Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:49:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> <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?
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.
> 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)?
I believe it is intended to be saying that one who is rich AND is moral is
not likely to STAY rich (he'd give away his money or something because
that's what a moral person would do), and hence shall not be a rich man when
entering heaven. Not really suggesting that it's any more difficult for a
rich PERSON or a poor PERSON, but that if a person is moral by
Christianity's standards, they shall not be able to maintain being rich.
> - 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?
As Steve would probably point out, salvation is not based on works-- God
would be able to see into your heart to see *IF* you *WERE* rich, what you
would do.
> > 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.
>
> 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?
This is a tricky area because I'm not actually speaking about my own
morality... But, I do mean ability.
To go back to my version of morality, though, since morality is NOT
universal and is in fact individualistic (and variable with time and
experience, nonetheless!), all people DO have access to it. However, it's no
longer some tangible goal that differs in different degrees in different
people. So the question as it actually relates to MY view is kinda... odd...
because I don't hold with the 1st premise I stated in this line of reasoning.
BUT, assuming I DID hold with the possibility for universal moraltiy, I'm
not sure what I would mean. Probably ability.
> > 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.
Most definitely. But find me a Christian who would argue otherwise. I would
hold (were I Christian) that it would be akin to playing a game one had
invented. If I invent the game of chess, I won't suddenly start moving my
rooks diagonally or else I'm not playing the game I invented. Sure, I can
change the rules, but assuming I don't (universal morality/universal rules
to chess which implies no change, perhaps I should have stated that) then
I'm bound to the rules. Basically, for God to be able to violate good,
someone who followed Jesus' teachings to the exact letter and spirit COULD
go to Hell if God felt like it, which, again, I'm sure no Christian would
argue. God would not be arbitrary in matters of things like salvation. But
maybe I should have specified another step in there somewhere...
> > 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.
Really, that fits as a sub-answer to 7b. It's one way of acheiving salvation
without knowledge of the Bible.
> 7e. Reincarnation happens, and all souls are eventually exposed to the
> teachings of the Bible/Jesus.
Hmm... I'd put that with 7a. After all, by that logic salvation *IS* *only*
achievable with access to the Bible. However, it would more likely be a
rebuttal to 8a that I didn't forsee, mainly because I've never heard of
Christians preaching on the possibility for reincarnation, and didn't think
to account for it. And, admittedly, if we label that as 8a(1), my response,
probably being 8a(1a) would be that this would be an acceptable out for
Christians to take. However, it does limit one's ability to assume knowledge
of someone else's morality during life. But since I don't think people are
supposed to judge others ANYWAY (regardless of whether they do or not), I
guess it doesn't really matter. Point: Christianity.
> 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.
And I'd hold that any other 7n's would fit into 7a, 7b, or 7c, which all
state the necessity of access to the Bible to salvation. Either:
7a - It IS necessary, and divine
7b - It is not NECESSARY, but helpful (and divine)
7c - It is not necessary OR divine, but helpful
Ok, so maybe you could make a 7d which would be:
7d - It is not necessary OR helpful (could not be divine I would argue)
But again, that's not a possible response for Christianity to take.
> 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. :)
And a rather unexpected poke you did make with the reincarnation argument...
even though I don't think it matters much to the Christian perspective,
really. Any more you can see?
> > > 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.
Most definitely. Perhaps my saying "refute" was not quite what I meant to
communicate. Suffice to say that if one is proposing Biblical morality
instead of my own, it may become necessary for me to explain why I don't
agree with such a morality, hence bringing Biblical morality into the picture.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| <much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| <kay, I'll throw my opinion in the pot. And before I even get started, I'll (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
