Is it hard?

[Eudaimonist]

I know that perfectly. That is what we call it humanity.

I wasn't talking about humanity. I was talking about Secular Humanists. I'm not using that term as a synonym for people outside of the church, as perhaps you do. I mean self-identifying Secular Humanists. These guys:

The problem I have with that is nobody can say that I am wrong when I make a different choice or decision which might go against the main stream idea (you just have to "tolerate" me).

I can say that you have made an ethical mistake. Nothing prevents me from making a judgment about you. Perhaps in some cases I would need more facts to make a firm judgment, but that is not a limitation. The main point of ethics is living one's own life, not passing judgment on others.

In any religion, one can clearly say something is wrong without further argument.

In any ethical philosophy, one can clearly say something is wrong since the philosophy is itself the argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I wasn't talking about humanity. I was talking about Secular Humanists. I'm not using that term as a synonym for people outside of the church, as perhaps you do. I mean self-identifying Secular Humanists.

I can say that you have made an ethical mistake. Nothing prevents me from making a judgment about you. Perhaps in some cases I would need more facts to make a firm judgment, but that is not a limitation. The main point of ethics is living one's own life, not passing judgment on others.

In any ethical philosophy, one can clearly say something is wrong since the philosophy is itself the argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If I were an atheist, then why should I listen to YOU? I don't even have to listen to the majority.

In that case, I am the standard. That is what atheism can do.

 

[juvenissun]

Although, even with people who claim to be handling it according to Biblical teaching, the views among Christians as to what's biblical varies greatly. I've observed as much diversity of opinion within Christianity alone as I have across the overall religious spectrum.

My explanation has included what you said.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait, what?


What?


WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!


You mean, morality? I thought I already told you so. Rudimentary rules of morality are hard-wired into our brains, and we turn them into subjective standards using thought and experience.


That's not true. We can still judge you according to our standards, and we can also judge which standard makes the most sense.


Then why do Christians still commit crimes, if they can instantly tell right from wrong?

And I can judge you according to my standard. If I had a bigger gun, my standard will defeat your standard. That is what communism is about.

 

[juvenissun]

Cool advice. Thanks. I have changed my mind: I believe in God. God is the source of my morality. No more discussions, no way for you to say my morality is wrong.

I still can. But my criticism will have to based on the Bible (or the doctrine) too.

See, at least I do need to have a FIXED base to criticize. Atheism does not have that and does not need that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If I were an atheist, then why should I listen to YOU? I don't even have to listen to the majority.

Did you forget so soon that I wasn't talking about all atheists, but only about subsets who do share an ethical philosophy? Within those subsets, it is entirely possible to tell someone that he or she has violated the ethical standard recognized by the group, and that is a reason for he or she to listen.

Just as a Christian ought to at least listen to YOU in YOUR interpretation of the Bible, at least to rethink whether or not they have violated Christian standards, so too would someone who shared my ethical philsophy have an obligation to at least listen to and consider my ethical evaluation of his or her actions as an ethical doublecheck.

Christians have no fundamental advantage over atheist groups here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

See, at least I do need to have a FIXED base to criticize. Atheism does not have that and does not need that.

I do have that and need that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rajni]

My explanation has included what you said.

Excellent!

So then, backtracking to your original claim (in posts #65 and #78) that atheists have a philosophy (because only some agree with it) and Christians have a morality (because all of them agree with it), it would be more accurate to say that Christians also have a philosophy for the same reasons atheists do: only some -- not all -- Christians agree with it

 

[juvenissun]

Did you forget so soon that I wasn't talking about all atheists, but only about subsets who do share an ethical philosophy? Within those subsets, it is entirely possible to tell someone that he or she has violated the ethical standard recognized by the group, and that is a reason for he or she to listen.

Just as a Christian ought to at least listen to YOU in YOUR interpretation of the Bible, at least to rethink whether or not they have violated Christian standards, so too would someone who shared my ethical philsophy have an obligation to at least listen to and consider my ethical evaluation of his or her actions as an ethical doublecheck.

Christians have no fundamental advantage over atheist groups here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I do not know how much you know about Christianity (someone have proudly claimed that he was a church elder and turned out not understanding Christianity so much). But your understanding on the diversity of Christianity is not correct.

Just curious, how is your group of humanism different from other humanism? Could you use an example to illustrate it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

But your understanding on the diversity of Christianity is not correct.

So, there is no diversity in Christianity? Do Christians all agree on everything?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I still can. But my criticism will have to based on the Bible (or the doctrine) too.

See, at least I do need to have a FIXED base to criticize. Atheism does not have that and does not need that.

A fixed base? There are countless interpretations of the Bible, many of them irreconcilable with one another. Which one is fixed and fixed by what? I have no doubt that religion gives you the convincing illusion that you are working on a fixed base, but to borrow (somewhat ironically) a metaphor from the Bible, when you've fixed your base on sand it's bound to shift and sink with time.

 

[Tiberius]

You don't have to think about it. But if you do, then here is a list. You MUST have done some on the list every day.

Number 88 on that list is crazy. It's a sin to ask someone what they think of the weather? Or does that topic become Jesus?

129 would seem to indicate you shouldn't be here.

And it's a sin to be discouraged (148)? Wow, that's harsh.

When I read 159 (getting drunk), I think of Genesis 9:20-21.

What happened to 367? Why was it omitted? Does that mean there's only 666 sins there? How curious it should be THAT number...

Alot of the ones about lying I've seen many creationists do, both here and elsewhere. WHen they are shown that their arguments are flawed, but then keep using them. What is that if it is not lying?

538 seems to be in there just to make sure nobody can win...

And is 565 really saying it's a sin to watch television if it's not Christian programming?

And as for 602, well, it's been 2000 years. I wouldn't exactly call that soon...

619 makes me laugh. False science is against God's word. Quiote the opposite, in fact.

It's a sin to love this world? (656)

And 664, it's a sin to be worried? Your child hasn't been home in three days, you can't contact them, but you can't be worried, it's a sin?

 

[juvenissun]

Number 88 on that list is crazy. It's a sin to ask someone what they think of the weather? Or does that topic become Jesus?

129 would seem to indicate you shouldn't be here.

And it's a sin to be discouraged (148)? Wow, that's harsh.

When I read 159 (getting drunk), I think of Genesis 9:20-21.

What happened to 367? Why was it omitted? Does that mean there's only 666 sins there? How curious it should be THAT number...

Alot of the ones about lying I've seen many creationists do, both here and elsewhere. WHen they are shown that their arguments are flawed, but then keep using them. What is that if it is not lying?

538 seems to be in there just to make sure nobody can win...

And is 565 really saying it's a sin to watch television if it's not Christian programming?

And as for 602, well, it's been 2000 years. I wouldn't exactly call that soon...

619 makes me laugh. False science is against God's word. Quiote the opposite, in fact.

It's a sin to love this world? (656)

And 664, it's a sin to be worried? Your child hasn't been home in three days, you can't contact them, but you can't be worried, it's a sin?

Everyone on your question list can be discussed. If you are interested, pick one and we can do that.

 

[juvenissun]

So, there is no diversity in Christianity? Do Christians all agree on everything?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Diversity on Christian opinions is an inevitable and desirable part in Christian doctrine. However, all the opinions are Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

A fixed base? There are countless interpretations of the Bible, many of them irreconcilable with one another. Which one is fixed and fixed by what? I have no doubt that religion gives you the convincing illusion that you are working on a fixed base, but to borrow (somewhat ironically) a metaphor from the Bible, when you've fixed your base on sand it's bound to shift and sink with time.

It is completely false. You may pick the worst one and we can take a look of it.

You can't win on this. These interpretations have been severely scrutinized by countless wisest people over thousands of years. They still stand today.

There are conflict ideas to modern social cultural issues among Christians. But that is about the application. And again, diversity of opinion about application of Christianity is a good and necessary thing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is completely false. You may pick the worst one and we can take a look of it.

You can't win on this. These interpretations have been severely scrutinized by countless wisest people over thousands of years. They still stand today.

There are conflict ideas to modern social cultural issues among Christians. But that is about the application. And again, diversity of opinion about application of Christianity is a good and necessary thing.

That doesn't really answer my question though. On what basis is it fixed and who has fixed it given that a multitude of sects each proclaim their own "fixed base" as the fixed base. This isn't merely a diversity of opinion. This is a claim that one's own sect has the correct interpretation and that all others are mistaken or misled.

 

[Tiberius]

Everyone on your question list can be discussed. If you are interested, pick one and we can do that.

Oh no doubt. But would it apply in today's society? Many of them, yes. But I think many of them would also be largely irrelevant in today's world.

And I think some are no more than keeping people thinking that they must be Christians. Advertising spiel, if you will.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh no doubt. But would it apply in today's society? Many of them, yes. But I think many of them would also be largely irrelevant in today's world.

And I think some are no more than keeping people thinking that they must be Christians. Advertising spiel, if you will.

I don't think so. I wish you would try to challenge.

 

[juvenissun]

That doesn't really answer my question though. On what basis is it fixed and who has fixed it given that a multitude of sects each proclaim their own "fixed base" as the fixed base. This isn't merely a diversity of opinion. This is a claim that one's own sect has the correct interpretation and that all others are mistaken or misled.

There is a core doctrine which everyone recognized.

For the rest, I can say that mine is correct. But I should not say yours is wrong. Because yours may also be correct. Any argument made should based on the core doctrine with a reference on the rest of the Scripture.

That is the nature of Christian diversity, which is the best kind.

 

[Danyc]

There is a core doctrine which everyone recognized.

For the rest, I can say that mine is correct. But I should not say yours is wrong. Because yours may also be correct. Any argument made should based on the core doctrine with a reference on the rest of the Scripture.

That is the nature of Christian diversity, which is the best kind.

That's fine if you say that. But many don't.