|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Your supposed morality is weak because it is a fluid system designed by whoever happens to be most powerful at the time. History has shown that it can and will be transgressed over and over the moment it becomes expedient to do so. |
History has shown the same about Christian ethics; Christians regulary transgress against them over and over the moment it becomes expedient to do so. Your comment isn't a comment about secular ethics, it's a comment about ethics in general.
| Julius wrote: |
| In Rwanda a decade ago it was the right thing to do to kill as many of the opposition tribe as possible. Normally sane members of society became genocidal killers overnight as conditions became condusive. Normally speaking they were reasonable productive harmless citizens. But without the spiritual anchor of a personal accountability to God it this reality was revealed to be very weak. |
Rwanda was primarily Christian at the time, Julius. Your whole "Rwandans did blah blah blah," is a strike against religious ethics, not secular ethics; these people had your rubbish "spiritual anchor." Their fear of God wasn't enough to stop them from becoming genocidal, and once fear of God stops motivating you, religious ethics become meaningless. Only secular ethics can maintain a compelling aspect once you get past the fear, because they were never about fear in the first place.
| Julius wrote: |
Christian morality does not change depending on physical conditions and the varying urge to survive in the physical world. It is anchored to a spiritual eternity, not the need to dominate resources and eliminate rivals.
|
Yeah, if that were true the various newer denominations of Christianity wouldn't have sprung up. Christianity has all ready shown itself mutable. Christianity has all ready altered itself because of the events in the physical world. Unlike secular ethics, however, Christianity betrayed its very foundations when it did it. You go tell a Lutheran or Protestant Christianity doesn't change because of events in the world. Tell it to a Mormon. Tell it to a Baptist. All these Christians are members of denominations which to some extent or another changed their religious values.
| Julius wrote: |
| Looking through history we see human cultures have changed, yes. But what has never changed is human nature. That is what the biblical code of morality adresses. |
And it addresses it incorrectly and incompletely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's why this man came, www.williambranham.com
To reject denominationalism and get people back to the genuine word of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Ireland just concluded a major public inquiry into pedophilia in the Roman Catholic church,. |
There you go again about catholicism.
Catholicism is not real christianity. Its a sect that deviated centuries ago when it stopped actually reading or doing what was written in the bible. In fact the pope banned the bible for a long time. It is a decoy masquerading as christianity and giving it a bad name so that people like you can make wrongful accusations against christianity.
All your complaints relate to catholicism. Not protestantism or what the bible actually says.
Can you blame the bible itself for all those people who failed to follow its instructions? Who wilfully misinterpreted it for their own political ends? No, its called human error.
You need to focus on what the bible itself says, not how various people down the centuries have warped it to suit themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Well, kudos to those of you who have the patience for a debate with believers (and an altruistic desire to educate). I certainly don't. Debating a believer is like putting wings on a banana - pointless. |
You're a conceited man.
| Quote: |
| To fellow atheists: I'm in the middle of reading The Science of Good and Evil at the moment by Michael Shermer. The physical evidence says that morality is anterior to religion. Well, we knew that already, I suppose. Religion - of course itself not exempt from the forces of evolution - canonized pre-existing moral principles, such as the golden rule. The religious, in other words, who so babyishly mewl "where would our ethics be if my skydaddy doesn't exist?" are attempting to take credit for something that not only evolved 10's of thousands of years prior, but is actually directly responsible for and anterior to those very religions. |
Early man wasn't secular, couldn't conceive of secularity. To say that his morality was secular is beyond illogical. Read your historians of religion. I suggest Mircia Eliade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
There you go again about catholicism.
Catholicism is not real christianity. |
The fact that you feel the need to disown such an immense number of Christians and disassociate their actions from Christianity shows exactly how effective the moral code of Christianity really is. As soon as you start saying "But they don't count," you've stepped off the path of good faith argumentation.
Catholics are Christians. Their actions reflect on Christianity.
| Julius wrote: |
| It is a decoy masquerading as christianity and giving it a bad name so that people like you can make wrongful accusations against christianity. |
The idea that Catholicism's goal is to "masquerade as Christianity to give non-believers justification to attack Christianity," is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Disagree with their dogma all you like, but it's pretty clear they genuinely believe in their religion.
| Julius wrote: |
| All your complaints relate to catholicism. Not protestantism or what the bible actually says. |
His complaint of the religious needing an imaginary father-figure to scare them into behaving relates directly to both Protestantism and the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To fellow atheists: I'm in the middle of reading The Science of Good and Evil at the moment by Michael Shermer. The physical evidence says that morality is anterior to religion. Well, we knew that already, I suppose. Religion - of course itself not exempt from the forces of evolution - canonized pre-existing moral principles, such as the golden rule. The religious, in other words, who so babyishly mewl "where would our ethics be if my skydaddy doesn't exist?" are attempting to take credit for something that not only evolved 10's of thousands of years prior, but is actually directly responsible for and anterior to those very religions. |
Early man wasn't secular, couldn't conceive of secularity. To say that his morality was secular is beyond illogical. Read your historians of religion. I suggest Mircia Eliade. |
Non-human animals are secular. Mankind -- regardless of what the religious may believe -- evolved from animal life. At some point, mankind possessed intelligence but lacked religion; you need intelligence to be able to conceive of religion, so intelligence clearly came first. It's entirely possible at this stage in development ethical behavior provided an evolutionary benefit which ended up being selected for, and that religion later built upon that. In fact, it's very probable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeoulFinn wrote: |
| I know that this topic is about Christianity and the book mentioned in the first post, but I get this vibe that some of you may think that Christianity is the only way of living a good and moral lives. What about the other religions? Can't these people, if we leave the atheists out, be as moral as good Christians? I believe that a person doesn't need a God, any god for that matter, to know what's "good" and what's "bad". |
SeoulFinn damn good question...pardon the pun.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Ireland just concluded a major public inquiry into pedophilia in the Roman Catholic church,. |
There you go again about catholicism.
Catholicism is not real christianity. Its a sect that deviated centuries ago when it stopped actually reading or doing what was written in the bible. In fact the pope banned the bible for a long time. It is a decoy masquerading as christianity and giving it a bad name so that people like you can make wrongful accusations against christianity.
All your complaints relate to catholicism. Not protestantism or what the bible actually says. |
Well, you have a point there in that there is a debate as to how...I guess, "faithfully"...Catholicism reflects the values and tenets expressed in the bible, and that's a whole other issue - not that it isn't worth debating. But it remains true that other sects of Christianity in history have done similar things. During the Thirty Years War in Europe, atrocities were committed on both sides, Catholic and Protestant, in the name of God and the tenets expressed in the bible. The Klu Klux Klan claimed that their racist beliefs were based on biblical teachings.
| Quote: |
| Can you blame the bible itself for all those people who failed to follow its instructions? Who wilfully misinterpreted it for their own political ends? No, its called human error. |
No, that's true, and it's also certainly true that in the Soviet Union and other Marxist states, atheism was perverted and used as a justification for suppressing Christians, Jews and Moslems.
But it does point out the hazard of trying to tie morality exclusively to religion, a religion, one religion, or one religious text (the bible). When this happens, it closes out in the mindset of the religious the admissibility of other religions and/or moral codes. It's worth pointing out that there are millions of religious Christians in the world who accept that people other than themselves have the right to follow other religions if they want to, or even to follow atheistic but moral ways of life if they choose to, or even explore other religious practices to provide insight into their own.
I think there is one point that you and I can agree on...regardless of one's beliefs about God or the bible or the afterlife, there is not enough moral behavior in the world, whatever it is based on. Even if I am an atheist, I'd be perfectly happy to live in a community where most of the residents were devout Christians, if it made the streets safer and provided for the homeless.
Christians are much better at organization than atheists, I'll concede that. Someone once said that trying to organize atheists to do something is like trying to herd cats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
There you go again about catholicism.
Catholicism is not real christianity. |
The fact that you feel the need to disown such an immense number of Christians and disassociate their actions from Christianity shows exactly how effective the moral code of Christianity really is. As soon as you start saying "But they don't count," you've stepped off the path of good faith argumentation.
Catholics are Christians. Their actions reflect on Christianity.
| Julius wrote: |
| It is a decoy masquerading as christianity and giving it a bad name so that people like you can make wrongful accusations against christianity. |
The idea that Catholicism's goal is to "masquerade as Christianity to give non-believers justification to attack Christianity," is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Disagree with their dogma all you like, but it's pretty clear they genuinely believe in their religion.
| Julius wrote: |
| All your complaints relate to catholicism. Not protestantism or what the bible actually says. |
His complaint of the religious needing an imaginary father-figure to scare them into behaving relates directly to both Protestantism and the Bible. |
I agree with that. Even many other denominations would not argue that Catholics are not Christian, but that they hold certain inconsistent beliefs. So long as they hold to a sincere belief in Christ, how would they be masquerading? They may have some ideas that are considered heretical by many, but Catholicism is not a heresy in and of itself.
The idea of a father figure scaring people into behaving is and old testament situation and then a western idea propagated by St. Augustine. Anyone Christian with sense would know there isn't a tally for each sin that one commits. Of course, many believers follow the idea of Original Sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Well, kudos to those of you who have the patience for a debate with believers (and an altruistic desire to educate). I certainly don't. Debating a believer is like putting wings on a banana - pointless. |
You're a conceited man. |
It may look that way. Whether I debate a believer depends really. It depends on how advanced their debate is. If they're still at the "how can something come from nothing?" stage, or the "where does morality come from?" stage, or the "why be moral?" stage, then a debate with such individuals can only be a complete and utter waste of my time, because the answers to such questions are so elementary that one truly blushes to state them.
Take your statement below, for example.
| Quote: |
Early man wasn't secular, couldn't conceive of secularity. To say that his morality was secular is beyond illogical. Read your historians of religion. I suggest Mircia Eliade. |
I'm awfully sorry that your theistically-driven deliberations have led you to such palpably preposterous views. Moral sentiments evolved in our middle-to-upper Paleolithic ancestors living in small communities and were codified systematically by the religions some tens of millennia later. This resulted, in the crudest and briefest terms possible, from the tension between cooperation and competitiveness. Morality - what ever one's view as to its origin - allows people to achieve what cannot be achieved alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
No, that's true, and it's also certainly true that in the Soviet Union and other Marxist states, atheism was perverted and used as a justification for suppressing Christians, Jews and Moslems.
|
I read Death by Government recently (essential reading), and that author had some interesting views on communists:
| Quote: |
Power was nearly absolute.
The central tenets of Marxism = the Bible.
High communist officials = priests.
The Communist Party = the Church.
The achievement of the Marxist heaven (communism) = the ultimate goal.
The borgeoisie, landlords, the rich, officers of the previous regime = the sinful (and the enemies of the Good) |
Theists and apologists love to cite communism. Sadly for them, communism was religion in secular form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stones1962
Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Location: Europe/Asia
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
If those of you who opposed the very idea of a personal and loving God and would really, and honestly, read the Bible, then perhaps you would begin to understand the true nature of God.
Your perceptions of Him are grossly wrong. Any argument which denies even the possibility of His existence is an invalid argument. An honest scientist, even an atheist, must include that possibility in any and all theories of the creation of the univerise or the rise of humans. An honest scientist must include even those ideas which seem, to him or her, as impossible. A scientist who has a theory of anything always, if honest, will consider that which seems impossible. A theory must include all possibilities therefore these arguments must include the possibility that God exists.
Your arguments against the Bible, against God, against the very nature of God and humans....are all wrong.
Why?
Because you deny the very possibility of the existence of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Komichi
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Location: Piano Street, Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it amazing how a piece of literary fiction penned a short 1600 years ago has since created such a monoculture of the mind, has risen to be the authority on all things through the immense power of groupthink. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stones1962 wrote: |
If those of you who opposed the very idea of a personal and loving God and would really, and honestly, read the Bible, then perhaps you would begin to understand the true nature of God.
Your perceptions of Him are grossly wrong. Any argument which denies even the possibility of His existence is an invalid argument. An honest scientist, even an atheist, must include that possibility in any and all theories of the creation of the univerise or the rise of humans. An honest scientist must include even those ideas which seem, to him or her, as impossible. A scientist who has a theory of anything always, if honest, will consider that which seems impossible. A theory must include all possibilities therefore these arguments must include the possibility that God exists. |
I think you've misunderstood the nature of scientific inquiry. All scientific inquiry starts with positing the hypothesis that something exists, or that there is a relationship between things, but it doesn't stop there. From there, scientific inquiry proceeds to demonstrating or proving that hypothesis, or disproving it. Atheists and the majority of scientists in the physical sciences have considered the possibility of the existence of mythical beings, but then have attempted to set out to prove that they exist. No one has ever successfully proved the existence of these beings. An essential tenet of scientific inquiry is that the simplest explanation that explains the relationship between things is the best. All of the evidence and hypotheses put forward demonstrating the existence of mythical beings can be accounted for by simpler explanations.
Scientists regularly and consistently consider theories and hypotheses which initially seem impossible. In Geology, the theory of continental drift was first hypothesized in the 1920s...geologists initially discounted it as impossible because nobody could plausibly explain how the continents could move. In the 1960s, deep-sea explorations discovered the mid-Atlantic rift, and the science of Plate Tectonics emerged...providing an explanation for how the continents could shift over geological timescales.
| Quote: |
Your arguments against the Bible, against God, against the very nature of God and humans....are all wrong.
Why?
Because you deny the very possibility of the existence of God. |
Only if you assume that atheists have never seriously considered the possibility of the existence of mythical beings in the first place. But to turn it around, your criticism seems a little disingenuous, because you don't seem to have ever seriously considered the possibility - and the associated evidence - that "god" doesn't exist. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weebil
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Well, kudos to those of you who have the patience for a debate with believers (and an altruistic desire to educate). I certainly don't... |
i actually try to avoid debating atheists myself. whole "pearls before the swine" thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
