Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What is true and what is "comforting" aren't necessarily the same thing. That's a pretty big leap in assuming that one believes in morality solely because it's "comforting".

Ask yourself this: What is it about stealing that makes it wrong? The point is not to "wrong" others.

Perhaps I am missing something here.

I stated previously that 'I can understand why it is more comforting to think of absolutes, no-one likes walking on shifting sand. But just because something is comforting does not mean that it is true.'

I didn't say that I believe in morality just because it is comforting. What I was saying is that when you say there is 'absolute morality' you gave an example of 'not stealing', now that has been changed to 'do not wrong others'. If 'Do Not Steal' is absolute, it has now crumbled, has it not, into 'do not wrong others'. Absolute? surely not.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Perhaps I am missing something here.

I stated previously that 'I can understand why it is more comforting to think of absolutes, no-one likes walking on shifting sand. But just because something is comforting does not mean that it is true.'

I didn't say that I believe in morality just because it is comforting. What I was saying is that when you it has now crumbled, has it not, into 'do not wrong others'. Absolute? surely not.

I stated previously that 'I can understand why it is more comforting to think of absolutes, no-one likes walking on shifting sand. But just because something is comforting does not mean that it is true.'

I didn't say that I believe in morality just because it is comforting.

The first two sentences seemed to imply that a belief in absolute morality is caused by a desire for "comfort". Otherwise why did you bring it up?

You seemed to miss the point entirely. If you don't wrong another, is it "stealing"?

Originally posted by Varqa
I believe this pretty much sums it up, that I don't know who I am dealing with.

I appreciate the effort to save my soul here, but I would rather go to hell.

I simply can not believe in the narrow vision of the universe provided by the Bible. I can not be threatened by the roundness or the age of the earth or the fact that stars are too big to fall on it ...[text shortened]... e all delusional and they are all going to hell.

Maybe you guys can come visit me in hell.

First of all it is not mandatory by any means for a Christian to believe that peoples from all other faiths are "delusional or going to hell" . This is all or nothing thinking. It is quite reasonable for a Christian to believe that the living Christ witnesses to people of all faiths (or none) in different ways. It is also possible to believe that other faiths have elements of truth in them . So although the claims to truth are specific they do not neccessarily exclude others from knowing Christ in some way. Christianity does not say that God has left the "rest of the world in darkness" because Christ's sacrifice has allowed God's Spirit to dwell with men the world over. Because of Christ men are able to access God via his living presence (Holy Spirit). Christ is the channel which makes spirituality of any kind possible.

You have misrepresented Christianity. If I believed what you think I believe then I would share your stance on going to hell. It would be entirely inconsistent with the Biblical vision of God for Him to be so grossly unjust as to leave others in darkness and judge them so superficially. The Bible says we will all be judged on the quality of our revelation. In Christianity that revelation is done by the Holy Spirit , given by Christ , that whispers in men's souls of God's great love.

So I too do not believe that God would leave vast parts of the world in darkness or that they are all delusional and all going to hell. But neither do I believe that God would give us conflicting messages about who he is (are we to be reincarnated or go to heaven? , is salvation by faith in Christ , meditation , or following the torah?). I believe God is active and specific . He wants us to know what he is like and he will distinguish between what is true and false about him. In Christianity God is personal and specific. He is capable of communicating what his truth is clearly (as one might expect). If all religions are one then why has God not come down and proclaimed this to all humanity? Why is he dithering ? At least in Christianity God has entered into history actively and told us clearly who he is.



I'm not trying to save your soul I'm just trying to see if you can appreciate the non-dilutability of Jesus' claims and stop patronising him by pretending he stood for something he did not and misrepresenting his message because you find it uncomfortable. He said he was Son of the living God here to bring light and truth to the world and to be the sacrificial lamb for all men and to judge all men. You either take him at his word or you don't , but don't twist them.

"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in"
CS LEWIS

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I stated previously that 'I can understand why it is more comforting to think of absolutes, no-one likes walking on shifting sand. But just because something is comforting does not mean that it is true.'

I didn't say that I believe in morality just because it is comforting.

The first two sentences seemed to imply that a belief in absolute mor ...[text shortened]...

You seemed to miss the point entirely. If you don't wrong another, is it "stealing"?[/b]

You said

'I'm not sure what 'comforting' has to do with anything. Truth is truth. What precludes there being an absolute and eternal standard of living in this world? I have to believe that you see some moral standards as absolute and eternal: Don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc.'

Firstly why should a human standard (for it is human, applies to humans etc) be eternal?
Secondly when you said 'Don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc.' did you mean 'Do not wrong another'?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Lack of evidence.
Untrue. There is not one field of science which has produced any credible evidence which conclusively shows even one part of the Bible as inaccurate. While there have been factions within various branches of science with its own adherents, there are no reasonable people within any of the same which can honestly claim that their res If a person begins with arrogance, they will neccessarily end up with some religious form

Ah the wisdom of Freaky!!! 😏

Lack of evidence.
Untrue. There is not one field of science which has produced any credible evidence which conclusively shows even one part of the Bible as inaccurate. While there have been factions within various branches of science with its own adherents, there are no reasonable people within any of the same which can honestly claim that their research has proven that the events in the Bible did not happen.

so your definition of evidence would be statements that cannot be disproven eh?...so if I say that magic pots are made out of magic dust, the fact that you cannot disprove this assertion is evidence for the existence of magic pots!!! 🙄😕

For example, the entire ediface of christianity is based upon the bible.
That's like saying the entire edifice of Western Civilization is based upon the Justinian Code. Christianity was spreading rampantly prior to the completion of the canon in 96 AD, and continued unabated without the proliferation of mass-printing of the Bible many centuries later. In other words, Christianity is based upon the truths within the Bible, in opposition to your charge of iconoclasm.
Firstly....exactly what is your justification for: "Christianity is based upon the truths within the Bible"
Secondly, in the 21st century and a number of centuries before, everything a person knows about religion has been found from their respective *books of truth*, people that have either read such books themselves and pass on this ahem...truth(?), or people that have listened to the stories of people that have read the book of truth...what people based their beliefs upon when Christianity was in it's infancy bears little resemblance to what people in modern times base their beliefs upon and bears little relation to the point you responded to.

Circular reasoning a go-go.
Various parts of the Bible declare their authourity. These have been proved by virtue of the total agreement of various sources, not simply itself. While the Bible is internally consistent, as stated before, the conclusions of varying fields of discipline have confirmed most of it and (less importantly) none have contradicted it.

total agreement by millions of people in different disciplines that 1/0 = 0 is not proof that the statement (1/0 = 0) is true...total agreement by various sources is not proof of the truth of the Bible's assertions.
Internally consistant means jack when it is applied to another system and throws up contradictions that cannot be resolved within the framework of this system, ie: the physical world/universe.

How many people have you ever seen walk on water?
What you consider to be its weakness is actually the Bible's strength. How many people ever saw someone walk on water? As far as I can tell, about 12, give or take. And, more importantly, how many people were ever seen to walk on water? Just the One. What an unusual person He must be.

Paradoxically, the miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ were performed for the benefit of unbelievers, so you, others and the Bible merely say! (without presenting evidence) and yet you as an unbeliever have the hardest time with the same. You declare (like Thomas) that you won't believe what you cannot see for yourself. And yet even in your chosen field of study, every day you see the overwhelming genius of God; evidence of the fallen nature of His creation; an aggressive push for life despite the obstacle of that fallenness; you make the mistake here of thinking that what you attribute to the genius of God is what an atheist attributes it to also...but an atheist would attribute nothing to the genius of God! and still you persist in your disbelief... despite an inability to explain the existence of reality by any other means.

How is the statement: How many people ever saw someone walk on water? As far as I can tell, about 12, give or take. justified?...tales from the bible?...do you understand the weakness in your argument?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
You said

'I'm not sure what 'comforting' has to do with anything. Truth is truth. What precludes there being an absolute and eternal standard of living in this world? I have to believe that you see some moral standards as absolute and eternal: Don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc.'

Firstly why should a human standard (for it is human, app ...[text shortened]... Don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc.' did you mean 'Do not wrong another'?

This is interesting. I can't say as I thought of it as being strictly human. It doesn't make sense to me that it would be. I guess I see morality as being a standard for living of which how to interact with one another is a subset. This subset would be largely based on the idea of not wronging another.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is interesting. I can't say as I thought of it as being strictly human. It doesn't make sense to me that it would be. I guess I see morality as being a standard for living of which how to interact with one another is a subset. This subset would be largely based on the idea of not wronging another.

yes, not wronging another.... what? Human. This is a human construct for humans, how to behave with other humans. What is eternal about humans? What is eternal about marmosets or bison or whatever other mortal creature? By definition morality ages - 'The Victorian Morality', 'The Swinging Sixties'. For sure there are stronger lines than others (do not kill the strongest I think), but none are absolute, or eternal.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
yes, not wronging another.... what? Human. This is a human construct for humans, how to behave with other humans. What is eternal about humans? What is eternal about marmosets or bison or whatever other mortal creature? By definition morality ages - 'The Victorian Morality', 'The Swinging Sixties'. For sure there are stronger lines than others (do not kill the strongest I think), but none are absolute, or eternal.

Humans have a history of creating their own ideas of morality, which you keep alluding to. So what? They've also had their own ideas about a lot of things that appear to be blatantly faulty. I keep trying to tell you that that's not what I'm talking about, yet you keep ignoring what I have to say.

Maybe you need to try thinking 'outside the box'. Try thinking outside of culture, outside of this age or any other, outside of this planet even.

If there are truths that are absolute and eternal, it logically follows that there would be a morality that's based on those truths.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Humans have a history of creating their own ideas of morality, which you keep alluding to. So what? They've also had their own ideas about a lot of things that appear to be blatantly faulty. I keep trying to tell you that that's not what I'm talking about, yet you keep ignoring what I have to say.

Maybe you need to try thinking 'outside the box'. Try ...[text shortened]... eternal, it logically follows that there would be a morality that's based on those truths.

Ah!

I beg your pardon. I assumed you were human. Sorry. You were talking from what (non-human) point of view?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Ah!

I beg your pardon. I assumed you were human. Sorry. You were talking from what (non-human) point of view?

Now I have to believe you're just getting your kicks by pretending to be obtuse.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Now I have to believe you're just getting your kicks by pretending to be obtuse.

I am obtuse, well sometimes. Sometimes I don't get the obvious. Please humour me, and tell me what you mean, because I just don't get it. I cannot see how we are capable of dealing with a set of eternal and absolute value judgements. I mean, I am struggling just with the obvious contradictions in that last five words. But don't give up on me, please tell me.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I am obtuse, well sometimes. Sometimes I don't get the obvious. Please humour me, and tell me what you mean, because I just don't get it. I cannot see how we are capable of dealing with a set of eternal and absolute value judgements. I mean, I am struggling just with the obvious contradictions in that last five words. But don't give up on me, please tell me.

Do you believe that there are truths that are absolute and eternal? If not, there probably isn't much point on continuing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you believe that there are truths that are absolute and eternal? If not, there probably isn't much point on continuing.

I sense that you are opening a hatch just prior to bailing out. But, again, Let us assume that there are 'truths' that are, in our terms, absolute and eternal. Take me from there if that is where you wish to start.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I sense that you are opening a hatch just prior to bailing out. But, again, Let us assume that there are 'truths' that are, in our terms, absolute and eternal. Take me from there if that is where you wish to start.

I think I have to take that as a 'no'.

I realize there are a number of posters who are on these boards just to be contrary and get amusement, however juvenile, by doing so. Perhaps you'll grow out of it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think I have to take that as a 'no'.

I realize there are a number of posters who are on these boards just to be contrary and get amusement, however juvenile, by doing so. Perhaps you'll grow out of it.

Take it as a yes and explain. Why does 'truth' lead to eternal and absolute morality?