Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

No and we don't need that. Common sense, empathy and "don't do to the others what I don't want them to do to me" is all what you need.

Btw not even the bible is clear with that morality when in one chapter it clearly says "don't kill" and on others it tells the believer to kill people throwing rocks at them if they work on Sunday or if a woman comited adultery.

Common sense and empathy are relative things. Common sense about what and by whose standards on what is supposed to be common? Empathy towards who? In Nazi Germany it was common sense for lots of people to do what they did and they had empathy towards people but not towards them you would've like them to have. What is common sense now wasn't common sense centuries ago and isn't probably going to be common sense centuries from now.

Actually, I could use "common sense" to explain the "don't kill" thing to you. First of all, it is you shall not murder in the original language. Secondly, even when people have had this translation where it reads "kill" instead of "murder" people have had common sense about what it means. Surely when the commands were given people understood that this command would mean something else than what comes to how criminals and other transgressors of law should be dealt with. Just as when death penalty was used pretty much everywhere people understood that if the law told killing a person is wrong, they understood the difference between murdering someone and giving a punishment after breaking the law. Even today the biggest reason for lots of people to not want death penalty to exist is the possibility of an innocent person being killed instead of killing, say, a mass murderer by the state. This has been common sense for hundreds and even thousands of years.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

It strikes me that human beings (religious or not) are very situational with their ideas of right and wrong, and unfortunately those ideas of right and wrong are very often momentary and molded by self-interest.

I agree with this assessment. As I said, my observation is that Christian morality is somewhat unremarkable. I am familiar with the philosophical argument as to why morality with a 'transcendent foundation', as you say, is so important. However, if the source of that morality cannot be easily demonstrated, is it actually foundational?

Christians across all denominations do not agree on morality, Christians on an individual basis certainly do not agree on morality, and Christian moral beliefs have evolved over time.

There's an impossible chicken-and-the-egg issue. Do Christians actually use God as a foundational source for their morality or do they just come to a moral conclusion using a lot of the same principles most human beings do, and then after apply God as an alleged source of that morality?

There is a lot of misrepresenting of the Christian position here on ethics. A few points:

- Christians do not say that atheists cannot be morally decent people.

- Christians do not say that atheists cannot know the moral law

- Christians do not say the only reason we strive to be good is because we fear Hell and desire heavenly reward.

I sincerely believe you believe this. But unfortunately, I have literally had the opposite said to my face.

It all goes back to the root problem. Arguments that "Christianity believes x" generally end up unconvincing simply because Christianity is so broad. If you guys cannot convince other Christians of certain moral ethical principles that you supposedly share, then of course convincing someone that is actively skeptical of them would be even more problematic.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

From a secular point of view, ethics by "common sense" is a pretty bad idea. Humans don't really have common sense - we have pattern recognition software that can be profoundly overactive and rife with confirmation bias.

Common sense has the same problems as I just listed above - people who say they share common sense often don't agree on all (or even most) of their ethical beliefs either as a group or individual basis, and 'common sense' has evolved over time.

It's okay to simply admit that ethics are really, really complicated, regardless of your source.

 

[VAL0R]

S Sàmban , my responses to your post are below in bold.

I used to be a Christian (Roman Catholic to be specific) but slowly grew into weak atheism. There were just too many glaring holes into the stories and teachings as I understood them.

Currently I don’t believe in any god as defined by any book/teaching. I don’t discount the idea of a god. I just think if there was a god, he/she/it would be so incomprehensible to us that we wouldn’t even know it, so this is practically the same as not believing in one.

Traditionally theologians believe that we can come to know there is a God through reason alone. However, as you imply, God is infinitely beyond us and so there is much about Him that we could never know unless He chose to reveal it to us, as He did in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the scriptures, the prophets, etc.

Out of curiosity, I have some questions for believers itt (these are some of the questions I struggled with and eventually became an atheist once I found my own answers)

What makes you so sure that you picked the right religion and the right subset of that religion?

Through reason, as I said above, I believe you can establish there is one God. Once monotheism is established there are really only 3 games in town: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I believe in ancient Judaism up to the arrival of Jesus and I share their sacred scriptures. Most Jews deny that Christ is their long promised messiah, but I think they are mistaken (interestingly, their/my prophet [Isaiah, I believe] says the Jews will reject the messiah when he arrives). So that's where I split with Judaism, at Jesus. Then, 900ish(?) years later Islam comes along and for many reasons I won't take the time to get into now, I find it relatively easy to dismiss. So at this point I'm a Christian. I ask myself, "where is the truest form of Christianity found in the world?" and I struggle with this question for years as a Protestant.

Then my best friend (who along with myself was doctrinally very anti-Catholic in college) converts to Catholicism. I was shocked and upset and I knew I could no longer dismiss Catholicism outright because he was brilliant, frankly, and taught me most of the theology I held and I knew he must have very powerful, convincing reasons for his conversion. He has sought the truth with more vigor than anyone I have ever met. It's not even close. He locked himself up in a library or his room and just devoured books on philosophy, history, etc., and praying for sometimes hours a day for God to reveal the truth to him. Jesus promised if you seek, you shall find, and he was seeking like crazy!

So, I started studying more about the Church and realized I knew almost nothing about her and that much of what I thought I knew was only a warped caricature. But what really shook me was how Catholic the early Church was (and I mean, really, really early). I understood how Protestants didn't even exist for the first 1500 years of Church history and how that didn't make sense with how Jesus promised that he would send his Spirit to guide the Church in all truth. Protestants had fractured into 40,000+ denominations, yet Christ prayed to the Father 'may they be one as we are one', and Christ's prayers must infallibly be answered, as he is God. Yet, the Catholic Church was one, was ancient, with apostolic succession going back to the apostles and had a legitimate claim that they were the Church established by Jesus Christ himself when he told Peter, "upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church."

The story of Adam and Eve has a lot interesting conclusions. They were supposedly created in god’s image, with no knowledge of good or evil. Yet, both were tricked to sin by the devil (remember, they had no knowledge of good/evil and were in god’s image). Why did an omnipotent being choose to let the devil near the social equivalent of naive children?

I don't know why He chose these circumstances. Adam and Eve did know that they were disobeying God by eating the fruit as God had directly commanded them not to do so. So they willingly did evil and are therefore blameworthy.

Either [I won't quote and repost blatant blasphemy, so I'm editing this part out] or this is all part of his plan. The various acts of prophecy throughout the Bible suggests the latter. If so, then it suggests life is predetermined and there is no free will. So what’s the point?

Catholic Doctor of the Church and philosopher, Saint Thomas Aquinas, argued that there is no contradiction between the providence of God and human free will. I agree with him. That's a long discussion in itself.

Why did god have a chosen people? Doesn’t that seem a bit petty for an omnipotent being? Clearly this was not what god ultimately wanted as Jesus would later come and change that.

No, I don't think it's petty and Jesus isn't changing the status of Jews as God's chosen, as far as I can tell. More like 'Gentile branches are being grafted onto the Jewish tree.' Paul, the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles said that once the full number of Gentiles enters the Church, "all Israel will be saved." The prophets are Jews, the apostles are Jews, the God bearer and mother of God is a Jewess and Jesus the Lord himself is a Jew.

Why was there an Old Testament and then a New Testament with a pretty drastic change in tone and laws?

The "change in tone" is wildly exaggerated in my opinion. God is the same God in both. As far as the OT laws, like the cleanliness laws, etc., I'm honestly not entirely sure why we aren't required to follow them now. Perhaps now that the Gentiles filled the Church, the more excluding laws to separate Jews from other nations are less relevant? Or the laws themselves were shadows of what was to come and be fulfilled, like animal sacrifice being fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ. I do plead some ignorance here.

However you spin it, it implies something changed which then implies god has limits and is not omnipotent.

Because God has dealt with a certain subset of humans differently than another (for various reasons) does not in any way contradict His omnipotence.

Heck, the very existence of Jesus implies that god has limits (he wouldn’t need Jesus to save man; he should have had the foresight to create a “Jesus mechanism” from the start of creation).

Who said God "needed" to become incarnate as Jesus to save humanity? It's the way God chose to order salvation history, but he was not compelled to do so. God does as God wills.

I’m sure some of you must have thought about these things so I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on these Christian Gaf.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Guys, I think the argument from morals is very misunderstood here. Please watch this short video for a better understanding of what Christians are getting at.

WLC's moral argument isn't unique though - it has the same philosophical problems that other apologist have had.

1) It's circular because the existence of God is assumed, used to explain absolute morality, and then the existence of absolute morality is used to prove the existence of God
2) It doesn't solve the Euthyprho dilemma - is God also bound by some ethical principles, if not and he is the source of all morality how can we be absolutely confident his moral beliefs are not malevolent? I know this sounds insulting, but recognize this is how Christians believe about the moral code of every other religion.
3) Going back to my previous post, it still lacks the one thing everyone is looking for - an actual toolkit that lets you know if something is morally right or wrong. If you're going to argue for the existence of morality, but you can't actually demonstrate that morality - what's the point?

Disclaimer: I didn't actually watch the video; however, I am familiar with WLC's position on the argument from morality and was actively engaged with the Reasonable Faith chapter at my university back when I was student.

 

[VAL0R]

It all goes back to the root problem. Arguments that "Christianity believes x" generally end up unconvincing simply because Christianity is so broad. If you guys cannot convince other Christians of certain moral ethical principles that you supposedly share, then of course convincing someone that is actively skeptical of them would be even more problematic.

When I say, "Christians believe...", I mean something like "well informed Christians who are in agreement with the general thrust of historic Christian thought, scholarship and biblical exegesis." Or when I say, "Catholics believe...", I mean something like, "faithful Catholics who are in obedience to the Catholic magisterium teaching authority."

 

[VAL0R]

WLC's moral argument isn't unique though - it has the same philosophical problems that other apologist have had.

1) It's circular because the existence of God is assumed, used to explain absolute morality, and then the existence of absolute morality is used to prove the existence of God
2) It doesn't solve the Euthyprho dilemma - is God also bound by some ethical principles, if not and he is the source of all morality how can we be absolutely confident his moral beliefs are not malevolent? I know this sounds insulting, but recognize this is how Christians believe about the moral code of every other religion.
3) Going back to my previous post, it still lacks the one thing everyone is looking for - an actual toolkit that lets you know if something is morally right or wrong. If you're going to argue for the existence of morality, but you can't actually demonstrate that morality - what's the point?

Disclaimer: I didn't actually watch the video; however, I am familiar with WLC's position on the argument from morality and was actively engaged with the Reasonable Faith chapter at my university back when I was student.

1) It's not circular. The conclusion logically follows the premises.
Premise 1: "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist"
Premise 2: "Objective moral values and duties do exist"
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

You may deny one of those premises and we'd have to discuss that (you deny 2, right?). But if like many people, you accept both premises 1 & 2, the conclusion is inescapable.

2) The so-called Euthyphro dilemma is dealt with in the video. Please watch it. Basically the answer is that what is morally good flows from the nature of God, the source of goodness.
3) I believe we do have "toolkits" at our disposal. First, our consciences that were given to us as part of our nature by God, inform us of the basic moral law. Second, God revealed His will and laws through the prophets, scriptures and Jesus Christ. Their words are a toolkit for us. Lastly, God instituted the Catholic Church who interprets the scriptures for the people, so that no one has to be a biblical scholar to understand what God wants, Mother Church can guide us all. Those are 3 pretty great toolkits.

 

[Airola]

What makes you so sure that you picked the right religion and the right subset of that religion?

About religion in general, first of all every path of thinking I have taken has come to the conclusion that there must be a God of some sort.
Then thinking more about that, I think monotheism makes the most sense.
And then comparing, say, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Christianity is the one that stands out of that trio. The Jewish scriptures have prophecies that clearly point to Jesus Christ. In fact some Jews even ignore those texts because they would lead to awkward questions about the Messiah.
What comes to Islam, they make the claim that Jesus was never either crucified or killed and that goes against everything historians agree on about Jesus.

What comes to the different denominations, I personally think it most often doesn't matter what church you belong to - if any church. I know plenty of people who aren't part of any established church even though they believe Jesus is the Messiah. Very often different denominations agree on what matters the most what comes to salvation of human beings and in my opinion that's the only thing that really counts. Everything that goes beyond that is mostly just about the specifics of how the metaphysical reality works.

The story of Adam and Eve has a lot interesting conclusions. They were supposedly created in god’s image, with no knowledge of good or evil. Yet, both were tricked to sin by the devil (remember, they had no knowledge of good/evil and were in god’s image). Why did an omnipotent being choose to let the devil near the social equivalent of naive children? Either god is an asshole or this is all part of his plan. The various acts of prophecy throughout the Bible suggests the latter. If so, then it suggests life is predetermined and there is no free will. So what’s the point?

Why you think there are only two possibilities? That he either is an asshole or it is part of his plan? And why do you think it being part of his plan means there is no free will?

Why did god have a chosen people? Doesn’t that seem a bit petty for an omnipotent being? Clearly this was not what god ultimately wanted as Jesus would later come and change that.

Maybe he knew Jesus would come through that certain group of people and that's the reason they were his people. Surely God would want to support and guide (sometimes through blessings and sometimes through harsh guidance) the people that are essential for the Messiah to appear in the best and most efficient place and time as possible (it surely seems to be so that the time and place was pretty damn good based on how far and how quickly the message has been spread).

Why was there an Old Testament and then a New Testament with a pretty drastic change in tone and laws? However you spin it, it implies something changed which then implies god has limits and is not omnipotent. Heck, the very existence of Jesus implies that god has limits (he wouldn’t need Jesus to save man; he should have had the foresight to create a “Jesus mechanism” from the start of creation).

First of all, the law in the OT was for Jews. It wasn't for Gentiles. Maybe that law was needed to set up a world most optimal for the Messiah to come in a world where we still have free will. Also surely if you would believe God has amazingly great amount of knowledge about future moments there is always the possibility that he knew that without having harsh rules for this certain group of people the future would be worse than what it was with those rules. When The Messiah was born there obviously would be new rules because the old purpose of the old ones had been fulfilled.

Secondly, what comes to limits, I think that even if you could say that God doesn't fall into whatever you feel is required to be omnipotent, no matter how much God would fall short on that is so amazingly high above where we humans are in that scale that it's perfectly ok to call that kind of a being a God. There is also the possibility of God willingly limiting himself (surely if you are that hardcore about what being omnipotent means it would also include the possibility of limiting oneself) to allow perfect free will for us. And there is the possibility that what you think omnipotency means is actually logically impossible. Then the true omnipotency would be something different from what you think it should be and God could very well be exactly what being omnipotent would mean.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Lastly, God instituted the Catholic Church who interprets the scriptures for the people, so that no one has to be a biblical scholar to understand what God wants, Mother Church can guide us all. Those are 3 pretty great toolkits.

WTW is mother church? I’ve never heard that term. God didn’t institute the Catholic Church either. Man did. If it were God, please explain how His sabbath isn’t kept on the proper day, holidays are mixed with pagan days, and there seems to be many graven images/idols allowed within the “church”? The image of Christ portrayed by the Catholic Church is literally modeled after someone who WAS NOT Christ and now has led million or more into believing that that’s what he looked like. That’s the complete opposite of God like. Coming to a continent and saying accept this book and our religion or be killed wasn’t Christ like. As much as you’d like to believe it and as large as it is, the Catholic Church is not the authority on God or scripture. I’d actually say I have more authority than the Catholic Church.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

1) It's not circular. The conclusion logically follows the premises.
Premise 1: "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist"
Premise 2: "Objective moral values and duties do exist"
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

You may deny one of those premises and we'd have to discuss that (you deny 2, right?). But if like many people, you accept both premises 1 & 2, the conclusion is inescapable.

2) The so-called Euthyphro dilemma is dealt with in the video. Please watch it. Basically the answer is that what is morally good flows from the nature of God, the source of goodness.
3) I believe we do have "toolkits" at our disposal. First, our consciences that were given to us as part of our nature by God, inform us of the basic moral law. Second, God revealed His will and laws through the prophets, scriptures and Jesus Christ. Their words are a toolkit for us. Lastly, God instituted the Catholic Church who interprets the scriptures for the people, so that no one has to be a biblical scholar to understand what God wants, Mother Church can guide us all. Those are 3 pretty great toolkits.

1) Even if you bought that argument, it doesn't prove the Christian God. It would be a valid application to any religion.
2) "the source of goodness" is too wishy-washy. I'm aware WLC tries to answer the question, but his answer is not satisfactory. From an atheist perspective, someone that demands absolute loyalty from his followers and punishes even "good" followers for failure of undying obedience is a sociopath. Informally, this is the "God is kind of a dick, huh?" argument that people have brought up - God being the source morality doesn't make that morality inherently good.
3) Again, that toolkit means nothing if it doesn't actually help things. The Catholic church systematically raped children for years with impunity. If those are the so-called acolytes that bring the message of morality down to common folk, I think I'm good going with my protestant skepticism of the church.

I have a lot of Catholic friends who have found incredible fulfillment from their conversions. I don't doubt that the process is meaningful and has the potential to drastically improve the moral heuristics of any one individual. But the argument that it is necessary simply requires too many assumptions to be convincing to everyone.

 

[WaterAstro]

Surprising a thread like this could be possible. I don't think it would have been in old gaf.

I'm a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism. As a Protestant I was into reformed theology and considered myself something of a Calvinist. What does "AMA" mean?

Good for you. I take inspiration from Scott Hahn, a Catholic who converted from being a Presbyterian Minister and used to really be against Catholics. His conversion story is really amazing.

 

[VAL0R]

WTW is mother church? I’ve never heard that term. God didn’t institute the Catholic Church either. Man did. If it were God, please explain how His sabbath isn’t kept on the proper day, holidays are mixed with pagan days, and there seems to be many graven images/idols allowed within the “church”? The image of Christ portrayed by the Catholic Church is literally modeled after someone who WAS NOT Christ and now has led million or more into believing that that’s what he looked like. That’s the complete opposite of God like. Coming to a continent and saying accept this book and our religion or be killed wasn’t Christ like. As much as you’d like to believe it and as large as it is, the Catholic Church is not the authority on God or scripture. I’d actually say I have more authority than the Catholic Church.

Holy Mother Church is an affectionate way of describing the Roman Catholic Church who protects and guides her children, the faithful.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Holy Mother Church is an affectionate way of describing the Roman Catholic Church who protects and guides her children, the faithful.

How can “she” guide her children when her ways are in error? Why’d you skip the other questions? They’re very important. You know what? I think the Catholic Church is devoid of the Holy Spirit and the reason books were removed by Rome is because they were editing themselves out. They then hid behind the veneer of Christianity and have been masquerading as such ever since. Did you know Lucifer and Venus are one in the same? Is she the mother of the Catholic Church?

 

[VAL0R]

H hammysaurusrex , I'll respond briefly in bold.

1) Even if you bought that argument, it doesn't prove the Christian God. It would be a valid application to any religion.

Of course. It's an argument for theism. Only after we establish theism do we establish Christian theism, which is often a short trip.

2) "the source of goodness" is too wishy-washy. I'm aware WLC tries to answer the question, but his answer is not satisfactory. From an atheist perspective, someone that demands absolute loyalty from his followers and punishes even "good" followers for failure of undying obedience is a sociopath. [...edit...] God being the source morality doesn't make that morality inherently good.

According to Catholicism, God only condemns sinners to Hell who die in their mortal sins, outside of a state of grace. A mortal sin requires three conditions, 1) Grave matter 2) Knowledge and 3)Consent. You must know the sin is serious, you must know the sin is wrong and you must do it with full consent. In other words, you must willfully do something you know is seriously evil. Then you lose friendship with God until/unless you receive absolution from God for this sin by true repentance. The normal means of acquiring this is the sacrament of confession, but is also possible to achieve by non-Catholics outside of the sacrament through an act of perfect contrition.

All this is to say, God throws sinners into Hell, not "good" people. None is good, Christ says, except God alone. I'd argue that most of us undervalue how offense our sins would be to a perfect moral being to an astounding degree. Some theologians say that even Catholics who die in a state of grace, yet must pass through purgatory, receive 100 years of additional purgation for each mortal sin they have been forgiven of! Imagine God as that being which there is no other being that could possibly despise sin more. The ultimately sin hating being with ultimate power. That's who He is, perfect in holiness.

3) Again, that toolkit means nothing if it doesn't actually help things. The Catholic church systematically raped children for years with impunity. If those are the so-called acolytes that bring the message of morality down to common folk, I think I'm good going with my protestant skepticism of the church.

The Church didn't rape anyone. Sinful men who abused their power who were members of the Church did. The Church is 100% opposed to all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage and certainly sex acts upon poor innocent children! If evil men took advantage of their station, surely God will judge them and those who enabled them. Who ever said that all bishops and priests will escape the pits of Hell? Also, if you put the numbers in context, the Catholic clergy abuse cases are not so common as the media would have you believe. Less common than sex abuse in public schools for example.

 

[VAL0R]

How can “she” guide her children when her ways are in error? Why’d you skip the other questions? They’re very important. You know what? I think the Catholic Church is devoid of the Holy Spirit and the reason books were removed by Rome is because they were editing themselves out. They then hid behind the veneer of Christianity and have been masquerading as such ever since. Did you know Lucifer and Venus are one in the same? Is she the mother of the Catholic Church?

Sax, I like you, but man you kind of come across as Captain Conspiracy and a little unhinged at times. Anyway, I didn't respond to the long list of problems you have with the Church because of time issues and I've been on too long already today. In fact, I really have to go get some work done. Talk at you all later!

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Men filled with the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be raping anyone and an organization supposedly instituted by God wouldn’t be plagued with so many cases of such misconduct. Especially toward young boys.

Sax, I like you, but man you kind of come across as Captain Conspiracy and a little unhinged at times. Anyway, I didn't respond to the long list of problems you have with the Church because of time issues and I've been on too long already today. In fact, I really have to go get some work done. Talk at you all later!

You call it unhinged, I call it being in the world but not of the world.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Of course. It's an argument for theism. Only after we establish theism do we establish Christian theism, which is often a short trip.

Yeah, not buying it. This is a uniquely Western perspective - the idea that any theistic argument necessarily means Christian theism. It's probably related to a culture where the debates around God are centered almost exclusively a Christian (usu. Protestant or Catholic) vs. atheist setting, but there's a lot of theism in the world that use the exact same arguments you guys use (though there are a few uniquely Christian ones, such as ontological) yet come to different conclusions.

According to Catholicism, God only condemns sinners to Hell who die in their mortal sins, outside of a state of grace. A mortal sin requires three conditions, 1) Grave matter 2) Knowledge and 3)Consent. You must know the sin is serious, you must know the sin is wrong and you must do it with full consent. In other words, you must willfully do something you know is seriously evil. Then you lose friendship with God until/unless you receive absolution from God for this sin by true repentance. The normal means of acquiring this is the sacrament of confession, but is also possible to achieve by non-Catholics outside of the sacrament through an act of perfect contrition.

All this is to say, God throws sinners into Hell, not "good" people. None is good, Christ says, except God alone. I'd argue that most of us undervalue how offense our sins would be to a perfect moral being to an astounding degree. Some theologians say that even Catholics who die in a state of grace, yet must pass through purgatory, receive 100 years of additional purgation for each mortal sin they have been forgiven of! Imagine God as that being which there is no other being that could possibly despise sin more. The ultimately sin hating being with ultimate power. That's who He is, perfect in holiness.

I appreciate the well-thought out response, but once again - this is only a slice of Christianity and it requires a lot of assumptions and premises that only come with being a Catholic. It doesn't really address the criticism for someone who hasn't already bought the cow.

The Church didn't rape anyone. Sinful men who abused their power who were members of the Church did. The Church is 100% opposed to all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage and certainly sex acts upon poor innocent children! If evil men took advantage of their station, surely God will judge them and those who enabled them. Who ever said that all bishops and priests will escape the pits of Hell? Also, if you put the numbers in context, the Catholic clergy abuse cases are not so common as the media would have you believe. Less common than sex abuse in public schools for example.

The Church did, however, absolutely cover up the rapes and sheltered many of the priests who did them. They are clearly not "100%" opposed - they became somewhat opposed after a vast wave of criticism and the fury of the abused came forward.

As for the public school thing, that's going to be another area where a fundamental difference in theology is insurmountable - as I don't accept the gradation of sin. I can't simply accept that the systematic raping of children in one institution is somehow less severe because another institution is guilty of the same in some greater amount.

 

[Catphish]

I was indoctrinated into Catholicism from early childhood; 13 years, from kindergarten until I graduated high school.

The best day of my life was, many years later, when I summoned the courage to turn my back on it forever.

I will always believe in God, and I will always honor creation, but no religion will ever get its talons into my brain again.

 

[Airola]

Yeah, not buying it. This is a uniquely Western perspective - the idea that any theistic argument necessarily means Christian theism. It's probably related to a culture where the debates around God are centered almost exclusively a Christian (usu. Protestant or Catholic) vs. atheist setting, but there's a lot of theism in the world that use the exact same arguments you guys use (though there are a few uniquely Christian ones, such as ontological) yet come to different conclusions.

Can't you see that it is you who is looking at this through that perspective, not VAL0R?

He gave a perfectly valid argument for God's existence and you try to counter it with "but it's not a Christian God" when absolutely nothing in that argument makes any claim other than there is a God.
Let's say he tried to prove the existence of the Christian God with that argument and let's say you are right in that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God. Now, let's take the "Christian" away. It's now just "God" and not "Christian God." Are those premises now any less valid than what they were before? Did taking the word "Christian" away from it change anything in that argument?

The thing in faith in any monotheistic religion is that one first should have a belief in a Creator God in general. Without that belief one can't believe in any of the three main monotheistic religions. Belief in Jesus being the Messiah is depending on a person first believing in God and then believing that we have fallen short of what that God thinks we are supposed to be. Jews, Christians and Muslims can all believe in that. The issue of which religion is for you comes only after wondering what is the correct way to deal with the problem of us being faulty.

To take the first step in believing in any monotheistic religion comes from first believing in God. You seem to think that if one is a Christian already and trying to give proofs of God existing, one really can't do it because he has already made the second step in choosing the religion. It sounds as if only those who haven't picked a religion are eligible to give an argument for the existence of God. You dismiss an argument based on what step the maker of that argument has decided to make. It's like if a fan of Toyota gives arguments for the existence of automobiles and you tell him that nah, you are trying to prove the existence of Toyota and that fans of other cars could make the same argument but become fans of other cars.

There is absolutely nothing in that argument that favors Christianity over other religions. It surely favors monotheism over polytheism but that's it. This argument is for people who don't believe in God in general. It's a believer vs. atheist argument. It is to show that instead of believing that there is not any kind of a God an atheist should at least understand that this argument points towards the existence of God. To counter it by "uh-huh, but that doesn't prove your God" makes absolutely zero sense. It sounds like the atheist would almost agree that a god could exist but then goes on and says "but because this doesn't prove your god then it proves no god."

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Nope, it does matter.

You are correct to some degree in that it does not nullify the argument, but it does profoundly weaken it: If every religion uses the same argument to justify their own understanding of why their morality is objective, then it stands to reason the premise of objective morality is itself flawed.

That being said, I'm happy to drop the debate there - if the position is that theistic morality is pluralistic and moral conclusions are only arrived at by individuals struggling to come to terms with evil in the world, and they are informed by their faith - then I don't have any thing to debate because I'm okay with that concept. However, when you start talking about how your particular denomination has a monopoly on moral principle, then that becomes a much more problematic used car to sell and you need to have sufficient evidence to back that up; I would also advise some humility - this is a topic that's been debated for millennia with no clear winner.

 

[Airola]

However, when you start talking about how your particular denomination has a monopoly on moral principle, then that becomes a much more problematic used car to sell and you need to have sufficient evidence to back that up

I 100% agree with you on this one.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Nope, it does matter.

You are correct to some degree in that it does not nullify the argument, but it does profoundly weaken it: If every religion uses the same argument to justify their own understanding of why their morality is objective, then it stands to reason the premise of objective morality is itself flawed.

That being said, I'm happy to drop the debate there - if the position is that theistic morality is pluralistic and moral conclusions are only arrived at by individuals struggling to come to terms with evil in the world, and they are informed by their faith - then I don't have any thing to debate because I'm okay with that concept. However, when you start talking about how your particular denomination has a monopoly on moral principle, then that becomes a much more problematic used car to sell and you need to have sufficient evidence to back that up; I would also advise some humility - this is a topic that's been debated for millennia with no clear winner.

The way I see it is The God that sent His son here to die for our sins is a different god than any of the other gods as they never claimed to do such. There are stories of flood “myths” in just about all of the religions because it actually happened. I just see it as stories from different factions if you will.

There’s God who sent His Son here and lays claim to creation as well as the first man, then there are other gods that have creation stories as well but I believe that those are from their earthly perspective as those were angels that were cast down to earth and eventually bore offspring which were “gods”. I don’t view Greek, Norse, Hindu or the other Asian stories as myth. I think they’re all stories from the gods that roamed the earth after losing their places in heaven. Again the distinction of the one true God and creator comes through Christ who was sent as ransom for chaos that reigned and misled from the time of the garden.

 

[JordanN]

Where Christianity went wrong in my eyes is it placed too much emphasis on a divinity requirement.
I personally like the idea of a messiah figure and recognize it as a metaphor for when humanity feels bleak and we reach out for someone to "save" us. This could be anyone. A firefighter, police officer, lifeguard etc could all appear like "Jesus" to us and give us hope for tomorrow.

But I can't take seriously Christianity's teachings requires a god and angels that we cannot see, and that anyone who ever lived that doesn't subscribe to Jesus is doomed to die again. This is further thrown into whack when you consider our early human ancestors had a brain just like us but they lived their lives free of the bible for millions of years. Will god make exceptions for the Australopithecus or Neanderthal man or is he willing to take his religion to the extreme and punish sentient apes?

Had Christianity really been about just peace & love, the world might have been a better place instead of the unraveled chaos where new sects and denominations pop up everyday, with each claiming only they heard the word of god and everyone else is wrong/doomed if they don't join their specific branch.

 

[appaws]

Still no answers to these Christian Gaf?Was looking forward to it...I’m a bit disappointed

I will give you a much shorter answer than Valor. I was born into an Italian Catholic family that had largely fallen away and become what my priest calls CEOs (Christmas and Easter Only). I grew up and became an agnostic as a teen and into my early 20s. As I went through college and began to learn philosophy, I came across the argument from first causes and I could not get around it no matter how much I tried. This brought me to a vague sort of Deism that I maintained through grad school. I was getting a PhD in American history and was very taken with Jefferson's version of Deism.

Then one day I had an event, I don't want to say a "vision" because I didn't actually "see" anything. I fully admit that it was something that happened in my own mind and not something physical. I felt my deceased grandfather, who was the only one in that CEO family who was really a faithful Christian, tell me to reconsider the Church. I was in my second year of law school and I remember I ditched the rest of that day and went to Lexington, Kentucky's only Catholic bookstore. I bought a book on Catholic history and an annotated Catholic study bible. Over the course of the next week or two I missed a lot of class as I pored over the books, bought more, and dove into the internet with all its controversy and dispute. I spent hours with a devout Lutheran friend of great intelligence (a college professor) and found all of his arguments easily overcome by reference to the scripture or history.

History convinced me that the Catholic Church I had been born in was the true Church founded by Christ to help all of us get to God. Valor is 100% dead-on when he talks about just how "Catholic" the early church was. If you go read Ireneas or Polycarp, or the prayers to Our Lady that early Christians were saying, or the inscriptions they put in catacombs, you cannot escape the truth. Protestants fetishize the Bible to keep their followers from looking at anything else, and they play fast and loose with translation (starting with the heretic Luther himself) in order to "prove" whatever it is they want to prove.

Their Bible fetish gets incredibly ridiculous and drives people away from Christ when they try to give literal meanings to parts that are not meant to be read literally. Like Genesis, or many of the moral parables of the Old Testament, or revelation. Then the non-believers swoop in and are able to portray Christians as a bunch of rubes.

When I say, "Christians believe...", I mean something like "well informed Christians who are in agreement with the general thrust of historic Christian thought, scholarship and biblical exegesis." Or when I say, "Catholics believe...", I mean something like, "faithful Catholics who are in obedience to the Catholic magisterium teaching authority."

This is excellent. I always end up saying "orthodox (small o)" to describe Christians who believe in the required doctrines of Christian belief, including faithful Protestants. Modernists, including most of the mainline Protestant "churches" and "Church of Nice," doctrine-free "Catholics" are apostates. Sad, but nonetheless true.

How can “she” guide her children when her ways are in error? Why’d you skip the other questions? They’re very important. You know what? I think the Catholic Church is devoid of the Holy Spirit and the reason books were removed by Rome is because they were editing themselves out. They then hid behind the veneer of Christianity and have been masquerading as such ever since. Did you know Lucifer and Venus are one in the same? Is she the mother of the Catholic Church?

Love ya, man. But I don't have the patience to answer your arguments, which are sort of outlandish. As I pointed out in the other thread, your ideas seem to have some similarity to Jehova's Witness ideas, but you say you are not one of them and have just arrived at your own conclusions by reading scripture. I think it would help you to be a bit guided in your reading of scripture by the millenia worth of intellectual giants that have trod that path before you. I will always read what you post with interest, either way.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Saying you don’t have the patience to answer is kinda odd as it’s one of the virtues of God. Perhaps you can answer these since Valor didn’t.

God didn’t institute the Catholic Church either. Man did. If it were God, please explain how His sabbath isn’t kept on the proper day, holidays are mixed with pagan days, and there seems to be many graven images/idols allowed within the “church”? The image of Christ portrayed by the Catholic Church is literally modeled after someone who WAS NOT Christ and now has led million or more into believing that that’s what he looked like. That’s the complete opposite of God like.

 

[kevm3]

Ephesians 4
4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

I know it can be very difficult to be humble and patient. These are traits that require reflection and constant self evaluation. The fruits of the spirit that are produced when such traits are acquired are worth it however. When one is truly humble and not merely someone who self proclaims to be humble, it is evident by any who are around that person. For example they may have a high position and yet they do not make anyone feel beneath them. This is why Jesus washed his disciples feet, which is not something you would expect from someone as great as He. The ultimate expression of humility is being a servant as Jesus was.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

This guys channel is pretty good as well as Alan Horvath’s

 

[DonJimbo]

Jesus is the fullfilment of the old testament and God who became Flesh and lived among us and we saw Gods Glory in his Crucifixion and ressurection
I love Jesus and found peace and Love in Jesus
I was a Muslim but now i worship Jesus and his Father then i now know that Muhammed was no prophet and Allah is not the Father and he is Satan personally and sent Muhammed to deceive us
In the Name of The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit
Amen

 

[Airola]

Here's my view on denominations:

I think it's good for people to try to find a church that makes the most sense to them. I don't think it is necessary to be a member of any church to be saved but it can help tremendously on keeping a person on the correct path. I don't think the age of a church means much. Satan has been around from the beginning of time and before Christ became flesh and after Christ was executed and resurrected. If Satan has any will to infiltrate a church he would've definitely been there in the early days too. If anything the oldest churches have had way more time for Satan to try to inflict misery and confusion and stumbling blocks on their members.

No-one can say even the Catholic church is free from that. As the years have proved, even the Catholic church has had its problems with sinful people committing vile and heinous things while giving an impression of being on the right track. And these problems are still there, often covered up by the fellow believers. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that every single denomination has had these problems so I'm not outing Catholic church for this. I am just saying maybe we shouldn't put different denominations on a pedestal too high, because the higher the pedestal is the longer the fall is when things come crashing down - and surely no church is immune to that, not even the Catholic church. I might not even dare to think what might've been possible for a church to become had Satan been able to inflitrate on it that early. There would've been a couple of thousand of years time to slowly rot things within the church. That said, I believe that even in that situation the church would still have its merits as long as faithful believers still existed there. All it really needs is two or three people gathering together in Christ's name for Christ to be among them - just as Jesus himself said.

Now, I will agree that being the oldest one out there certainly has positive aspects too. Often when people are arguing about a thing, it has already been argued since the beginning and the church history and its traditions may very well already have the answers.

Arguing for or against different denominations has one big problem: the core of the Gospel can sometimes be forgotten when people are arguing about trivial things. I don't think you have to have the perfect understanding of King David's history or what the Nephilim are supposed to be to be saved by the blood of Christ. The denominations are often about that - they agree one the core but they have different understanding on the rest. Then they'll argue about the rest, and even become bitter towards each other, and forget why they have become believers in Christ in the first place.


Here's a song that kinda illustrates my point:


It's Trivializing the Momentous, Complicating the Obvious by my favorite band Tourniquet.
It's a Christian heavy/thrash/progressive metal band from the US.

Here are the lyrics:

A difference of opinion - we agree to disagree
but you have stopped talking with me - now you're talking at me

Pre-trib, post-trib, five point, no point, heal me, slay me, free will, no will
as our common ground leans to the moribund

Delighted - devastated - dilapidated
Impressive - insightful - insane
Enchanted - enraptured - embalmed

The narrow path you're on will soon become a balance beam
and to always win the war of words is where you get your self-esteem

The message of his word says come to me as a child
but when I mention to you, you say his word I've defiled

"Enough about you talking about me - Why don't I talk about me for awhile"
"Yes, but the point is..."
"See here - The polemical literature states clearly that sufficiency of attrition is not enough for even the penitent of confessor to overcome the antidisestablishmentarianism of one's dispensationalistic concept of theistic determinism"
"No you..."
"The loftiness of my vicissitudes precludes the fact that we simply cannot see eye to eye"
"Are you sure you're not double minded?"

He came to set the prisoner free
A message of simplicity

"Pre-trib, post-trib, five point, no point, heal me, slay me, free will, no will
as our common ground leans to the moribund"
As if different understandings of how or when tribulation happens or how many points you follow on Calvinism or if you have free will or not, or whatever other subjects there are to argue about, makes any difference on the core of the Gospel. Yet sometimes people seem to lose their common ground when debating all of that.
Now, I don't think that kind of a debate is bad and I think it's only natural for people to try to make sense of what they believe in, but sometimes enough is enough and things can get too far.

"He came to set the prisoner free
A message of simplicity"
Jesus himself said we should become like children to enter the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 18:3). Jesus was glad to let children come to him for prayers and blessings. Those kids certainly didn't understand all the details of how things work. The disciples even mocked the parents who brought their children to Jesus (I think it was because the disciples thought the kids are not old and wise enough for that). But Jesus went as far as to say the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to people like them (Matt 19:14).
The message should be that simple; Christ is here, let people come to him. No more, no less.

 

[appaws]

Saying you don’t have the patience to answer is kinda odd as it’s one of the virtues of God. Perhaps you can answer these since Valor didn’t.

1. There is nothing wrong with statues. Idolatry is a grave sin, but idolatry and decorating things with statues are not the same thing. The Hebrews got in trouble for worshiping the golden calf, not for just having a statue. There are tons of other times in the Old Testament where God specifically orders the making of statuary, including for the decoration of the temple and on the Ark of the Covenant.

This is just another Protestant straw man that gets recycled constantly no matter how many times it gets obliterated.

2. The Seventh-Day Adventist arguments about the sabbath day are extremely weak, considering the statements by Christ himself about the meaning and purpose of the sabbath day. And frankly, St. Peter could have changed the sabbath to Tuesday if necessary.

3. It really doesn't matter what Christ looked like as a man. I guess the Shroud of Turin gives us our best idea.

 

[VAL0R]

Jesus is the fullfilment of the old testament and God who became Flesh and lived among us and we saw Gods Glory in his Crucifixion and ressurection
I love Jesus and found peace and Love in Jesus
I was a Muslim but now i worship Jesus and his Father then i now know that Muhammed was no prophet and Allah is not the Father and he is Satan personally and sent Muhammed to deceive us
In the Name of The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit
Amen

Thrilled to have you in the Body of Christ my brother!

 

[AngularSaxophone]

1. There is nothing wrong with statues. Idolatry is a grave sin, but idolatry and decorating things with statues are not the same thing. The Hebrews got in trouble for worshiping the golden calf, not for just having a statue. There are tons of other times in the Old Testament where God specifically orders the making of statuary, including for the decoration of the temple and on the Ark of the Covenant.

This is just another Protestant straw man that gets recycled constantly no matter how many times it gets obliterated.

2. The Seventh-Day Adventist arguments about the sabbath day are extremely weak, considering the statements by Christ himself about the meaning and purpose of the sabbath day. And frankly, St. Peter could have changed the sabbath to Tuesday if necessary.

3. It really doesn't matter what Christ looked like as a man. I guess the Shroud of Turin gives us our best idea.

Actually there is a problem with statues and shrines. You have these shrines with saint candles where prayers are sent to everyone else along with Christ when Christ said the only way to the Father was through him. Mary can’t hear your prayers if she’s at rest. Give me one verse in the Bible that says praying to saints is ok.

No man can’t change the sabbath to any day that he wishes. How is that any different than what the Jehovahs witnesses do? They don’t have a set sabbath. They have “a” sabbath. And as far as saying it doesn’t matter what Christ looked like, I’d agree as far as it was what he did that counted and not what he looked like but because of the image that the Catholic Church has given him, that’s who comes to mind when people think of Christ. That’s literally guiding peoples thoughts to a lie.

 

[appaws]

Actually there is a problem with statues and shrines. You have these shrines with saint candles where prayers are sent to everyone else along with Christ when Christ said the only way to the Father was through him. Mary can’t hear your prayers if she’s at rest. Give me one verse in the Bible that says praying to saints is ok.

This is the straw man again. Your premises are just not true.

No man can’t change the sabbath to any day that he wishes. How is that any different than what the Jehovahs witnesses do? They don’t have a set sabbath. They have “a” sabbath. And as far as saying it doesn’t matter what Christ looked like, I’d agree as far as it was what he did that counted and not what he looked like but because of the image that the Catholic Church has given him, that’s who comes to mind when people think of Christ. That’s literally guiding peoples thoughts to a lie.

Artists in different eras have given things different looks, like all those old medieval scenes where the peoples costumes and stuff look medieval even though they are supposed to be taking place in First-Century Palestine. It really does not matter one whit. Both blonde, blue-eyed Jesus and African American Jesus are not literally true, but who cares?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

There is no straw man. Show me in scripture where it says it’s ok to pray to saints. Catholicism doesn’t equal nor represent all of Christianity. Sorry if you think it does but it doesn’t. The only reason they get away with the garbage they do is because no one reads for themselves. People go to church and rely on the priest or pastor for all of their teachings. When people start actually reading for themselves and asking questions that’s when a lot of the rubbish falls away. I mean there are patron saints for everything. Why do I need to go through a saint when I can go to Christ directly just as he told us to?

 

[appaws]

There is no straw man. Show me in scripture where it says it’s ok to pray to saints. Catholicism doesn’t equal nor represent all of Christianity. Sorry if you think it does but it doesn’t. The only reason they get away with the garbage they do is because no one reads for themselves. People go to church and rely on the priest or pastor for all of their teachings. When people start actually reading for themselves and asking questions that’s when a lot of the rubbish falls away. I mean isn’t there a patron saint for drug dealers? How stupid does that sound?

Actually your posts represent the best reason for people to seek the guidance of the Church along with their own study. Because the average person is not qualified to interpret the Bible for themselves. I include myself in that. Even though I am highly educated for a modern American, I am (of course) not skilled in ancient languages and literature. You simply cannot read a translation (even a good one) of scripture into modern English and formulate your own doctrines based on it. Luckily I (and we) don't have to. We can stand on the shoulders of thousands of years of giants.

All of your posts are based on your own really unusual (and selective) scriptural interpretations, Protestant attacks that have been discredited repeatedly, and just really strange assertions that have no basis in reality.

It isn't just a Catholic thing. You reject major tenets of orthodox Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. Haven't you ever asked yourself why your views fall so far out of what everyone else is thinking? When you put yourself against all of the Church thinkers along with all of the Protestant reformers through the centuries....don't you think maybe you are wrong and not all of them, in the thousands and tens of thousands, and much more qualified than any of us to speak on these things?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Ok so you’re not going to point to the place in scripture where it says praying to saints is allowed. Wonder why. As far as not being able to understand scripture on my own? Not true. It’s the Holy Spirit who leads you to truth and understanding through the scripture. You’re following the doctrines of men and not the spirit.

 

[Marlenus]

1) It's not circular. The conclusion logically follows the premises.
Premise 1: "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist"
Premise 2: "Objective moral values and duties do exist"
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

You may deny one of those premises and we'd have to discuss that (you deny 2, right?). But if like many people, you accept both premises 1 & 2, the conclusion is inescapable.

2) The so-called Euthyphro dilemma is dealt with in the video. Please watch it. Basically the answer is that what is morally good flows from the nature of God, the source of goodness.
3) I believe we do have "toolkits" at our disposal. First, our consciences that were given to us as part of our nature by God, inform us of the basic moral law. Second, God revealed His will and laws through the prophets, scriptures and Jesus Christ. Their words are a toolkit for us. Lastly, God instituted the Catholic Church who interprets the scriptures for the people, so that no one has to be a biblical scholar to understand what God wants, Mother Church can guide us all. Those are 3 pretty great toolkits.

I may be late to this but I think it is demonstrably false to assert that objective moral values exist. If that was the case then there would not be such a wide gamut of socially acceptable behaviour from country to country.

 

[appaws]

Ok so you’re not going to point to the place in scripture where it says praying to saints is allowed. Wonder why. As far as not being able to understand scripture on my own? Not true. It’s the Holy Spirit who leads you to truth and understanding through the scripture. You’re following the doctrines of men and not the spirit.

No. There is 2000 years of Christian apologia out there for you to look at. You really think you flipped open your modern translation of scripture and disproved all of that? Pride is very dangerous.

 

[Airola]

I may be late to this but I think it is demonstrably false to assert that objective moral values exist. If that was the case then there would not be such a wide gamut of socially acceptable behaviour from country to country.

You might have misunderstood what believers mean by that.

The point is that you can't say any of those behaviours that vary from country to country are right or wrong if objective moral values don't exist. Different people allow themselves and their fellow citizens to do different things in different countries in completely subjective point of view. Without objective moral values existing you can't say rape or murder is morally wrong in every circumstance no matter how you would feel about it. You could only say it's relative to whatever people have decided on it. You couldn't really protest people from other cultures doing vile shit by saying they are doing morally wrong things if objective moral values don't exist. You could only say you don't like what they are doing but couldn't say they are wrong about it.

Surely if there are objective moral values it wouldn't necessarily mean all people would follow those values. Every single country and every single city and ever perhaps every single family has people who view things differently than others. It's not because any morals couldn't be seen as objective. It just means people disagree with those morals and with other people quite a lot.

Without any sense of objective morality you couldn't say people in the past have been wrong with slavery or genocide if that was what was decided as being good in their culture. A thing you do now that you think is good or bad might be the complete opposite 400 years from now. People then could see your good deeds as bad deeds - especially if they keep on going with moral relativism. So if they then call your actions bad, what can you really say about your actions now other than you just try a thing and see if that sticks? I'm sure you hold at least some of your moral views as more than just that.

 

[Airola]

As far as not being able to understand scripture on my own? Not true. It’s the Holy Spirit who leads you to truth and understanding through the scripture. You’re following the doctrines of men and not the spirit.

I'm quite sure you aren't relying on your own interpretations of the Bible either but you have been listening and reading several other people talking about the subject matters you feel are correct.

I'm not sure any of us can take the high horse in claiming our way to understand scripture is the purest form. We all are depending on others and looking at interpretations through other people in one way or form. It's through listening to others and the comparing what we read ourselves to what we have heard how we make our decision to follow certain people and denominations. I understand that being firm with what we learn is important and I understand if one wants to say one's own interpretation is the correct one, but calling out others for listening just men and not the Holy Spirit goes a bit too much in the deep end because you probably are relying a lot on other people too.

Sure, you may feel you just grab information from here and there and make up your own mind but you are essentially taking your information in quite the same manner as appaws here is. You just have different sources for it. And no, your sources being more of the "esoteric" kind does not automatically make your information be more led by the Holy Spirit than others.

This is one thing I dislike very much in us Christians. We are ready and willing to call out others for not being as "Holy Spirit filled" than we are. The common ground of having found the Saviour who should be the most important person we have ever encountered becomes a secondary thing when we start comparing who is better friends with the Holy Spirit.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

No. There is 2000 years of Christian apologia out there for you to look at. You really think you flipped open your modern translation of scripture and disproved all of that? Pride is very dangerous.

What does pride have to do with anything? The question I ask is simple. Show me where it says in scripture that it’s ok to pray to saints. You can’t because it’s not there. Show me where it says we were to change the sabbath. You can’t because it’s not in there. Show me where it calls Mary the queen of heaven or the mother of God. You can’t because it’s not in there. So there are all these things the Catholic Church does that aren’t in scripture, they’ve removed scripture yet I’m in the wrong because I believe we should pay more attention to scripture and that all the answers we need are right there in it as God left it for us yet I’m the one with my own interpretations? Seems odd.

I'm quite sure you aren't relying on your own interpretations of the Bible either but you have been listening and reading several other people talking about the subject matters you feel are correct.

False.

 

[mcz117chief]

Roman catholic with a master's degree in Theology reporting for duty. Feel free to PM or quote me if you wish to discuss a topic, I'm more than happy to discuss pretty much anything especially with non-believers or people with different religious believes.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You can start with the few that val0r and paws keep dodging

 

[Airola]

False.

If you really haven't listened to people discuss about the things you believe or read anything about them and have made all your observations solely by reading the Bible, then I stand corrected and apologize.
I just don't quite know how that's even possible. I mean, you even pointed us towards Alan Horvath's Youtube channel earlier in this thread. I find it hard to think channels like that haven't had any influence whatsoever on your beliefs.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I listen. Totally. Having open dialogue about this stuff has to eventually lead to understanding. The way I see it is if there shouldn’t even be varying denominations within Christianity. That would be a divided house. Which it seems like it is. The Catholic Church has its ways and the other churches have theirs. It’s not that I haven’t listened it’s that I get the same answers from everyone I ask these things of that are a part of the Catholic Church which really aren’t answers at all. It’s doctrine. When it comes to those outside of the Catholic Church, I still question how the sabbath got moved, and it all leads back to Rome and the others just followed, as far as the missing books it’s the same. It’s like the only thing the other churches don’t do is venerate saints but they still don’t mind the pagan ties within Easter and Christmas. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a priest or pastor will flat out tell you yeah we know Christ’s birthday really isn’t on Christmas but that’s just the way it is.

TBH I don’t even think He would have wanted a day set aside for himself because all that matters is what He did when He was here. To me when he said because you’ve seen me you’ve seen my Father, it means Christ had the same patience, love and grace that His Father does have for us but Christ actually lived that life in the flesh while His Father was commanding from above although they’re of the same spirit. I just replace spirit with family. Father/son. That relationship is part of the entire story. I can’t hand down authority to myself. That would make me my own god.

 

[DonJimbo]

Thrilled to have you in the Body of Christ my brother!

Amen My Brother
Jesus is Love and he is the only way to reach God and get a special relationship with God the Father

 

[Marlenus]

You might have misunderstood what believers mean by that.

The point is that you can't say any of those behaviours that vary from country to country are right or wrong if objective moral values don't exist. Different people allow themselves and their fellow citizens to do different things in different countries in completely subjective point of view. Without objective moral values existing you can't say rape or murder is morally wrong in every circumstance no matter how you would feel about it. You could only say it's relative to whatever people have decided on it. You couldn't really protest people from other cultures doing vile shit by saying they are doing morally wrong things if objective moral values don't exist. You could only say you don't like what they are doing but couldn't say they are wrong about it.

Surely if there are objective moral values it wouldn't necessarily mean all people would follow those values. Every single country and every single city and ever perhaps every single family has people who view things differently than others. It's not because any morals couldn't be seen as objective. It just means people disagree with those morals and with other people quite a lot.

Without any sense of objective morality you couldn't say people in the past have been wrong with slavery or genocide if that was what was decided as being good in their culture. A thing you do now that you think is good or bad might be the complete opposite 400 years from now. People then could see your good deeds as bad deeds - especially if they keep on going with moral relativism. So if they then call your actions bad, what can you really say about your actions now other than you just try a thing and see if that sticks? I'm sure you hold at least some of your moral views as more than just that.

The thing with morals is there is not an objective standard to compare yourself too, the closest we have is a social consensus that is codified in law but that is not objective and there are many areas that have very divisive opinions.

Take abortion as an example. Many people believe this is morally wrong and many others think it is varying degrees of acceptable.

For there to be an objective moral standard on this we need to have an objective standard for determining when human life begins (we don't have one, it is a continuum and the line each person draws on this continuum is different), we need an objective standard for whose life takes priority in the event there is a complication and the unborn child poses a risk to the mother (there is probably a greater consensus on this but that is not an objective standard).

If the objective standard for life beginning is conception then how do you treat the many natural miscarriages before 12 weeks? Unfortunate or is it criminal? You need an objective standard for that as well.

The other point is that life is far too grey with far too many edge cases for an objective standard to be applied at all times. Let's say the objective standard is it is wrong to kill, are there exceptions to this standard? If yes it's not very objective, if no then edge cases like catching someone molesting your child and beating them to death is as morally wrong as killing in cold blood for the lulz, that does not sit right with me.

 

[appaws]

I listen. Totally. Having open dialogue about this stuff has to eventually lead to understanding. The way I see it is if there shouldn’t even be varying denominations within Christianity. That would be a divided house.

We do agree on something!

But your position does not really make sense. You argue for a really individualistic interpretation of scripture....but that is exactly what leads to all the different denominations that you are unhappy with. Jesus founded the Church and put St. Peter in charge. That is the source of Christian unity.

When I mentioned pride before, this is what I meant. I think it is the height of arrogance to think that a person could just flip open a Bible and pick out a verse or two, and easily find a way to invalidate all the thousands who have come before, saints and scholars and theologians, even men who walked with the Lord himself...! At the very least I would say it must take a real preponderance of the evidence to even begin to argue against Church fathers, etc.

Which it seems like it is. The Catholic Church has its ways and the other churches have theirs. It’s not that I haven’t listened it’s that I get the same answers from everyone I ask these things of that are a part of the Catholic Church which really aren’t answers at all. It’s doctrine.

Doctrine can be answers. In fact, I would argue that Catholic doctrine contains all the answers you need.

When it comes to those outside of the Catholic Church, I still question how the sabbath got moved, and it all leads back to Rome and the others just followed, as far as the missing books it’s the same. It’s like the only thing the other churches don’t do is venerate saints but they still don’t mind the pagan ties within Easter and Christmas. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a priest or pastor will flat out tell you yeah we know Christ’s birthday really isn’t on Christmas but that’s just the way it is.

TBH I don’t even think He would have wanted a day set aside for himself because all that matters is what He did when He was here. To me when he said because you’ve seen me you’ve seen my Father, it means Christ had the same patience, love and grace that His Father does have for us but Christ actually lived that life in the flesh while His Father was commanding from above although they’re of the same spirit. I just replace spirit with family. Father/son. That relationship is part of the entire story. I can’t hand down authority to myself. That would make me my own god.

Dude, what is this obsession with the sabbath? Jesus himself said the sabbath was for man, not the other way around. He definitely loosened the Old Testament regulations on sabbath practices. There are so many different passages that show that, picking grain, casting out demons...even St. Paul teaching on the sabbath which drove Jewish authorities nuts. Then the council at Jerusalem confirmed the change that was already appearing in practice. The day of the sabbath is a practice given by God for man, so it was completely proper for a Council led by St. Peter himself to change the practice. They changed it to the Lord's day, which was Sunday. Again, if this was such an egregious violation of the law, why did 2 millennia of Christian scholars and thinkers not see the problem?

Your straw man about "missing" books is wrong. A canon had to be chosen from the thousands of "christian" books that were floating around the early Christian world. The Holy Spirit guided them to include books that contained truth, and leave out all the error and gnosticism that was prominent at the time. Do you think God would really leave us so misguided for 2000 years if what they had done was not correct? You should have more faith than that. There are no secret, special books that give some great insight beyond what is contained in the canon.

 

[Airola]

The thing with morals is there is not an objective standard to compare yourself too, the closest we have is a social consensus that is codified in law but that is not objective and there are many areas that have very divisive opinions.

Take abortion as an example. Many people believe this is morally wrong and many others think it is varying degrees of acceptable.

For there to be an objective moral standard on this we need to have an objective standard for determining when human life begins (we don't have one, it is a continuum and the line each person draws on this continuum is different), we need an objective standard for whose life takes priority in the event there is a complication and the unborn child poses a risk to the mother (there is probably a greater consensus on this but that is not an objective standard).

If the objective standard for life beginning is conception then how do you treat the many natural miscarriages before 12 weeks? Unfortunate or is it criminal? You need an objective standard for that as well.

The other point is that life is far too grey with far too many edge cases for an objective standard to be applied at all times. Let's say the objective standard is it is wrong to kill, are there exceptions to this standard? If yes it's not very objective, if no then edge cases like catching someone molesting your child and beating them to death is as morally wrong as killing in cold blood for the lulz, that does not sit right with me.

If I will reply to that abortion part, this thread will become a long abortion discussion and I don't think this thread is a place for that. Trust me, I have seen thread after thread after thread after thread completely derailing away from its original subject whenever there has been even one person who takes their time to defend the "pro-life" stance. I have been part of that kind of a thread many many times and, again, trust me, what you just said is not that simple and there are valid answers to all you said about it. It's a subject that should be discussed in its own thread.

But in general I again say objective moral standard does not mean consensus in all subject matters. Even in the Bible where in its context the story has a law giver, God. He is the one that gives objective moral standards. Yet, for example the story of Noah tells how the whole mankind had become evil (except maybe for Noah and his family) and they did nothing else than wrong things. So in that situation 99,9999% of the population had complete different moral standards than what God had set up, yet the idea of absolute objective moral standards still existed. Again, if the current population on Earth would suddenly decide it was morally good to kill all Jews, that wouldn't make killing all the Jews morally good. Even though some people disagree, we seem to have this sense of some actions being morally wrong in any situation. No-one wants to have to witness their children be raped and murdered - and obviously there are crazy people who want to do that but they have mental problems and/or they have lost their conscience. While killing is also often seen as being wrong, there is still this sense of justice where people are able to make the difference between killing someone to save another life and killing someone to steal money from the killed person. There is a reason why the same action has two different words - kill and murder. The Bible in itself has many examples on how a thing is right in certain circumstance and wrong in another. Using killing as an example like that you might as well use sex as the same kind of an example. It is another thing that is both right and wrong in the Bible depending on the circumstances. People who talk about objective moral standards already know all of this.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Why do Jews still keep the sabbath on Saturday and why are books like jasher and Enoch quoted and referenced in the Bible we have today yet are deemed non canon? Did you know revelations was on the chopping block too? Because they thought people wouldn’t understand it? Enoch has some of the first uses of the term “Son of man” well before the New Testament was written, Jasher gives a far more detailed account of what happened around the time of the flood of Noah, jubilees gives more detail of the children Adam and Eve had including daughters but because it’s deemed “non canon” people go around thinking Cain and Abel must have had sex with Eve to produce more offspring.

Sunday was never the lords day. IIRC it was changed to Sunday to make it more convenient for others converting from pagan holy days to catholic ones. Just like Christmas and Easter. “The Church” can’t even count 3 days from Christ’s death on the cross until his resurrection on the third day. Outside of new year which is supposed to be in spring and not winter or fall, many of the Jewish holidays fall on the correct holy days. Ash Wednesday? Good Friday? Nothing good about it. The absolute worst friday in human history. To me it seems like you may as well call the Catholic Church “the church of St. Peter”. God wasn’t looking for a church built with hands anyway. I can be a church in the presence of others.