- This topic has 94 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
kejonn,
So, was man's “creation” a happy accident, or the end product of a design carefully crafted to bring about beings of “higher conscience”?
Also, in your opinion, does the god you describe have no capacity to intervene or no desire? In other words, given WJ's oft repeated rape scenario, does your god have no capacity to save the little girl or no desire to intervene?
Thanks, by the way, for being willing to be put on the spot.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 15 2008,09:38) WJ, It looks like we have come back full circle on a previous discussion we had. If you believe that all will eventually be saved then the question I asked is invalid.
(On the other hand, your belief does beg the question: Will the Christian rapist be punished more lightly than his athiest victim – or perhaps not at all! – in the afterlife? If so, isn't that still a peversion of justice to some degree?)
Rather than argue in circles, I will leave it as a question to those who do believe in eternal punishment for sinners. I can't think of anything that could possibly make justice compatible with such a belief.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 15 2008,09:38)
(On the other hand, your belief does beg the question: Will the Christian rapist be punished more lightly than his athiest victim – or perhaps not at all! – in the afterlife? If so, isn't that still a peversion of justice to some degree?)But you assume my belief fits your scenario.
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: John 5:22
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:47, 48
As men what we may percieve is less or more “just” may be flawed.
Yeshua the righteous judge shall bring justice that can not be questioned, for only he has all knowledge of every deed and act of men, including every word that proceeds out of the mouth of men. So the answer to your question is “no” in my opinion.
Blessings WJ
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 14 2008,16:50) kejonn, So, was man's “creation” a happy accident, or the end product of a design carefully crafted to bring about beings of “higher conscience”?
Who's to say? was anyone there who could record the event as it happened? No. Is it better then to accept the imaginations of ancient Hebrew writers, that we are the result of dirt formed and breathed into by Yahweh?
Any answer I give would be pure speculation. Any answer borrowed from any religious text would be the speculation of another. In the end, does it really matter how it all began?
Quote Also, in your opinion, does the god you describe have no capacity to intervene or no desire? In other words, given WJ's oft repeated rape scenario, does your god have no capacity to save the little girl or no desire to intervene? As I stated before, any real god would be practically unknowable unless it decided to reveal itself. Since all we have to go by is a myriad of conflicting ancient reports, it is practically impossible to sort out real revelation from false. In our age, no god has shown itself so we might as well assume it never has.
Thus, who is to correctly say what this god can, could, or would do. All we have is what we experience, and it appears that no god truly interferes. The idea of some reward/punishment system in the afterlife is the result of many factors, including fear of death and the desire of mankind to think that good and bad deeds will result in something if not addressed on earth.
Quote Thanks, by the way, for being willing to be put on the spot.
No problem. I don't have any issues with questions as I will answer them to the best of my knowledge, beliefs, and opinions.As far as I am concerned the only 'difficult' question for kejonn is about how he justifies his belief that a creator 'set things in motion' with humans as the intended result without at least constantly meddling with the environmental conditions in order to cause the right adaptations to happen in the right order. If there was intent then the mechanism must be about the most haphazard one possible and without also seeding some fortuitous mutations at various stages there was no guarantee of humans at all. If there is a more straigtforward interpretation of the evidence I am certainly willing to read it. The fact remains there is no reason to invoke a creator; such a being is an add-on and the only people who advocate it are already showing signs of not appreciating the nature of the scientific models we have to explain our existence.
Of course that is about the only question I can think of for kejonn because he has reasoned so well and fought so hard for his understanding that it is difficult to wrong-foot him, which I think is evidenced here too.
There are so many difficult questions for those who disagree with him that I'm not sure where to start… In fact I've probably asked them all before and I don't remember many satisfying answers.
How about some answers to kejonn's list of vestigial anatomy?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 14 2008,19:25) As far as I am concerned the only 'difficult' question for kejonn is about how he justifies his belief that a creator 'set things in motion' with humans as the intended result without at least constantly meddling with the environmental conditions in order to cause the right adaptations to happen in the right order. If there was intent then the mechanism must be about the most haphazard one possible and without also seeding some fortuitous mutations at various stages there was no guarantee of humans at all. If there is a more straigtforward interpretation of the evidence I am certainly willing to read it. The fact remains there is no reason to invoke a creator; such a being is an add-on and the only people who advocate it are already showing signs of not appreciating the nature of the scientific models we have to explain our existence.
The answer? I cannot justify it, it is based on belief alone. Nothing more or nothing less than any theist I suppose. But I am very open to allow my beliefs to evolve as science or reason shows them to be valid or faulty.Quote (Stu @ July 12 2008,20:47) Epistemaniac Quote Don't sell yourself short by only listening to the skeptical side of things.
Augustine, Aquinas et al are not actually investigating the nature of truth, but the management of doctrine. The thing is that no one is properly skeptical of the skeptical view. Make a good point against the absurdity of taking literally things that are not supported by evidence and what do the professors in the conservative seminaries, uh sorry ‘universities’ (who are not offering any kind of objective education at all) do? Do they give a robust answer to probing questions? No. They simply laugh mockingly and shut the door. They have no actual answers, they just take young people aside and give them the message of indoctrination. I note you say you were ‘busy sorting out your spirituality’. What on earth has that got to do with getting a proper liberal (with a small ‘l’) education? Did you learn anything honest about evolution or Spinoza or even Paine or Marx at the conservative christian college?The atheist is not postulating any beings and thus is not requiring faith. Honestly you claim a big fancy knowledge of philosophy but you make the simplest blunders.
Stuart
Augustine was part of a heretical movement and one could hardly question that a mind like Augustine's hardly made the movement from heresy to orthodoxy without a great deal of thought, and hence, much more than mere doctrine management.Aquinas certainly seemed to be a Christian throughout his life, then again, it hardly follows that he had an uncritical mind… his joining the Dominicans showed he had a mind of his own… also his education was steeped in philosophy, non-Christian philosophers. esp. Aristotle. had he become convinced of the reasonings of the pagans or Mohammedans , he probably would have followed wherever it is he felt the truth was to be found.
In any case, you don't know their minds any more than I can, and you certainly ought not say all that they did was to gulp down doctrines and teachings uncritically and then merely manage and regurgitate doctrine.
How do you know that no one was properly skeptical of the skeptical view? Have you checked everyone? How could you know this?
Secualr Univ. do not offer any kind of “objective” education either. Its easy to see what happens to professors at these “open minded” univercities once a science teacher wants to mention or teach Intelligent Design. Hey, if it is just a fairy tale why not look at it, tear it apart in the classroom? No, instead they persecute professors and intimidate them and threaten them with the loss of their jobs if they would dare mention ID. Its the Catholic Church's iron clad hold on religion all over again, only this time it is the cult of scientism that has the hold on education.
Don't make me laugh and call it “objective”. Atheists are not “objective” in any case, they are biased towards their own worldview. There is no neutrality, not from the Christians, and not from the Atheists. The objective unbiased scientist just investigating “the facts” is a myth, no such creature exists, for there are no uninterpreted facts.
No “Robust answers”
Please. Here are some “robust answersa, asnd these are just the one sin my personal library:Read
Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (1987)
Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Examination (1989)
Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Atheists and Theists (with Kai Nielsen, 1990)
The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for An Intelligent Designer (1994)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (1997)
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1979, 107 pp William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith William Lane Craig
Jesus Under Fire William Lane Craig
Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis Greg Bahnsen
A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (1994, 2004) Ravi Zacharias
Can Man Live Without God? (1994, 1996) Ravi Zacharias
Jesus Among Other Gods (2000, 2002) Ravi Zacharias
The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha (2001) Ravi Zacharias
Light in the Shadow of Jihad: The Struggle For Truth (2002) Ravi Zacharias
The Kingdom of the Cults (2003) (Ravi Zacharias Editor)
Christian Apologetics (Baker Book House, 1976) Norm Geisler
The Roots of Evil (Zondervan, 1978) Norm Geisler
Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Baker, 1980) Norm Geisler
Knowing The Truth About Creation (Servant, 1989) Norm Geisler
Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Baker, 1990) Norm Geisler and Ronald Brooks
In Defense of the Resurrection (Quest, 1991) Norm Geisler
When Critics Ask: A Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Victor, 1992) Norm Geisler
Answering Islam (Baker, 1993) Norm Geisler
Creating God in the Image of Man? (Bethany House, 1997) Norm Geisler
When Cultists Ask (Baker, 1997) Norm Geisler
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Crossway, 2004) Norm Geisler
The Psychology of Atheism RC Sproul
Not a Chance RC Sproul
Classical Apologetics with John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, Zondervan, 1984 RC Sproul
Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity, Zondervan, 1982 RC Sproul
Francis Schaeffer wrote, among many other books, these in particular respond to your accusation:
# The God Who Is There: Deals with the existence and relevance of God, and how modern man came to first distance himself from, and ultimately disbelieve, God as revealed by the Bible.
# Escape from Reason: How the rejection of the Biblical God causes man to lose contact with reality and reason.
# He Is There and He Is Not Silent: How God speaks to man through the Bible on the three philosophically fundamental areas of metaphysics, morals, and epistemology.
John Gerstner wrote
# Theology in Dialogue
# Primitive Theology
# The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards in 3 volumesThere are many many more books out there, these are, as I mentioned, simply some of those in my library that deal with Apologetics, and those of which totally discount your claim that some unknown group of professors :out there somewhere” will laugh mockingly and not answer “probing” questions. That is a flat out lie. And remember, your NOT LIKING the answer DOES NOT constitute their not answering.
I learned about secular philosophers when I took philosophy at Indiana Univ. at South Bend, and by saying I was sorting out my spirituality I meant, I took philosophy courses at a secular univ. from a professor who was an avowed atheist. OH… and THERE was an unbiased objective professor!!!! yeah, riiigghhhtttt
I learned evolution from a professor who believed it and taught it as fact, and who despised Creationists, and ridiculed them in class, in Anthropology at Goshen College. Again, a REAL unbiased professor, yeah.The atheist postulates the fact, not opinion, that no such being as God exists. The atheist can only say this based on FAITH because he or she CANNOT prove that no such being as God exists. Can you prove it?
The atheist often tries to say that the “burden of proof” falls on the theist, for it is they who are postulating the existence of something. But the atheist, it has recently bee
n realized, can no longer hide behind their imperialistic rule making. The atheist is making a very real claim about the state of reality, and is making a proposition such that no such being as God exists. Well then let the atheist come forward with their evidence for such a claim. If the theist has to provide evidence for their claim (never mind how any one might or might not find that evidence compelling, that is, for now, beside the point) then so does the atheist, and I for one, would just LOVE to see the PROOF for their claim.Lastly, I am not making any claims of “big fancy knowledge of philosophy”. You had made a comment concerning my lack of knowledge in regard to science. I was saying that you are right, and I simply stated what my education was in, and believe me, I know full well that my education DOES NOT make me an expert in philosophy. Read Alvin Plantinga if you want to have your brain explode. HE is an expert in philosophy. I am an arm chair theologian and apologist, nothing more.
blessings,
Kencrap, I hate that you can't edit posts… its 3 am, I should have been in bed long ago, I am sooo tired but wanted to respond since you took the time and effort to respond to me… so please pardon my typos above…
blessings,
KenOn what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian.
blessings,
KenQuote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,01:56) On what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian. blessings,
Ken
On what grounds can a Christian call anything evil? If you say the bible, will you then pick and choose which parts apply? Some Christians will say the Ten Commandments is a guide (though most don't honor the Sabbath), a small number will say the Torah is still valid, and yet another very large majority will say to love God and love people and that is the guide.No, Christians too have to base “evil” on societal norms, although the Christian values tend to be based on those norms that were prevalent 50 years in the past.
MOVED FROM TRIVIA THREAD
Kevin,
So basically your beef is not with God, it's with the people who wrote the bible and made up all this stuff?
OK. But what if they didn't make it all up? What if God really is sort-of human-like and has killed, gets angry, jealous and all the humanistic characteristics that are attributed to him? What if he hates homo's and will send someone to a burning hell for adultery? What if…… If in the end this is all true of God, do you want nothing to do with this God? Or would you rather go back and try to learn to live with and understand this God?
Remember we are the creation, he is the Creator (even as you understand creation). Do we really get to say how and what are Creator is like?
As kids, do we get to choose our parents? Some of us have had gloriously gifted childhoods while other's of us have been neglected and abused. When we are old enough we can disown our parents, but they have still given us life. The old saying is true, “You can run but you cannot hide.” And a favorite of mine, “It is – what it is.”
The reason I bring this up is because I understand that you are not happy with the Yahweh God and his story, so you are searching for another story that you do like that explains God. You will find one you like – there are scads out there for the picking. But in the end, won't you have just created your own version of a God that you like and is acceptable to you? What kind of God is that? And does he have any power? And can you trust HIM? And is he anymore true and real than Yahweh? How will you know?
The questions continue from here and never stop.
Love,
MandyMandy,
Missed this and the later comment in the trivia thread, answered here.
Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,20:09) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,01:56) On what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian. blessings,
Ken
On what grounds can a Christian call anything evil? If you say the bible, will you then pick and choose which parts apply? Some Christians will say the Ten Commandments is a guide (though most don't honor the Sabbath), a small number will say the Torah is still valid, and yet another very large majority will say to love God and love people and that is the guide.No, Christians too have to base “evil” on societal norms, although the Christian values tend to be based on those norms that were prevalent 50 years in the past.
on the ground that I have a God who is a law giver and that there are, in fact, moral absolutes….kejonn…. do you have any moral absolutes, if so why are they absolutes and what are they based on…? what authority?
blessings,
KenQuote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,16:03) Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,20:09) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,01:56) On what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian. blessings,
Ken
On what grounds can a Christian call anything evil? If you say the bible, will you then pick and choose which parts apply? Some Christians will say the Ten Commandments is a guide (though most don't honor the Sabbath), a small number will say the Torah is still valid, and yet another very large majority will say to love God and love people and that is the guide.No, Christians too have to base “evil” on societal norms, although the Christian values tend to be based on those norms that were prevalent 50 years in the past.
on the ground that I have a God who is a law giver and that there are, in fact, moral absolutes….kejonn…. do you have any moral absolutes, if so why are they absolutes and what are they based on…? what authority?
blessings,
Ken
But how are your moral absolutes different from your neighbor who may be a Buddhist? You say you are getting them from your god, but what if another claims the same god yet has a different set of absolutes?There are no moral absolutes. While it is wrong to kill, it may end up being the only choice if doing so prevents the death of several others. Theft is wrong, but there may be instances where it is necessary for survival.
In the end, our societies provide our morals, and as such, our morals change with time. If they don't then you should be living by the laws set up in the OT. And don't use the excuse “those were for the Israelites”. You want to follow that god, you should abide by his rules.
Quote (Not3in1 @ July 15 2008,16:04) Hi Kevin, After reading your post I think the thread that I chose for us to debate in (after moving my post from the Trivia thread), the “Losing Faith” thread is more appropriate. You've lost faith in God altogether. Even a God you will find that suits you will have one heck of a time convincing you of much, if anything at all.
That is what gets me about people who think they know what others are thinking. You can not know what I am about, you can only make guesses. It is much like a Christian pretending they know the mind of an atheist and vice versa. Both end up being wrong.
That being the case, what people fail to see that abandoning belief of one particular religious text as being valid is not necessarily abandoning faith in God. People convert to other religions all the time. Muslims become Christians and vice versa. Does that mean they have lost faith in God? No, it means they no longer see their previous religion as the correct one for them.
That's what its all about. We all have our own personality and mentality. We therefore either choose a certain set of beliefs or none at all. I think you know as well as I do that Christians don't even have the same view of Yahweh and Jesus, so why should those who have accepted another belief system be any different? We all end up making God into the image we believe, because God isn't too forthcoming about who He truly is.
Quote Kevin, your adopted belief system is missing one thing – the personal testimony of believer's. You think that the bible is flawed and that is the only way that you can know God – you're wrong there, bro. God is living. God still inspires. God still speaks…. Yet the testimonies are not the same. One spirit? I don't think so.
If God still speaks, why aren't new bibles written to bring ancient religions up to modern settings? As time passes, people of faith have to use more and more apologetics to make an ancient faith fit modern society. And they often fail, and will continue to do so as science and technology prove so much of it wrong.
Quote Do you know that I met God long before I was old enough to read or even know that there was a bible? What makes you so certain that the God you met was indeed the God of the bible? Did He tell you?
Quote Was this just the universe communicating with my soul? As for the miracles, resurrections and so on…..I've seen a few. I've experienced a few miracles that (and I know this stumps Stu) cannot be explained by even medical professionals. Resurrections? I've seen a few. Have you heard of CPR? 
CPR is not a miracle, it is something discovered by man. Show me someone who has been resurrected after 3-4 days, then you'll have something. Not just someone who comes out of a coma, but a clinically dead person.
And what miracles have you seen? You say they stump Stu, but what are they?
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 16 2008,09:03) Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,20:09) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,01:56) On what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian. blessings,
Ken
On what grounds can a Christian call anything evil? If you say the bible, will you then pick and choose which parts apply? Some Christians will say the Ten Commandments is a guide (though most don't honor the Sabbath), a small number will say the Torah is still valid, and yet another very large majority will say to love God and love people and that is the guide.No, Christians too have to base “evil” on societal norms, although the Christian values tend to be based on those norms that were prevalent 50 years in the past.
on the ground that I have a God who is a law giver and that there are, in fact, moral absolutes….kejonn…. do you have any moral absolutes, if so why are they absolutes and what are they based on…? what authority?
blessings,
Ken
true, althou
Thinking of Laws as personal excepted morals,
first without pressing the power button of gods to affirm one own morals as up with the highest?resaulting in the burning of anyone that has incounted a less fortunate lifestyle, from the first breath.
The Laws o morals is,
1, within the person, and the law of 2, expected morals is passed down within training, to escape what you can, the two, outer and internl, may not agree, circumstances arise, and guilt eats alive, destruction begins when honor fails what you are captive to be not free off, honor someone that has power to free you by understanding the fire.-charityKevin,
I'm running the kids to football and cheer practice, but I will respond later tonight. I enjoy your view, although I don't believe you are any more happy or “free” by adopting your new understanding than you were when you believed in the Yahweh of the bible. So if believing and searching out religion is not for freedom and peace, why even bother at all? Why not join hands with Stuart and say, “To hell with god and his so-called bible! He doesn't exist!”? This is your next step as far as I can see……. Sincere question, what prevents you from taking this step right now, this minute?
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ July 15 2008,18:15) Kevin, I'm running the kids to football and cheer practice, but I will respond later tonight. I enjoy your view, although I don't believe you are any more happy or “free” by adopting your new understanding than you were when you believed in the Yahweh of the bible. So if believing and searching out religion is not for freedom and peace, why even bother at all? Why not join hands with Stuart and say, “To hell with god and his so-called bible! He doesn't exist!”? This is your next step as far as I can see……. Sincere question, what prevents you from taking this step right now, this minute?
Love,
Mandy
Because ditching the bible does not mean you must ditch God
. I know Christians can't understand that.Isn't that up to God to decide.
If men ditch truth, then are they for the truth? And if they are not for truth, then are they really for God?
Only lives built on the truth will remain forever.
All other foundations will erode in time.
Some men will live forever and others will not. Each man decides which path they are on. Some men will perish. No amount of self-delusion will change that.
Quote (kejonn @ July 16 2008,09:32) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,16:03) Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,20:09) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2008,01:56) On what grounds can the atheist call anything evil? Culture? personal preference? The thing is, the atheist has no answer to the problem of evil that is in the least satisfactory. There is a problem of evil, yes, but EVERYONE has to answer it, not just the Christian. blessings,
Ken
On what grounds can a Christian call anything evil? If you say the bible, will you then pick and choose which parts apply? Some Christians will say the Ten Commandments is a guide (though most don't honor the Sabbath), a small number will say the Torah is still valid, and yet another very large majority will say to love God and love people and that is the guide.No, Christians too have to base “evil” on societal norms, although the Christian values tend to be based on those norms that were prevalent 50 years in the past.
on the ground that I have a God who is a law giver and that there are, in fact, moral absolutes….kejonn…. do you have any moral absolutes, if so why are they absolutes and what are they based on…? what authority?
blessings,
Ken
But how are your moral absolutes different from your neighbor who may be a Buddhist? You say you are getting them from your god, but what if another claims the same god yet has a different set of absolutes?There are no moral absolutes. While it is wrong to kill, it may end up being the only choice if doing so prevents the death of several others. Theft is wrong, but there may be instances where it is necessary for survival.
In the end, our societies provide our morals, and as such, our morals change with time. If they don't then you should be living by the laws set up in the OT. And don't use the excuse “those were for the Israelites”. You want to follow that god, you should abide by his rules.
who are you to so dogmatically cram your beliefs down my throat! Why should I allow myself to have to believe that there are no moral absolutes? Just because you say so? And you complain about dogma among Christians!! How hypocritical!!Secondly, who are you to tell me how to interpret the Bible? If parts of the Law have been fulfilled, meaning that some aspects of the OT law no longer apply, who are you to think that you can say otherwise? Can you say “hermeneutics”
? Goooodddddd….. I knew you could.And who are you to presume to tell me what Christians “have” to do….? You are funny. On the one hand you complain about the stereotypes that people lay on you…. what you MUST believe…. and then you turn around and do the same thing… again… hypocrite.
At any rate, what happened to your pluralism kejonn? I thought what was right for you was right for you and what was right for me is right for me? Who are you to critique my beliefs and say that they are wrong? Why change now, just because Christianity teaches things you don't like? Is this your system of ethics at work? You can conveniently change and one minute say that everyone's individual beliefs are their own business, but then when someone believes something you don't like or disagree with you can vocalize/write how wrong they are? If no one is right and no one is wrong, then Christians are NOT wrong either, and we can go on our merry way believing exactly as we like without the need for your judgments and dogmatic assertions that we are wrong, thank you very much. But, if you can insist on the right for your self to subject our views to criticism, and say we are wrong, then you need to get off your high horse and stop acting insulted just because the Christian says that you are wrong on this or that point. You can't have it both ways, and trying to is just Special Pleading on your part, and is fallacious reasoning.
How are my beliefs different from that of a Buddhist? The Buddhist abstains from various behaviors they consider wrong or bad or evil because they build up bad karma. Individual persons committing these acts are not, in fact, to be seen as individuals at all. Individualism is illusory. This ought to be an obvious departure from biblical ethics where individuality is maintained and viewed as important, and that people will be held responsible for what they do, as individuals. Further, Christians do not believe in reincarnation/rebirth, and do not fear that bad karma will come back to haunt them in the next life, or that they can redress some of the wrongs they commit in one life in the next life. lastly, the most important difference is that some forms of Buddhism do not believe in any god at all, thus their moral laws are not based on the unchanging character of an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God such that Christians believe in. eg http://nidahas.com/2007/02/23/buddhism-vs-atheism/ As far as ethical systems go, they are about as different as 2 can be. Sure they both have ethical beliefs, but the basis of, and the reasons for these beliefs are quite different
At any rate, Christians base their morals on the general ethical principles of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, the former interpreted in light of the teachings of the latter, which itself reflects the character of God.
In regard to your dogmatic assertion and unproven opinion that there are no absolutes, I would like to ask, “do you really mean that? Absolutely?” Relativism has an inherent contradiction in that it makes a universal statement, while stating that no such universal statements can be made. Saying that there are no moral absolutes is, itself, a moral assessment, so in is not possible to engage in Special Pleading here, the system is self referentially false and therefore no rational person should hold it.
here is a moral absolute for you kejonn:
It is wrong always and everywhere to boil newborn infants in peanut oil.Agree or disagree?
If you disagree, then you have no room speaking of a “monstrous god”, complaining about the supposed lack of morality from the “OT God”, your own morals are far worse.
If you say yes, then you admit that your system of no moral absolutes is untenable.
Choose this day …….
blessings,
KenQuote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,13:22) The answer? I cannot justify it, it is based on belief alone. Nothing more or nothing less than any theist I suppose. But I am very open to allow my beliefs to evolve as science or reason shows them to be valid or faulty.
A large chunk of our DNA is the same as a daffodil.So men are flowers. Do you believe? A case can be made here after all. But alas nobody wants to be a flower, so the theory fails.
Evolution is one theory that doesn't need God, so they think, but it is popular because men like the idea that there isn't a God.
Popular belief and truth are not the same.
Maybe men are aliens who drive big space ships. Perhaps life hitched a ride on a comet. Welcome to the supermarket of religion. There is a product just waiting to cater for where you are at.
Maybe men accept that which tickles their ears and the bible doesn't tickle many people.
Perhaps the biggest difference is attitide. One man's attitude is that this is not to my liking, another man says I will except truth and change if I have to.
Welcome to the valley of decision and the supermarket of confusion. Will trusting in yourself give you salvation?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
