Utilitarianism

[Lime_Mercury]

Let me clarify for you.

 

 

 

An atheist bases their beliefs on a good/bad/productive/unproductive spectrum, as you said. I competely agree.

 

 

 

However, there are always exceptions to those rules. There are always ways to go around it, to change them. Utilitarianism, as you can see, has its faults. As does Kantianism and all other ways of discovering morality.

 

 

 

BECAUSE OF THAT, it is simple to see that atheists must, in order to make common sense decisions, pick and choose which belief system at different times.

 

 

 

My pick-and-choose philosophy for atheists is quite true. I see what you're saying, so that clarified it. Would you agree?

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, when you say blithely choosing dogma based on your religion is bad, I would counter by saying that truth (when it is found in Jesus) is never changing. Therefore, if I have found truth that applies in all situations in all cases with no exceptions, then I can "blithely" accept it as truth.

 

 

 

And so we are at the point where I make the point I've been waiting to make again from the beginning of the argument. Utilitarianism can't intstantly make the best possible choice apparent. You have to go on your sleeve and make those decisions that are time-sensitive.

 

 

 

Your last piece of your argument falls in line with this. Your truth of what Jesus wishes may not ever change, but your discovery of it is predicated by what society deems responsible. This is why women can vote, slavery is illegal in the United States, it is legal for a Christian person to loan money and charge interest on it, and why evolution is taught as a tentative theory in schools.

 

 

 

When you look at that, you must concede that our snapshots of that univeral truth at any given point in time are just as relative as what you claim any atheist philosophy to be.

 

 

 

In that sense, the closest you'll get to absolute in your doctrine is your own absolutely relative view of it.

 

 

 

This is to say that not everybody that believes that they know what Jesus wants can be right at the same time. Someone's got to be wrong. Say, someone believes that gay marriage would be endorsed by Jesus and you don't.

 

 

 

Well, you can say they are just twisting Jesus' will. That's fair, but their argument is the same for you. Which one is truly endowed with the correct slice of the universal truth? Is either of you?

[pianofrieak2]

Let me clarify for you.

 

 

 

An atheist bases their beliefs on a good/bad/productive/unproductive spectrum, as you said. I competely agree.

 

 

 

However, there are always exceptions to those rules. There are always ways to go around it, to change them. Utilitarianism, as you can see, has its faults. As does Kantianism and all other ways of discovering morality.

 

 

 

BECAUSE OF THAT, it is simple to see that atheists must, in order to make common sense decisions, pick and choose which belief system at different times.

 

 

 

My pick-and-choose philosophy for atheists is quite true. I see what you're saying, so that clarified it. Would you agree?

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, when you say blithely choosing dogma based on your religion is bad, I would counter by saying that truth (when it is found in Jesus) is never changing. Therefore, if I have found truth that applies in all situations in all cases with no exceptions, then I can "blithely" accept it as truth.

 

 

 

And so we are at the point where I make the point I've been waiting to make again from the beginning of the argument. Utilitarianism can't intstantly make the best possible choice apparent. You have to go on your sleeve and make those decisions that are time-sensitive.

 

 

 

Your last piece of your argument falls in line with this. Your truth of what Jesus wishes may not ever change, but your discovery of it is predicated by what society deems responsible. This is why women can vote, slavery is illegal in the United States, it is legal for a Christian person to loan money and charge interest on it, and why evolution is taught as a tentative theory in schools.

 

 

 

When you look at that, you must concede that our snapshots of that univeral truth at any given point in time are just as relative as what you claim any atheist philosophy to be.

 

 

 

In that sense, the closest you'll get to absolute in your doctrine is your own absolutely relative view of it.

 

 

 

This is to say that not everybody that believes that they know what Jesus wants can be right at the same time. Someone's got to be wrong. Say, someone believes that * marriage would be endorsed by Jesus and you don't.

 

 

 

Well, you can say they are just twisting Jesus' will. That's fair, but their argument is the same for you. Which one is truly endowed with the correct slice of the universal truth? Is either of you?

 

 

 

So you're a relativist? Hmm...should be very interesting lol.

 

 

 

But before I start arguing relativism, let me show you why your examples are all messed up.

 

 

 

1. Women can vote.

 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it say women can't vote? Actually, Jesus was a strong supporter of women's rights. During that time period, women could do nothing, but Jesus came along and started talking about grace (instead of good works) and loving people (not just men, the leaders of the family). He frequently talked about loving the widows and the orphans, those most-frowned upon by society.

 

 

 

2. Slavery is illegal in the US.

 

 

 

Slavery in the Bible is more like servanthood in today's world. Slaves were paid, slaves were treated well and lived in or close to the master's house, and had the option of leaving after their debt was paid. All were released before then on the Year of Jubilee. In fact, *gasp* some wanted to stay because they were treated so well. Please check your history book before you make a comment like that.

 

 

 

3. Christians can loan money and receive interest. When Jesus talked about giving to the poor without asking something back, he was talking about the heart issue. You shouldn't WANT something back when you give. Dont' think you're such a great person if you loan out money. That was His whole point.

 

 

 

Now that I've addressed your examples, let me address your relativistic ways.

 

 

 

Society may change, but the laws of God never change. Society says abortion is ok. God says murdering is wrong. Since life begins at conception, it is clear that the fetus is really a human baby and should be protected.

 

 

 

Stem-Cell Research: Society says it is ok and should be paid for by the government. God says that embryos are living babies, and killing them for research is wrong.

 

 

 

Thus, though the Bible does not mention cloning or abortion, it mentions laws that transcend all boundaries.

 

 

 

I'll debate relativism later. If you still desire to.

[bearofthunder]

2. Slavery is illegal in the US.

 

 

 

Slavery in the Bible is more like servanthood in today's world. Slaves were paid, slaves were treated well and lived in or close to the master's house, and had the option of leaving after their debt was paid. All were released before then on the Year of Jubilee. In fact, *gasp* some wanted to stay because they were treated so well. Please check your history book before you make a comment like that.

 

 

 

But that's exactly what Lime is arguing. The bible is not absolute. It is just as time-sensitive as any other moral system. You said of the slavery part of the bible that it applies to a different time and should not be followed literally. Thus, what you just did is interpret the bible with respect to the time period you live in.

[Lime_Mercury]

So you're a relativist? Hmm...should be very interesting lol.

 

 

 

But before I start arguing relativism, let me show you why your examples are all messed up.

 

 

 

1. Women can vote.

 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it say women can't vote? Actually, Jesus was a strong supporter of women's rights. During that time period, women could do nothing, but Jesus came along and started talking about grace (instead of good works) and loving people (not just men, the leaders of the family). He frequently talked about loving the widows and the orphans, those most-frowned upon by society.

 

 

 

2. Slavery is illegal in the US.

 

 

 

Slavery in the Bible is more like servanthood in today's world. Slaves were paid, slaves were treated well and lived in or close to the master's house, and had the option of leaving after their debt was paid. All were released before then on the Year of Jubilee. In fact, *gasp* some wanted to stay because they were treated so well. Please check your history book before you make a comment like that.

 

 

 

3. Christians can loan money and receive interest. When Jesus talked about giving to the poor without asking something back, he was talking about the heart issue. You shouldn't WANT something back when you give. Dont' think you're such a great person if you loan out money. That was His whole point.

 

 

 

Now that I've addressed your examples, let me address your relativistic ways.

 

 

 

Society may change, but the laws of God never change. Society says abortion is ok. God says murdering is wrong. Since life begins at conception, it is clear that the fetus is really a human baby and should be protected.

 

 

 

Stem-Cell Research: Society says it is ok and should be paid for by the government. God says that embryos are living babies, and killing them for research is wrong.

 

 

 

Thus, though the Bible does not mention cloning or abortion, it mentions laws that transcend all boundaries.

 

 

 

I'll debate relativism later. If you still desire to.

 

 

 

Let me start by saying straight away that cultural relativism, adopted to an extreme point of view where all theories have equal weight and legitimacy is a dangerous thing. I am fully aware of this. However, there are notions predicted by relativism that we ought to take note of.

 

 

 

For my women's rights argument, Jesus had the ability to direct pretty much whatever social change he desired, since he was already considered a zealot anyway. He could have put anything he wanted in his legacy, just by making it important enough to preach about. But that is not the point I'm directly trying to make.

 

 

 

What I am trying to address is- All members of any given theology or religious system do not share the same social desires.

 

 

 

According to a poll by CBS, people in the United States support stem cell research, with a 58% majority. Those that attend religious services weekly do not support stem cell research by a margin of 10 percentage points, 49 against, 39 for.

 

 

 

If the text of what you are describing is so absolute and clear, those numbers ought to be overwhelmingly different, say, 95 percent to 5 percent.

 

 

 

Other polls, including one done by Cornell University, and a more dated one by ABC news have similar numbers.

 

 

 

If they all believe in the same source of universal truth, they should have vastly similar social beliefs and desires as to what ought to be done at any given time.

 

 

 

For the most part (women's rights, slavery, evolution), they do. Until some come along and say "well, perhaps we don't really know so absolutely what God wants."

 

 

 

Your standard of "Truth" is not transferrable across time or across a population at any given time. If it were, everyone that believes in Christ as the all-knowing ought to be for and against everything you are for or against.

 

 

 

It also predicts that what is right at one point will continue to stay right and what is wrong will continue to stay wrong.

 

 

 

These two phenomena are not borne out by the statistics.

 

 

 

It's very beneficial for some to walk with Jesus in their hearts. But it's not so beneficial when they walk with Jesus in place of their hearts.

[pianofrieak2]

bear, I find your viewpoint very interesting. However, it's a little off-base. Here's why:

 

 

 

Jesus never said, "Slavery is okay." Slavery is included in the Bible to associate yourself with the terms, the setting, and to describe the culture of the time. The Old Testament is very ritualistic and organized. Very specific laws.

 

 

 

The New Testament is about the heart issues. Slaves should obey their masters because God wants us to submit ourselves to authority. Thus, the principles found in Scripture are all applicable to everywhere. And many of the principles are stated directly, not just indirectly like my example.

 

 

 

 

Let me start by saying straight away that cultural relativism, adopted to an extreme point of view where all theories have equal weight and legitimacy is a dangerous thing. I am fully aware of this. However, there are notions predicted by relativism that we ought to take note of.

 

 

 

You are correct that cultural relativism (major viewpoint in universities and public schools) is extremely dangerous. Few people know about cultural relativism. I'm impressed!

 

 

 

 

 

What I am trying to address is- All members of any given theology or religious system do not share the same social desires.

 

 

 

According to a poll by CBS, people in the United States support stem cell research, with a 58% majority. Those that attend religious services weekly do not support stem cell research by a margin of 10 percentage points, 49 against, 39 for.

 

 

 

If the text of what you are describing is so absolute and clear, those numbers ought to be overwhelmingly different, say, 95 percent to 5 percent.

 

 

 

I agree. In fact, they out to be 100%-0%. However, I would argue that Christianity in today's world is dead and decaying. Because we live in a relativistic, selfish society, few people have strong relationships with God. Most Christians I know are complete hypocrites.

 

 

 

 

 

If they all believe in the same source of universal truth, they should have vastly similar social beliefs and desires as to what ought to be done at any given time.

 

 

 

They SHOULD. Unfortunately, they don't. Good point, though.

 

 

 

For the most part (women's rights, slavery, evolution), they do. Until some come along and say "well, perhaps we don't really know so absolutely what God wants."

 

 

 

Your standard of "Truth" is not transferrable across time or across a population at any given time. If it were, everyone that believes in Christ as the all-knowing ought to be for and against everything you are for or against.

 

 

 

Your entire point hinges upon the premise that all Christians believe Christ's teachings 100% every time. You should assume that but not expect it, by any means. Most atheists should have no hope for a future, and yet they don't think about that, so their life seems to be ok for the moment. That doesn't make any sense, but it is just one example from the opposing viewpoint.

 

 

 

It also predicts that what is right at one point will continue to stay right and what is wrong will continue to stay wrong.

 

 

 

True.

 

 

 

It's very beneficial for some to walk with Jesus in their hearts. But it's not so beneficial when they walk with Jesus in place of their hearts.

 

 

 

What do you mean by that statement? If you're an agnostic or an atheist, I would argue that you have no idea what it means to walk with Jesus in your heart. Where do you get this information?

[Lime_Mercury]

I agree. In fact, they out to be 100%-0%. However, I would argue that Christianity in today's world is dead and decaying. Because we live in a relativistic, selfish society, few people have strong relationships with God. Most Christians I know are complete hypocrites.

 

Fair enough. But I cannot in good conscience say that what is 100%-0% now will continue to stay that way, even in the Catholic Church. The cardinals and bishops are the ones that deliberate those things day by day until they come upon come to conclusions they are comfortable with becoming doctrine for future generations.

 

Martin Luther didn't like the church selling off indulgences to get people out of purgatory, but someone else thought it was a great idea.

 

Which is a bit of rambling, but there is something to it. Everybody in the church at some point feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them. And that's fine. Even letting those dictations become law is acceptable at times. Believing that you know what God wants is acceptable for an individual, but history and time bears out that people simply believe different things at different times.

 

 

 

Believing you know God is not sufficient for the transferrable ethical system, though.

 

 

 

Now, on the other hand if you were to truly know what God (and for fairness and arguments sake, let's call it the Universal Will) dictated, then yes, it would be fair to say that you had a perfectly transferrable ethical and moral standard to guide you. But to completely know that would make you all-knowing, and that's a problem, I'm sure you can see why.

 

 

 

Your entire point hinges upon the premise that all Christians believe Christ's teachings 100% every time. You should assume that but not expect it, by any means. Most atheists should have no hope for a future, and yet they don't think about that, so their life seems to be ok for the moment. That doesn't make any sense, but it is just one example from the opposing viewpoint.

 

I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement, and perhaps the sentiment that comes with it. It would seem to indicate that in a Christian society, any attempt at Democracy would be only giving each person an equal opportunity to choose between something God wants and something God does not want. Certainly God would say there is a certain way that we ought to do things.

 

 

 

What do you mean by that statement? If you're an agnostic or an atheist, I would argue that you have no idea what it means to walk with Jesus in your heart. Where do you get this information?

 

 

 

Which comes back to my own upbringing and beliefs, which I have intentionally left out of this argument until now. I, for the moment, am undecided to exactly what it is I believe. I do hold to the belief, however, that organized religion, in which someone or some organization claims to hold a piece of that universal knowlege of what should be or what ought to be done, is not something I wish to be part of.

 

 

 

I would much have a personal relationship not dictated by doctrine I did not write or advance. And if that means upsetting to some part that universal creator, whatever he she or it may be, I'm okay with that. Whatever he she or it is has also done things I'm not entirely cool with. I respect it, I expect it to be mutual.

 

 

 

I do, however, attend a notoriously Christian university in Texas. I can very clearly see the difference in a person that believes from one that actually walks with that belief in their heart. I choose neither path.

 

 

 

(but I am aware all of this is for another thread entirely)

[pianofrieak2]

Well, you always did seem different than most people I debate. You have the knowledge of Christianity, see the inconsistency and hypocritical actions of "Christians," and aren't too hostile. Good job for putting forth your points.

 

 

 

Fair enough. But I cannot in good conscience say that what is 100%-0% now will continue to stay that way, even in the Catholic Church. The cardinals and bishops are the ones that deliberate those things day by day until they come upon come to conclusions they are comfortable with becoming doctrine for future generations.

 

Martin Luther didn't like the church selling off indulgences to get people out of purgatory, but someone else thought it was a great idea.

 

Which is a bit of rambling, but there is something to it.

 

 

 

I would argue that the way the church is going will become more relativistic, more accepting of all religions and lifestyles (to get more people to attend their church), and more unitarian in nature. The days of the church holding power over people is gone, so the only option left (besides having the people WANT to go to church) is to make them feel so good about going that they'll come back. And maybe put $5 in the offering plates.

 

 

 

Everybody in the church at some point feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them. And that's fine. Even letting those dictations become law is acceptable at times. Believing that you know what God wants is acceptable for an individual, but history and time bears out that people simply believe different things at different times.

 

 

 

I disagree. I agree with every sentence except the last one, which is your conclusion. You say that everybody in the church "feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them."

 

 

 

True.

 

 

 

I believe that God's will is knowable and that God speaks. God speaks to me. I hear His voice, which is subtle impressions on my heart. He actively works in today's world, for I have seen healings and even had one done through me by Him.

 

 

 

Christ is alive and well. He is working through the world to accomplish His purposes. He wants me to love Him and to be sold-out for Him. IN fact, that is His plan for every Christian.

 

 

 

However, your last statement that beliefs change SHOULD NOT be the case. The Bible is clear on what is right and not right. The absolute morality is for all people at all times.

 

 

 

Of course, the Bible described the world around them and even wrote about certain pressing issues of that time period, but its laws are applicable to everyone every time.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, on the other hand if you were to truly know what God (and for fairness and arguments sake, let's call it the Universal Will) dictated, then yes, it would be fair to say that you had a perfectly transferrable ethical and moral standard to guide you. But to completely know that would make you all-knowing, and that's a problem, I'm sure you can see why.

 

 

 

No offense, but knowing morality is hardly even close to being omniscient. You can see that. Besides, why would God NOT want you to know morality? Just to guess at it for different generations? How do you judge what is right and wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

It would seem to indicate that in a Christian society, any attempt at Democracy would be only giving each person an equal opportunity to choose between something God wants and something God does not want. Certainly God would say there is a certain way that we ought to do things.

 

 

 

True. What is wrong with my statement? I agree with that. Free will allows true love to have its work.

 

 

 

What do you mean by that statement? If you're an agnostic or an atheist, I would argue that you have no idea what it means to walk with Jesus in your heart. Where do you get this information?

 

Which comes back to my own upbringing and beliefs, which I have intentionally left out of this argument until now. I, for the moment, am undecided to exactly what it is I believe. I do hold to the belief, however, that organized religion, in which someone or some organization claims to hold a piece of that universal knowlege of what should be or what ought to be done, is not something I wish to be part of.

 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, but, again, I would disagree. Organized religion has done much pain in the past, but it has brought about much more good. You just never hear about it because that would be too politically incorrect.

 

 

 

I would much have a personal relationship not dictated by doctrine I did not write or advance. And if that means upsetting to some part that universal creator, whatever he she or it may be, I'm okay with that. Whatever he she or it is has also done things I'm not entirely cool with. I respect it, I expect it to be mutual.

 

 

 

You can respect it, but don't expect it to be mutual. Jesus said in His Word: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." In that one statement, Jesus knocked out every other religion and every other way to get to heaven, including good works.

 

 

 

BTW, how can you have a "personal relationship" with a God you don't believe in? That doesn't seem feasible to me.

 

 

 

I do, however, attend a notoriously Christian university in Texas. I can very clearly see the difference in a person that believes from one that actually walks with that belief in their heart. I choose neither path.

 

 

 

I'm familiar with the area. What school would that be?

[insane]

 

But that's exactly what Lime is arguing. The bible is not absolute. It is just as time-sensitive as any other moral system. You said of the slavery part of the bible that it applies to a different time and should not be followed literally. Thus, what you just did is interpret the bible with respect to the time period you live in.

 

 

 

This is one thing I've been thinking about by myself lately, and I've come up with an answer that probably won't be accepted, but it's interesting to think about anyways.

 

 

 

The moral standards written in the Bible are in fact absolute, but their applications change.

 

 

 

For example: in the Bible it talks about speaking kindly to one another in love.

 

 

 

20 years ago, cussing would have been widely regarded as not speaking in love - today, many people accept it as a legitimate form of communcation.

 

 

 

So, what's happening here? People are still aiming to speak kindly in love to one another, except the way they do it is changing. Same (absolute) principle, different application.

 

 

 

I dunno, just something I've been pondering.

[pianofrieak2]

Insane, you are onto something. I haven't really thought about it all that well, but I think you may be right in the APPLICATION part of it.

 

 

 

The truth is absolute. Unchanging.

 

The interpretation is unchanging and applicable to everyone at all times.

 

The application changes with the times.

 

 

 

As long as the truth and the interpretation remain absolute, I see no reason why the application CAN'T change.

[Lime_Mercury]

I would argue that the way the church is going will become more relativistic, more accepting of all religions and lifestyles (to get more people to attend their church), and more unitarian in nature. The days of the church holding power over people is gone, so the only option left (besides having the people WANT to go to church) is to make them feel so good about going that they'll come back. And maybe put $5 in the offering plates.

A fair enough observation, I don't think I disagree.

 

 

 

I disagree. I agree with every sentence except the last one, which is your conclusion. You say that everybody in the church "feels that they know what God or Christ desires of them."

 

 

 

I believe that God's will is knowable and that God speaks. God speaks to me. I hear His voice, which is subtle impressions on my heart. He actively works in today's world, for I have seen healings and even had one done through me by Him.

 

The empirical evidence to demonstrate that things that I've bolded we can agree is unlikely to be forthcoming. The problem, however, with giving you the benefit of the doubt at this point, comes with accepting other things I am still unwilling to accept.

 

 

 

 

 

Christ is alive and well.

 

I guess we're not fans of Nietzche, then.

 

 

 

However, your last statement that beliefs change SHOULD NOT be the case. The Bible is clear on what is right and not right. The absolute morality is for all people at all times.

 

But we have demonstrated multiple times in the thread that it is the case. Just as the Big Bang as a theory has phenomena that it predicts will happen later (if the theory is valid), so does your theory. It would require me to have a much more extensive knowledge of the scripture to see some of the contradictions (and I'm fairly sure there are some) in what we do vs. god's will because we deem to be ethically proper. I think homosexuality may be another case in which we attempt to determine what it is that God really wants.

 

 

 

I think, at this point, though it sounds like I'm a Christian arguing against Christianity.-I think homosexuality may be another case in which we (American society, or just Christians/Catholics in general)attempt to determine what it is that God really wants.

 

 

 

 

 

No offense, but knowing morality is hardly even close to being omniscient. You can see that. Besides, why would God NOT want you to know morality? Just to guess at it for different generations? How do you judge what is right and wrong?

I think we both actually apply Util. to some degree on this. I said in my first post that I started out figuring out what my desirable end was, and then how to work towards it. I think on some level, you do the same. If the end is to be united with your lord in heaven (forgive my lack of capitalization) then logic ditates you do your part to achieve that end. This would hinge on the argument that getting into heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number, I think you would agree to this.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, but, again, I would disagree. Organized religion has done much pain in the past, but it has brought about much more good. You just never hear about it because that would be too politically incorrect.

I'm not sure how you would defend that statement, I hear about church works all the time, in fact it is the churches around here that never quite shut up about what they are doing.

 

 

 

You can respect it, but don't expect it to be mutual. Jesus said in His Word: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." In that one statement, Jesus knocked out every other religion and every other way to get to heaven, including good works.

I think this is where we draw our line in the sand. If you accept that statement, you have to follow the requests he puts forward when it comes to morality. In this discussion, I have not argued that the notions are unsound, I have argued that they are not transferrable.

 

 

 

If you claim to have the universal will and know the true absolute morality, then by token you have to say it should be applicable to all people at all times.

 

 

 

The problem is that in doing this, you argue yourself into relativism. Anyone who claims to know part of that divine order has the same legitimacy (empirically) as Jesus.

 

 

 

BTW, how can you have a "personal relationship" with a God you don't believe in? That doesn't seem feasible to me.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm familiar with the area. What school would that be?

 

Would it be clicḫ̩̉̉ to say that my god works in mysterious ways? No, I don't really doubt there is something bigger than myself... but for now its nature and its want is still a mystery to me.

 

 

 

I'm a Horned Frog.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: I see in this post that I'm pretty much forced to argue two different arguments.

 

 

 

1. I face your argument that Jesus is the universal truth. This argument, not matter how much empirical evidence or rational argument I bring to the table, I will not win.

 

 

 

This means one thing. If the other person accepts the premise that Jesus is the all-knowing force you may claim him to be, you have to step forward and follow through by saying that since the system is absolute, it must be transferrable.

 

 

 

This leads to 2. I have to demonstrate why someone should not accept that premise. I think, though, that I would pretty much have to argue you out of your own religion to advance my case any further... which at this point, I'm thinking is unlikely.

[pianofrieak2]

 

The empirical evidence to demonstrate that things that I've bolded we can agree is unlikely to be forthcoming. The problem, however, with giving you the benefit of the doubt at this point, comes with accepting other things I am still unwilling to accept.

 

 

 

I suppose you'll have to trust that I what I say is truth. I wouldn't lie to advance my case any, for I've been debating logic and philosophy in the other topic. Since you weren't there, it would be hard for you to take my words at face-value. But that's the only option we have left.

 

 

 

 

 

Christ is alive and well.

 

I guess we're not fans of Nietzche, then.

 

 

 

Lol! We? :P

 

 

 

However, your last statement that beliefs change SHOULD NOT be the case. The Bible is clear on what is right and not right. The absolute morality is for all people at all times.

 

But we have demonstrated multiple times in the thread that it is the case. Just as the Big Bang as a theory has phenomena that it predicts will happen later (if the theory is valid), so does your theory. It would require me to have a much more extensive knowledge of the scripture to see some of the contradictions (and I'm fairly sure there are some) in what we do vs. god's will because we deem to be ethically proper. I think homosexuality may be another case in which we attempt to determine what it is that God really wants.

 

 

 

Let me take your example of homosexuality (assuming you believe homosexuality is ok):

 

 

 

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving hte natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

 

 

(See also Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 18:25. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Romans 1:22-27)

 

 

 

The Bible is clear on its position on homosexuality: WRONG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think, at this point, though it sounds like I'm a Christian arguing against Christianity.-I think homosexuality may be another case in which we (American society, or just Christians/Catholics in general)attempt to determine what it is that God really wants.

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

 

No offense, but knowing morality is hardly even close to being omniscient. You can see that. Besides, why would God NOT want you to know morality? Just to guess at it for different generations? How do you judge what is right and wrong?

 

 

 

I think we both actually apply Util. to some degree on this. I said in my first post that I started out figuring out what my desirable end was, and then how to work towards it. I think on some level, you do the same. If the end is to be united with your lord in heaven (forgive my lack of capitalization) then logic dictates you do your part to achieve that end. This would hinge on the argument that getting into heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number, I think you would agree to this.

 

 

 

I still fail to see how we apply utilitarianism. Also, I fail to understand how logic dictates me to do my part to make sure that heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number. I'm confused on that comment, so I'm not sure if I agree to this or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can respect it, but don't expect it to be mutual. Jesus said in His Word: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." In that one statement, Jesus knocked out every other religion and every other way to get to heaven, including good works.

 

 

 

I think this is where we draw our line in the sand. If you accept that statement, you have to follow the requests he puts forward when it comes to morality. In this discussion, I have not argued that the notions are unsound, I have argued that they are not transferrable.

 

 

 

You are correct in your statement. That really is where we draw the line.

 

 

 

If you claim to have the universal will and know the true absolute morality, then by token you have to say it should be applicable to all people at all times.

 

 

 

I claim that the Bible is God's Word and is the absolute, universal standard by which everyone is to base their lives.

 

 

 

The problem is that in doing this, you argue yourself into relativism. Anyone who claims to know part of that divine order has the same legitimacy (empirically) as Jesus.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I missed your point. By saying anyone who understands God's Word has the same legitimacy as Jesus is completely unbased. If your standard IS Jesus, then He is above you, and you are merely submitting your will to His. I fail to understand where you're coming from.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Horned Frog.

 

 

 

Well, no offense to you, but I would hardly call that school Christian. In fact, I wouldn't say it is Christian at all. Sadly enough, Baylor's heading that way. So is SMU.

 

 

 

 

 

1. I face your argument that Jesus is the universal truth. This argument, not matter how much empirical evidence or rational argument I bring to the table, I will not win.

 

 

 

My point is merely this: Jesus is the only universal truth that you can take at face value in all circumstances at all times without having exceptions or having to pick-and-choose which system to follow (utilitarianism in some cases, kantianism in others, common sense still in others). His view is stable and applicable at all times to all people.

 

 

 

This means one thing. If the other person accepts the premise that Jesus is the all-knowing force you may claim him to be, you have to step forward and follow through by saying that since the system is absolute, it must be transferrable.

 

 

 

You are so wise!

 

 

 

This leads to 2. I have to demonstrate why someone should not accept that premise. I think, though, that I would pretty much have to argue you out of your own religion to advance my case any further... which at this point, I'm thinking is unlikely.

 

 

 

You don't have to argue me out of my religion to do that...You just have to come up with a reason why some philosophy works in all cases at all times to all people.

[Lime_Mercury]

I suppose you'll have to trust that I what I say is truth. I wouldn't lie to advance my case any, for I've been debating logic and philosophy in the other topic. Since you weren't there, it would be hard for you to take my words at face-value. But that's the only option we have left.

I would not accuse you of lying to advance your own case, but the only thing that I could fairly say is that I believe you to be saying things from which your information is not reliable... but this would rather turn into "believe in god/not believe in god" argument, if we went there.

 

 

 

 

 

I still fail to see how we apply utilitarianism. Also, I fail to understand how logic dictates me to do my part to make sure that heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number. I'm confused on that comment, so I'm not sure if I agree to this or not.

That part of my argument was not well thought out, and probably not applicable. I'll revisit it if it seems more relevant later on, but for now I'll leave it alone.

 

 

 

If you claim to have the universal will and know the true absolute morality, then by token you have to say it should be applicable to all people at all times.

 

 

 

I claim that the Bible is God's Word and is the absolute, universal standard by which everyone is to base their lives.

 

I think this might be a good place of a clarification of terms. What I believe you mean when you use the Bible or God's Word, I address as the divine will, the universal will, the True, the Proper, the Right, etc... the thing that is independent of all our meddling and subjectivity, the rules, so to speak.

 

 

 

The problem is that in doing this, you argue yourself into relativism. Anyone who claims to know part of that divine order has the same legitimacy (empirically) as Jesus.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I missed your point. By saying anyone who understands God's Word has the same legitimacy as Jesus is completely unbased. If your standard IS Jesus, then He is above you, and you are merely submitting your will to His. I fail to understand where you're coming from.

 

See below.

 

 

 

1. I face your argument that Jesus is the universal truth. This argument, not matter how much empirical evidence or rational argument I bring to the table, I will not win.

 

 

 

My point is merely this: Jesus is the only universal truth that you can take at face value in all circumstances at all times without having exceptions or having to pick-and-choose which system to follow (utilitarianism in some cases, kantianism in others, common sense still in others). His view is stable and applicable at all times to all people.

 

 

 

This is only because it is claimed to be the divine will of the universe. Any other will that claims itself as premiere and divine shares that characteristic.

 

 

 

Imagine that I were to, at this moment, assemble a full doctrinal theology that assumes to know and be part of the divine order. Assume I were to advance cases on what I think is wrong and right, that was explicit in many cases, and vague enough to let future generations deal with things that they haven't come to yet.

 

 

 

By the token that I claim it to be part of the divine order, I logically have to say that it is just as applicable to all, and just as transferable as yours.

 

 

 

 

 

This leads to 2. I have to demonstrate why someone should not accept that premise. I think, though, that I would pretty much have to argue you out of your own religion to advance my case any further... which at this point, I'm thinking is unlikely.

 

 

 

You don't have to argue me out of my religion to do that...You just have to come up with a reason why some philosophy works in all cases at all times to all people.

 

 

 

Again, the only reason that your philosophy "works" is because it claims to be the divine (universal, omniscient, etc...) moral code. So when I say it is not fit for transferrence, I guess I mean to say is that you have to accept a premise that lies outside the body of knowledge that we can test.

 

 

 

I hope I do not get too tangential in my arguments, but let me go after this-

 

 

 

Let us assume we adopt some sort of total moral code, Utilitarianism (this is simply for argument's sake, we could choose any other and I'm certain my following argument would apply). Let's also, for convenience sake, say that it is defined strictly as producing the greatest good for the greatest number. It matters not whether we can measure it or not, simply that it is our desirable end.

 

 

 

Any action is accounted for in this philosophy. There is an action that provides the greatest good, and there are actions which do not. It is just as absolute, universal, and transferrable as any other theory.

 

 

 

Notes: I'm looking now at the things that we agree upon, rather than the things we disagree upon.

 

 

 

Obviously, we are both in agreement that there is (or certainly ought to be, if my case holds up), a Universal Will, those rules. Without that, we do indeed fall into complete relativism, which might get ugly.

 

However, just like in commerce, if we are in relativism, it's the best systems (or products) that tend to survive. Marketplace of ideas metaphor at work.

 

 

 

The existentialist in me says, "that's reasonable, the effective and legitimate systems will eventually be separated over time from the unproductive ones"... the wheat from the chaff. It doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that at that given point, they work.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

This is one thing I've been thinking about by myself lately, and I've come up with an answer that probably won't be accepted, but it's interesting to think about anyways.

 

 

 

The moral standards written in the Bible are in fact absolute, but their applications change.

 

 

 

For example: in the Bible it talks about speaking kindly to one another in love.

 

 

 

20 years ago, cussing would have been widely regarded as not speaking in love - today, many people accept it as a legitimate form of communcation.

 

 

 

So, what's happening here? People are still aiming to speak kindly in love to one another, except the way they do it is changing. Same (absolute) principle, different application.

 

 

 

I dunno, just something I've been pondering.

 

 

 

You just described relativism in a round about way. The application changes because peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social perception about good and evil naturally change. The absolute principle of doing good is defined by what people think is good at the time of definition; to the people at the time, it is good and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all that matters. Apart from things like the Ten Commandments are instructions about some sort of moral guideline explicitly from God? For all you know the moral guidelines present in the bible might only be an application of the guidelines at the time of writing.

[pianofrieak2]

I suppose you'll have to trust that I what I say is truth. I wouldn't lie to advance my case any, for I've been debating logic and philosophy in the other topic. Since you weren't there, it would be hard for you to take my words at face-value. But that's the only option we have left.

 

 

 

I would not accuse you of lying to advance your own case, but the only thing that I could fairly say is that I believe you to be saying things from which your information is not reliable... but this would rather turn into "believe in god/not believe in god" argument, if we went there.

 

 

 

If I healed someone (rather God through me), then how would my information NOT be reliable? :?

 

 

 

 

 

I claim that the Bible is God's Word and is the absolute, universal standard by which everyone is to base their lives.

 

 

 

I think this might be a good place of a clarification of terms. What I believe you mean when you use the Bible or God's Word, I address as the divine will, the universal will, the True, the Proper, the Right, etc... the thing that is independent of all our meddling and subjectivity, the rules, so to speak.

 

 

 

Good, let's clarify terms.

 

 

 

John 14:6 says, "Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

 

 

 

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."

 

 

 

If you believe in Scripture, you must believe that Scripture is inspired by God. God does not lie, for it is against His nature. Thus, Scripture is completely true IN ALL CASES. Because it is completely true in all cases, it can be used for all people at all times. Truth does not change with the times, though the applications may change.

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way: Our perceptions of truth do not change the truth's meaning. It just means we can break the absolute morality easier without facing condemnation. (Take cussing for example and compare it from 1920 to now).

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is merely this: Jesus is the only universal truth that you can take at face value in all circumstances at all times without having exceptions or having to pick-and-choose which system to follow (utilitarianism in some cases, kantianism in others, common sense still in others). His view is stable and applicable at all times to all people.

 

 

 

This is only because it is claimed to be the divine will of the universe. Any other will that claims itself as premiere and divine shares that characteristic.

 

 

 

And they all fail except for Christianity.

 

 

 

Imagine that I were to, at this moment, assemble a full doctrinal theology that assumes to know and be part of the divine order. Assume I were to advance cases on what I think is wrong and right, that was explicit in many cases, and vague enough to let future generations deal with things that they haven't come to yet.

 

 

 

By the token that I claim it to be part of the divine order, I logically have to say that it is just as applicable to all, and just as transferable as yours.

 

 

 

Can you give me an example that works in all cases?

 

 

 

You don't have to argue me out of my religion to do that...You just have to come up with a reason why some philosophy works in all cases at all times to all people.

 

 

 

Again, the only reason that your philosophy "works" is because it claims to be the divine (universal, omniscient, etc...) moral code. So when I say it is not fit for transferrence, I guess I mean to say is that you have to accept a premise that lies outside the body of knowledge that we can test.

 

 

 

No, my philosophy works because I have seen it active in my life, I have seen its fruits, and I have proven it to be true. I am not a Christian because my parents tell me it's true or because my favorite person is a Sunday School teacher (not true either but it's an example). I have tested it objectively against other religions and cults and have found it to be true. I do not assume it's true because it claims to be true.

 

 

 

Every religion claims to be true, even tolerance (ironically). You can't take anything at face-value anymore. So your whole point is...gone?

 

 

 

 

 

Let us assume we adopt some sort of total moral code, Utilitarianism (this is simply for argument's sake, we could choose any other and I'm certain my following argument would apply). Let's also, for convenience sake, say that it is defined strictly as producing the greatest good for the greatest number. It matters not whether we can measure it or not, simply that it is our desirable end.

 

 

 

Any action is accounted for in this philosophy. There is an action that provides the greatest good, and there are actions which do not. It is just as absolute, universal, and transferrable as any other theory.

 

 

 

Notes: I'm looking now at the things that we agree upon, rather than the things we disagree upon.

 

 

 

Obviously, we are both in agreement that there is (or certainly ought to be, if my case holds up), a Universal Will, those rules. Without that, we do indeed fall into complete relativism, which might get ugly.

 

However, just like in commerce, if we are in relativism, it's the best systems (or products) that tend to survive. Marketplace of ideas metaphor at work.

 

 

 

The existentialist in me says, "that's reasonable, the effective and legitimate systems will eventually be separated over time from the unproductive ones"... the wheat from the chaff. It doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that at that given point, they work.

 

 

 

Ah, but the whole idea is that utilitarianism (or whatever other philosophy you choose) only works until a certain point. Again, my whole point is that Jesus' teachings (I use the term Christianity as the way it was meant to be...not the way it is seen now) work in all cases in all instances.

 

 

 

If you can prove me wrong, please go ahead.

 

 

 

As for your existentialist point, I would say that you cannot pick and choose. That's RELATIVISM. :)

 

 

 

 

 

You just described relativism in a round about way. The application changes because peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social perception about good and evil naturally change. The absolute principle of doing good is defined by what people think is good at the time of definition; to the people at the time, it is good and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all that matters. Apart from things like the Ten Commandments are instructions about some sort of moral guideline explicitly from God? For all you know the moral guidelines present in the bible might only be an application of the guidelines at the time of writing.

 

 

 

Application changes because society changes. One's perception (or understanding) of truth does not change the truth's meaning. It just makes it easier to break its laws without getting condemnation, as I said earlier.

 

 

 

For last sentence, see 2 Timothy 3:16.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Application changes because society changes. One's perception (or understanding) of truth does not change the truth's meaning. It just makes it easier to break its laws without getting condemnation, as I said earlier.

 

For last sentence, see 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

 

 

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the point that I was getting at; if we admit that peoples application and perception of the truth changes then wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the people who wrote the bible have a different application and perception to what God wanted. The whole idea that God directly communicated the bible to his followers is dubious at best. The bible is composed of subjective views on what the followers thought where God's morals. Much in the same way we think different about GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s values, except they were the first to write about it.

[insane]

The application changes because peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social perception about good and evil naturally change.

 

 

 

Like I said, the application is merely a result of a principle that does NOT change.

 

 

 

The absolute principle of doing good is defined by what people think is good at the time of definition;

 

 

 

No, the applications are defined by the principle. Or, people apply the principle in different ways, and therefore the applications are defined by what people think is a good application to the principle. The principle "speaking kindly in love", has never been disputed - however the applications have been disputed.

 

 

 

Take aerodynamics. It's a principle. Application: airplanes. Before airplanes, blimps. It's not like blimps are a bad application, or airplanes are a bad application, they're just different. But they apply the principle of aerodynamics correctly.

 

 

 

If they apply the principle incorrectly, they crash. Just like people can apply the principle of "speaking kindly in love", incorrectly. It's not like someone can say "I think cussing people out and threatening them is my application of the principle", because that's just non-sensical.

 

 

 

Aerodynamics does not change - it's not defined by what people think a good application of aerodynamics is, it just is. Same with this example principle of "speaking kindly in love". It's not defined by good application, good application is defined by the principle.