What I envy about theists

Originally posted by bbarr
In any case, causal explanations of morality are different than justifications of morality. It's one thing to show how morality came about. It's another thing entirely to assess whether moral systems are coherent, consistent, reasonable, etc. I'm interested in the later questions.

Yet recognizing the evolutionary history of our intuitive understanding of morality is very important when thinking about morality. Most moral systems have some elements that are a direct result of evolutionary history and cannot be attributed to rational deduction. And even when you have a moral system that is reasonably coherent, consistent, reasonable, etc, we will typically still make allowances for what might be immoral actions in the system that are 'justifiable' for emotional reasons.

You would for example not typically find in system of morality, the explicit favoring of relatives over non-relatives, yet in practice, it is recognized that such favor is acceptable.

Originally posted by Rajk999
[b].. works oriented salvation ..

There is no such thing, but there are those who wish to impose upon the doctrine of Christ a faith only salvation, and so they use that terminology.[/b]

But it is you that imposes works on the doctrine of salvation.

It has been proven to you scripturally that salvation, and the gift of eternal life, cannot be earned by works.

What's the matter with you? The Bible speaks clearly that God's salvation, and the gift of eternal life, is by God's grace.

Why don't you understand that?

Originally posted by josephw
But it is you that imposes works on the doctrine of salvation.

It has been proven to you scripturally that salvation, and the gift of eternal life, cannot be earned by works.

What's the matter with you? The Bible speaks clearly that God's salvation, and the gift of eternal life, is by God's grace.

Why don't you understand that?

It is you that do not understand that you cannot have truth in any doctrine that conflicts with a clear statement from Christ. Do you really believe in Christ? Truly and totally and fully? Maybe not if you cannot support what Christ taught. Belief in Christ with ones mouth is useless.

Christ was very clear that the way to eternal life is to love God and your neighbour as yourself.

There is a way to marry both the teachings of Christ and Paul but the OSAS doctrine cannot do that. Eternal life by faith alone cannot achieve that.

While I fully understand your doctrine, your problem is that you cannot appreciate all that I say, partly because what I say is true and you KNOW IT.

Originally posted by Rajk999
It is you that do not understand that you cannot have truth in any doctrine that conflicts with a clear statement from Christ. Do you really believe in Christ? Truly and totally and fully? Maybe not if you cannot support what Christ taught. Belief in Christ with ones mouth is useless.

Christ was very clear that the way to eternal life is to love God and ...[text shortened]... is that you cannot appreciate all that I say, partly because what I say is true and you KNOW IT.

What do you NOT understand about this devotional?

OUR NATURE IN CHRIST

Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

MATTHEW 24:13

Here, Jesus teaches that the believer must persevere to receive complete salvation. Salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or maintained by our own works. It has to be received by faith. However, there is effort on our part to maintain that faith. This is where holiness comes in.

Holiness will not produce relationship with God, nor will a lack of holiness make God turn away from us. He deals with us according to our faith in Jesus, not our performance. Holiness will keep Satan from stealing our faith, while a lack of holiness is an open invitation for the devil to do his worst. A person who wants to endure to the end cannot live a lifestyle that permits Satan free access to him.

Although God is not imputing our sins unto us, we cannot afford the luxury of sin because it allows Satan to have access to us. When a Christian does sin, and allows the devil an opportunity to produce death in his life, the way to stop this is to confess the sin. God is faithful and just to take the forgiveness that is already present in our born-again spirit and release it in our flesh, thereby removing Satan and his strongholds.

Holiness is a fruit and not a root of salvation. That is to say that holiness is a by-product of relationship with God; it does not produce relationship with God. It is the nature of a Christian to walk in the light, not in the dark. When we are rightly informed of who we are and what we have in Christ, then holiness will naturally flow out of us because it is our nature.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
What do you NOT understand about this devotional?

OUR NATURE IN CHRIST

Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

MATTHEW 24:13

Here, Jesus teaches that the believer must persevere to receive complete salvation. Salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or maintained by our own works. It has to be ...[text shortened]... have in Christ, then holiness will naturally flow out of us because it is our nature.

Devotional ? Whats that? Is that a Biblical expression? Never heard that word.

I read the Bible not devotionals, whatever that is.

Tell me something Christ said, exactly as he said it and I will read and understand. Do not paraphrase or put your interpretation.

I read Matt 24:13 and it has nothing to do with what your devotional says.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Devotional ? Whats that? Is that a Biblical expression? Never heard that word.

I read the Bible not devotionals, whatever that is.

Tell me something Christ said, exactly as he said it and I will read and understand. Do not paraphrase or put your interpretation.

I read Matt 24:13 and it has nothing to do with what your devotional says.

Then you don't want to hear from me. Go to the Lord Jesus and ask what this, and everything everyone has been trying to tell you, means.
Your heart is hard, and our words alone will not penetrate it.

Originally posted by Agerg
I don't believe in "God" and most likely never will, but I regret that presumably one of the best ways to meet new people, get involved in my community - and essentially stop being such a damned stranger every time I change address, the opportunity to attend a church, is off limits.

I suppose there is nothing to stop me from lying, and pretending to be just ...[text shortened]... atheists, especially the less socially empowered amongst us, are missing out a little - ah well!

Churches are full of believers and unbelievers.
Usually people will not turn you away from just asking what and why they believe, and asking in honesty, to help you understand what they have

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Then you don't want to hear from me. Go to the Lord Jesus and ask what this, and everything everyone has been trying to tell you, means.
Your heart is hard, and our words alone will not penetrate it.

Actually you are trying to sell me a doctrine that conflicts with what God has already put inside me, hence your inability to penetrate. False doctrines can can sway some, but not all people.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually you are trying to sell me a doctrine that conflicts with what God has already put inside me, hence your inability to penetrate. False doctrines can can sway some, but not all people.

God put doctrine inside of you? Did God do that to you and not Paul?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
God put doctrine inside of you? Did God do that to you and not Paul?
Kelly

You cannot take a little piece of what Paul said formulate a doctrine out of it that fits the whole world.

Take what Paul said .. all of it. All of what the Apostles said. All of what Christ said as well. Only then can you get the whole picture.

There are some who will get eternal life on the basis of faith alone.
Some who will get eternal life on the basis of faith + works.
Some on works alone [like Rehab]
Some who will get eternal life by accepting Christ with their mouth [like the thief on the cross].
There are many who do not know of Christ but they live righteously before God, and they will be judged and rewarded with eternal life if they are worthy.
There are many who lived long before Christ, and will also face judgement.

Christ decides. Christ is the way and nobody gets into Gods kingdom without Christ's approval. Christ detests mouth worship and sin so anyone who is banking on that will be disappointed.

Christ died for the whole world from Adam onward. Christ paid the price to redeem all souls and all people have/had an opportunity to live righteously.

Open your mind. Christ is bigger than Christianity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet recognizing the evolutionary history of our intuitive understanding of morality is very important when thinking about morality. Most moral systems have some elements that are a direct result of evolutionary history and cannot be attributed to rational deduction. And even when you have a moral system that is reasonably coherent, consistent, reasonable, ...[text shortened]... f relatives over non-relatives, yet in practice, it is recognized that such favor is acceptable.

Actually, most theories in moral philosophy do allow for partiality. Only very strict forms of Utilitarianism deny that it's reasonable for us to pay special attention to our friends and family. This is typically taken as problematic for those forms of Utilitarianism. Virtue ethicists place special emphasis on close interpersonal relationships because of the way they contribute to a flourishing human life. Kantians allow for special obligations to friends and family. Most Utilitarians recognize that prohibiting people from showing special concern to friends and family would make everybody worse off.

If we ask why our moral intuitions push us towards moral theories that allow for partiality, then the explanation may involve a causal story of the sort that evolutionary psychologists often give. But what does this show? If, hypothetically, the evolutionary story is wrong, we would still be confronted with the facts that we do deeply care for others, that this is a deep feature of human psychology and that our special relationships are constitutive of what we take to be a life worth living.

We can put the point another way: Suppose that our evolutionary history primes us to be aggressive or discriminatory. That wouldn't show that these traits or behaviors are justified. Perhaps it would show that we need to be on guard against being or acting in these ways.

There are some cases where evolutionary theory might inform our moral theories. If we simply cannot come to adopt a norm or cultivate a trait, then a moral theory cannot obligate us to do so. 'Ought' implies 'can'. If we ought to X, then it has to be possible for us to X.

Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, most theories in moral philosophy do allow for partiality.

Yes, and my point is that they do so not as a consequence of some philosophical deduction, but rather in recognition of our natural intuitions. For this reason I think it important for moral philosophers to recognize the evolutionary origins of these intuitions whilst thinking about moral philosophy. If you ignore the evolutionary aspects of it, then there is a danger of fail to understand why we have these intuitions and possibly even attempting to construct explanations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, and my point is that they do so not as a consequence of some philosophical deduction, but rather in recognition of our natural intuitions. For this reason I think it important for moral philosophers to recognize the evolutionary origins of these intuitions whilst thinking about moral philosophy. If you ignore the evolutionary aspects of it, then ther ...[text shortened]... understand why we have these intuitions and possibly even attempting to construct explanations.

True, the content of moral theories does not derive from philosophical deduction. Unlike logic, moral philosophy is not a deductive enterprise. If anything, it's an abductive enterprise that works from our deepest held commitments and most intransigent intuitions. But it certainly doesn't follow from this that a causal explanation of those commitments and intuitions bears much at all on whether they make sense for us to keep, attempt to modify or jettison. Whether the correct explanation of our commitments and intuitions lies in evolutionary theory or in God's writing the moral law on the hearts of man doesn't really matter as much as the brute fact that we, as humans, have these commitments and intuitions. Morality is for us, by us; it must hew to our nature as rational, social agents that act under the idea of freedom.

Originally posted by bbarr
But it certainly doesn't follow from this that a causal explanation of those commitments and intuitions bears much at all on whether they make sense for us to keep, attempt to modify or jettison.

I strongly disagree. I think that recognizing thing evolutionary roots of our intuitions allows us in many cases to overcome those intuitions.

If anything, it's an abductive enterprise that works from our deepest held commitments and most intransigent intuitions.
I disagree. I personally find moral philosophy to be an exercise of studying our intuitions and identifying whether or not they make sense and trying to find more rational reasons to follow them than pure intuition. And also, trying to find ways to reconcile conflicting intuitions.

Originally posted by FMF
Is this a common belief among Christians?

Originally posted by josephw
It's not a sin to say you don't believe in God.

Is this a common belief among Christians?

In your opinion is it better to tell the truth about what you believe, or is it better to lie about what you believe?