09 Oct 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't claim to be a Christian now. I certainly wasn't a "counterfeit" Christian for those 20-30 years. I don't really get why you are trying to link what you see as a Gotcha style of debating (which I think makes you sound strangely defensive) and my religious faith in the past. It strikes me as a bit of a non-sequitur.
Do you ever get tired of playing this game?
I think it's better (after nearly 30 years) that you eventually admitted to yourself what you really believe and don't believe... imo it's better than being a counterfeit Christian. If you don't know what a counterfeit Christian is then ask the esteemed Christian, brother Dive. He might have an idea of what that is.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you kidding me? With all the time you spend here at this site reading and responding to messages, you can't take 10 minutes (or 30 if you're a slow reader) to go and take a look for yourself?
No, I am not.
You accused FMF of failing to answer questions. I just wanted to know if your accusation is valid. It appears from your response that your accusation is not valid. You just made it up in a fit of anger.
Lazybones! Where's that old fashioned work ethic that can inspire you to lift a finger or two to poke buttons on your keyboard? Your mouse won't do it for you automatically because it's not a real mouse... it kind of looks like a mouse, but you have make your mouse do all of that pointing and clicking. Maybe someday, in the future, your mouse will respond to verbal commands... but then you would need to open your mouth and say something. Oh well, it never quite works out perfectly no matter how hard we work at making things easier... ?
Anyway, it's not like you have to search for something that took place 6 months or a year ago, it's only been the past couple of days... mostly at the Eden thread. But I suppose it's much easier for you to simply say I just made it up in a fit of anger. The truth is it's difficult for me to be angry when there are so many goofballs here saying things that make me laugh.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFI guess I haven't really thought about whether or not it's a commonly held belief. Like I said, I haven't found it anywhere in the Bible that it is a sin to think there is no God. It's a hair splitting idea anyway. To think or believe that there is no God may or may not be a sin in a direct way, but is at least a sin in the sense that thinking or believing there is no God is as a consequence of sin in a general sense.
If you gave a clearer answer, I would address it, yes ~ and I have replied to something you said, which you have not addressed. You said: "I don't find anything in the Bible that says anything about God judging a person about, or for what they think." Is this belief (that God does not judge people for what they think) a commonly held belief among Christians aside from yourself?
Either way it's mundane and isn't a topic of conversation I've ever had with other Christians.
So to put it bluntly, I don't really know whether it's a commonly held belief or not.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by josephwBut aren't the nature and forms of "sin" absolutely central to Christianity?
Either way it's mundane and isn't a topic of conversation I've ever had with other Christians.
Did Jesus sacrifice His life only for his followers' "sinful" deeds and not their "sinful" ideas and thoughts as well?
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by bbarrI think so.
I'm not sure I understand. You don't seem to be asking about the evolution of our moral psychology (e.g., our moral commitments, intuitions, beliefs, etc.). Rather, you seem to be asking how consciousness itself could have arisen from matter and purely material processes. At least, that's what I take your reference to thought and immateriality to indicate. Am I on the right track?
Take conscientiousness for example. It seems to me to be more than just matter on matter.
How can matter produce awareness of itself? I can't fathom it being.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFSeems logical. Sin is why we die, and why we think, speak and do what is against the nature of who God is.
But aren't the nature and forms of "sin" absolutely central to Christianity?
Did Jesus sacrifice His life only for his followers' "sinful" deeds and not their "sinful" ideas and thoughts as well?
The whole issue of the effects of sin on the whole man has been dealt with by the only person that can redeem creation, and the only one who makes that claim. I'm not making the claim. I'm repeating it. Jesus said it. The record is clear and irrefutable. One only needs believe it.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by Rajk999Romans 3:25
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.
Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
May I ask you to tell me what this verse means?
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by josephwWhat claim are you referring to? And does it involve what people think (possibly) being or not being a "sin" according to the Bible?
I'm not making the claim. I'm repeating it. Jesus said it. The record is clear and irrefutable. One only needs believe it.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by CalJustI think the answer is complicated. I think one would first have to discuss what they mean by 'morality' in the context of the answer. I would say that the morality I subscribe to, is a universal absolute, and I would want everyone else to follow it, but that does not mean I have a good argument for why they should follow it.
You haven't replied whether you agree that Morality is culturally determined, or whether there is a universal, absolute Morality?
I did not ask it in so many words, but I d so now...
At best, I could probably persuade most people with differing moral codes that they are wrong.
I would say that most peoples current understanding of morality is largely culturally determined, but that when we sit down and discuss it at length, most people come to the same conclusions regardless of cultural background.
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, I am not kidding you. I thought you made up the claim, and I still think you made up the claim. That you seem to have plenty of time to write posts about how you don't need to support the claim, but don't have time to ask one simple question, suggests you are embarrassed by the fact that you made up the claim.
Are you kidding me? With all the time you spend here at this site reading and responding to messages, you can't take 10 minutes (or 30 if you're a slow reader) to go and take a look for yourself?
The funny thing is, that the longer you go on denying it, the more embarrassed you will be.
I only bothered to challenge you because sonship did the same thing to me a while back - repeatedly. And as far as I recall, he never apologized for the false accusation.
If you accuse someone of bad behavior, you should be prepared to support the accusation at least a tiny little bit. Suppose I announce that you are a liar, but I refuse to say which post it was that you lied in. Would that be reasonable?
(Kelly did this once and has refused to talk to me since because I called him on it.)
You accused FMF of not answering questions, but it appears you do not actually have any questions for him that you want answered. Why don't you simply apologize and withdraw the claim?
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would say that, apart from some very general and fungible precepts, all morality is culturally determined. Or rather, it's range of expression is determined by the technological level of its practitioners, with pre-technological societies having very different moral codes from technological ones. And the spread of Western codes of morality has more to do with the Maxim gun than with their supposed superiority over primitive moral codes.
I think the answer is complicated. I think one would first have to discuss what they mean by 'morality' in the context of the answer. I would say that the morality I subscribe to, is a universal absolute, and I would want everyone else to follow it, but that does not mean I have a good argument for why they should follow it.
At best, I could probably pe ...[text shortened]... iscuss it at length, most people come to the same conclusions regardless of cultural background.
09 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhat we mean by 'morality' can be quite wide ranging. I tend to divide it into two broad categories:
I would say that, apart from some very general and fungible precepts, all morality is culturally determined.
1. The concept that happiness for all is a desired goal, all else being equal.
2. Cultural norms.
I think 1 is universal, and 2 is culturally determined. I think lumping them together causes confusion when discussing morality in general. I usually mean only 1 when I use the word, whereas other people tend to use 1 and 2.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would question whether no. 1 is universal, but I'm not prepared to argue it.
What we mean by 'morality' can be quite wide ranging. I tend to divide it into two broad categories:
1. The concept that happiness for all is a desired goal, all else being equal.
2. Cultural norms.
I think 1 is universal, and 2 is culturally determined. I think lumping them together causes confusion when discussing morality in general. I usually mean only 1 when I use the word, whereas other people tend to use 1 and 2.
09 Oct 14
I think it's important to differentiate between moral practice and theory. The practices of hunter-gatherers killing members of other tribes, or the Nazis gassing people in the concentration camps, may have been morally accepted practice within their local society. But were those actions morally correct? That's a different question.