Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:33:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
950 times
|
| |
|
|
<kay, I'll throw my opinion in the pot. And before I even get started, I'll
admit to the leading questions.>
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> A simple difference of opinion. My argument is based on:
> 1. Under Christian assumption, morality/fairness/truth is universal. I.E.
> what's good for me is good for you is good for anyone, etc. Reason: given.
Can morality/truth/fairness be universal, when it is demonstrable that there
is not equality between those it is appying to?
On a less-meta-arugment scale, there are numerous indications that christian
morality is not inherently fair or universal. "It is easier for a camel to
pass through an eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."
- Does this mean rich men have to work harder than poor men? Or does it
mean that being poor is closer to the universal (stuff)?
- In either case, can it be said that poor and rich are being treated
fairly? Should not all men start rich, to ensure all have an equal struggle
to reach a 'moral' state? If it is virtuous to give away all you possess,
and I have nothing to give, can I in truth be called virtuous? Virtue is
easy when it comes with no cost, but is it virtue or lack of opportunity to
be non-virtuous?
> 2. Under my morality (which I hold to be unflawed, obviously for
> un-back-upuable reasons, again obviously), all humans should have equal
> ability to learn morality/truth. Reason: given.
(As this is a given, and inherently subjective, I can't particularly
challenge it, but I can ask some questions)
Do you mean ability, or do you mean opportunity? It's a semantic
difference, but a huge one.
If you do mean ability, would you hold that people with various disabling or
limiting conditions is an example of God violating morality? If
opportunity, what about people who die before they have sufficient awareness
to grasp the concepts (I'm talking babies here)?
> 3. If morality is universal, and my morality is unflawed, my assumption
> should hold true to every being in the universe. Reason: based on 1 & 2.
> 4. Christians also assume that God exists. Reason: given.
> 5. God is therefore 'bound' to universal morality (lest He change it, I
> suppose, but assuming He doesn't, he's bound to it) Reason: based on 1 & 4.
You have an implicit assumption (a big one!) somewhere up to this point that
morality can apply to God. God does not necessarily have the same moral
obligation as a human; he may have the same moral obligation as say, gravity.
> 6. For God not to allow people the same access to truth/morality, God would
> not be following the universal moral system. Reason: based on 5 & 3 & 2
>
> 7a. Christians assume that truth/morality (& salvation) can only be found
> through the Bible and/or Christ. Reason: potential given.
> 8a. Because some people clearly do not have access to knowledge of the Bible
> or Christ (by temporal or locational distances), God has obviously not
> provided it to them, and is in violation of morality. Reason: based on 6 & 7a
>
> 7b. Christains alternatively hold that truth/morality (& salvation) MAY be
> found without the use of the Bible and/or knowledge Christ, but are helpful
> towards those goals. Reason: potential given.
> 8b. Because all humans must have EQUAL access to truth/morality (&
> salvation), those who are without knowledge of the Bible and/or Christ are
> at a disadvantage created by God. Again, God has violated morality. Reason:
> based on 6 & 7b.
>
> 7c. Another option is that Christians MIGHT hold (I wouldn't call them
> Christians, really) is that the Bible and/or knowledge of Jesus are NOT
> necessary to truth/morality, and they were not of divine origin. Both the
> Bible and Jesus were mortal creations and are therefore not the direct works
> of God excusing God from responsibility (depending on free will definitions
> and all that) Reason: potential given.
> 8c. Ok, I'd buy that. But it does sacrifice Jesus' significance as well as
> the Bible's. Reason: based on 7c.
7d. Access to the biblical teachings and/or knowledge are taken into account
when we are measured against the universal morality.
7e. Reincarnation happens, and all souls are eventually exposed to the
teachings of the Bible/Jesus.
I could come up with other 7(n)'s, but figured I'd pick a fairly
off-the-wall on, to demonstrate that your arguement is too open, from a
logical standpoint. You make a number of implicit assumptions without overt
statements to that effect, and each of your statement/analysis pairs (7/8)
make assumptions within them.
(note: that doesn't necessarily make it wrong - but you wanted holes poked. :)
> > Why attack Biblical morality when your stated aim is
> > to defend "David's morality"?
>
> Well, supposing that one is proposing Biblical morality as superior to my
> own theorizations on the issue, it may be necessary to attempt to refute
> those propositions.
Moral codes are subjective. Because they deal with intangible and
unmeasurable values ("right" "wrong" "good" "bad") no individual or group
can claim that their morality is superior, or closer to the universal (if
such there is) morality. If there is a universal morality, it can never be
reached with certainty unless there is an omniscient/omnipotent being (ie
God) to confirm it's existence undeniably. God hasn't done that. In the
meantime, I happen to *believe* that my moral code is better than many out
there. But you'll not catch me saying I *know* it's better. By that same
token, I can't judge someone else's moral code, because I don't *know* that
they aren't right.
There. That ought to bring some flamethrowers out of the woodwork.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
