everything from a more 'rational' standpoint'.. thereby making me feel not very religious at all. It's like I'm a "devil's advocate" for Atheists lol)

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 02:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 03:20 AM by Vosur.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 12:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Given that there are two moral standards for this situation; ie. a 'Devine' Moral Standard and a Human Moral Standard.
The Devine standard is going to be more Absolute whereas the human moral standard will be relative and changing.
Your argument begs the question. How do you know that an absolute "devine [sic]" moral standard exists and how do you examine it?

(04-01-2013 02:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  His standard isn't something to the likes of a list of what we should and should not do. That is more of a naive outlook.

Instead, His standard is that which, if we were to completely and fully adhere to, would be the prime of existence.
Every human being would live fairly and lovingly. Crimes would never happen, life would essentially be perfect in that regard.

Seeing it that way would change my perspective outlook on Gods standard thereby making it easy to "worship" him.
Both the OT (Ten commandments, laws for the Israelites) and the NT (Jesus) teach god's moral standard as a specific list of things that believers should and shouldn't do. The Bible does not support your view.

(04-01-2013 02:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  ((EDIT: I think Vosur's right, I tend to avoid Theology and such things and try to look at everything from a more 'rational' standpoint'.. thereby making me feel not very religious at all. It's like I'm a "devil's advocate" for Atheists lol)
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you (yet). Unless you demonstrate the existence of the specific god you believe in, every argument that relies on the premise it exists becomes null and void.

Arguing about the properties, attributes, standards and plans of a being whose existence is not established is futile.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 03:21 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 02:52 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your argument begs the question because its unsubstantiated premise that a "devine [sic]" moral standard exists is identical to its conclusion.

You'll have to eloborate further. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

(04-01-2013 02:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  His standard isn't something to the likes of a list of what we should and should not do. That is more of a naive outlook.

Instead, His standard is that which, if we were to completely and fully adhere to, would be the prime of existence.
Every human being would live fairly and lovingly. Crimes would never happen, life would essentially be perfect in that regard.

Seeing it that way would change my perspective outlook on Gods standard thereby making it easy to "worship" him.
Actually, both the OT and the NT teach a certain list of things that believers should and shouldn't do. The Bible does not support your view of god's moral standard.

I'm fully aware that the Bible has what can be organized into a "list" of what to do and what not to do. The 10 Commandments are a grand example of that very thing (A list).
What I'm saying isn't that there are no lists, just that the lists are looked at as a list like you would have in an elementary classroom.
It's a perspective issue that I am covering, not an issue of is and is not (There is a list or there is not).

One thing I can clearly say is that it is potently easy to poke fun at just about anything.
Someones name, a situation, a gender or just about anything else.
We can make fun of the Twin Tower situation and make a meme of it. All this does not shed actual light on the situation itself.
So for the sake of accurately understanding something, I believe it's best to avoid simple poking like this.

For example, saying that God is a "Sky Daddy" with a giant list of "Do's and Don'ts" has very largely brought even more misconceptions that that's exactly the situation.
Anyone can misrepresent anyone - so it takes away from the seriousness of the situation and sheds false light everywhere.

Anyways, not trying to dabble on - but certainly am trying to make a point.
It's basically just easy to misunderstand something if all you see is "a list of stuff I don't agree with.. so it's a list" Whereas, you indeed have your own list (Changeable albeit) or "moral code" that you try and adhere to. You may just not want to call it a list because it is all from yourself, and of course you agree with yourself for the most part.

Perhaps we could instead say that this is a list that has some that you wholeheartedly disagree with (and others that perhaps you agree with).
Then the issue comes down to whether this list would change mankind for the better (granted we adhere to it) or would it harm mankind.

So I am saying that the demeanor in which one looks at this list as "A list of do's and don't's" instead of a moral standard that would change mankind for the better - is the difference between an understanding and a misunderstanding.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 03:29 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 03:18 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You'll have to eloborate further. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I have updated my original post accordingly.

(04-01-2013 03:18 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm fully aware that the Bible has what can be organized into a "list" of what to do and what not to do. The 10 Commandments are a grand example of that very thing (A list).
What I'm saying isn't that there are no lists, just that the lists are looked at as a list like you would have in an elementary classroom.
It's a perspective issue that I am covering, not an issue of is and is not (There is a list or there is not).

One thing I can clearly say is that it is potently easy to poke fun at just about anything.
Someones name, a situation, a gender or just about anything else.
We can make fun of the Twin Tower situation and make a meme of it. All this does not shed actual light on the situation itself.
So for the sake of accurately understanding something, I believe it's best to avoid simple poking like this.

For example, saying that God is a "Sky Daddy" with a giant list of "Do's and Don'ts" has very largely brought even more misconceptions that that's exactly the situation.
Anyone can misrepresent anyone - so it takes away from the seriousness of the situation and sheds false light everywhere.

Anyways, not trying to dabble on - but certainly am trying to make a point.
It's basically just easy to misunderstand something if all you see is "a list of stuff I don't agree with.. so it's a list" Whereas, you indeed have your own list (Changeable albeit) or "moral code" that you try and adhere to. You may just not want to call it a list because it is all from yourself, and of course you agree with yourself for the most part.

Perhaps we could instead say that this is a list that has some that you wholeheartedly disagree with (and others that perhaps you agree with).
Then the issue comes down to whether this list would change mankind for the better (granted we adhere to it) or would it harm mankind.

So I am saying that the demeanor in which one looks at this list as "A list of do's and don't's" instead of a moral standard that would change mankind for the better - is the difference between an understanding and a misunderstanding.
I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what your argument/point is. Do you mind clarifying it for me?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 03:32 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 02:52 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 02:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  ((EDIT: I think Vosur's right, I tend to avoid Theology and such things and try to look at everything from a more 'rational' standpoint'.. thereby making me feel not very religious at all. It's like I'm a "devil's advocate" for Atheists lol)
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you (yet). Unless you demonstrate the existence of the specific god you believe in, every argument that relies on the premise it exists becomes null and void.

Arguing about the properties, attributes, standards and plans of a being whose existence is not established is futile.

I believe you're missing basically my entire reason for arument in the first place.

I don't argue only the existence of God but also the rationality of certain situations in the hypothetical conclusion that God does exist.
My wife believes in God, but is highly bad at Hypothetical situations. So say I would argue with her about the irrationalities of Moral Absolutes given the hypothetical conclusion that God does not exist and she decided to use your logic - she would shut down and ignore all of my arguments saying "Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you. Unless you demonstrate the nonexistence of the specific god you don't believe in, every argument that relies on the premise it doesn't exist becomes null and void.

Arguing about the properties, attributes, standards and plans of a being whose existence is already established is futile.


So you see, it doesn't work that way.
If you want to ignore any rationality I bring to the table by saying "It's all null and void because we've already established that God does not exist until you prove otherwise. And until you prove otherwise, your other arguments don't mean anything"
Then all we have is disagreement without rational discourse.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 03:40 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 02:52 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your argument begs the question. How do you know that an absolute "devine [sic]" moral standard exists and how do you examine it?

Alright, I see that you've helped me out here by editing a little.
Makes more sense now lol

Anyways, I actually wouldn't say that I am certain that a devine moral standard exists as much as I would say that I am not completely certain that a devine being exists. And I guess I would examine this standard in the same way we examine any other moral standard. Of course, morals are non-sentient and therefore cannot being examined emperically. We would have to find more philosophical ways of examining them I suppose.


(04-01-2013 02:52 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Both the OT (Ten commandments, laws for the Israelites) and the NT (Jesus) teach god's moral standard as a specific list of things that believers should and shouldn't do. The Bible does not support your view.

Right, and how else might someone teach a moral standard? I think we may end up running in circles with this one if we're not understanding each other lol

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: