Superiority

[oi_antz]

Jesus had no sin nature

What information do you base this on?

 

[aiki]

Still your assumption of his meaning.

Well, it requires more than just saying so, for it to actually be so. Can you show how I'm assuming his meaning rather than drawing it from his words as I believe I have?

Jesus had no sin nature yet he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Being tempted, or yielding to temptation does not need a sin nature, only a wrong decision

This doesn't actually answer my question. I didn't ask you about Jesus but about Adam and Eve in Eden at the Fall. If they had no propensity toward sin at all, how could they be induced to sin? They willfully chose to disobey the direct, explicit command of God. Why would they do that if they had no propensity toward sin whatever? Adam and Eve weren't like Jesus who was both fully God and fully man, so drawing comparisons between them isn't very useful.

Because the inward man is our spirit. The outward man is our soul and body.

Interesting. Where in the Bible do you find this spelled out? Especially the bit about the outward man being soul and body?

An unrengerate person is "dead" in their spirit only in that they are connected to God. But everyone has a conscience of right and wrong. Some have their conscience seared so that it is hard for them to know the difference, but that is a minority, imo. Most want to do right while unregenerate.

But this isn't the picture Paul paints of the unregenerate person. Paul says in Ephesians 2 that the unregenerate person walks "according to the course of the World" and "according to the prince of the power of the air" and is conducting him/herself in accord with the lusts of their flesh and mind. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul describes the unregenerate person as an "enemy in their mind toward God by wicked works" (Col. 1:21). Clearly, it isn't that most unsaved people desire to do right but fail. No, they act generally as Paul describes in Romans 1:

Romans 1:21-25
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

It is precisely because the unsaved act as Paul describes here that they are deserving of the judgement and eternal wrath of God. They aren't unwilling transgressors of their own conscience but, like Adam and Eve, willfully in rebellion toward God.

It is not. It is the product of an unrenewed mind.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

However, I have observed believers for 30 years, and most live defeated lives because of erroneous doctrine such as this. Many people think the devil is in Africa or some other far away 3rd world nation. But Satan has his throne in the commercial centers of the 1st world.

Erroneous doctrine such as what? That the devil is in Africa but not in North America? I've not suggested such a thing...

God has equipped us to walk morally superior but the divorce rate of Christians is equal to the world. Pornography is viewed by just as many pastors and believers as the lost.

Actually, Focus on the Family did a radio segment a few months ago that revealed that the divorce rate is not generally equal between Christians and non-Christians. And I have no idea where you would get concrete proof of your claim that porn use is as common among pastors and Christians generally as it is among non-believers.

Sound doctrine produces life and peace according to Paul

I think he said these things were found in Christ and God, not doctrine...

Christians are just as fearful as the lost and many are dirt poor because they do not understand what God has given us.

Some Christians may be as you describe here, but certainly not all. Particularly in less affluent and peaceful corners of the world, Christians apparently are quite the opposite of how you describe them above.

Anywhoo, it's been...interesting discussing your understanding of how Christians may live victoriously in Christ, but I think we have strayed far afield from the intended purpose of this thread. In light of this, I shall desist in pressing you about your views on Christian living.

Selah.

 

[bhayes]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...muslims-immoral.7868708/page-25#post-68143377

-"if you think they are immoral, what is the solution for atheists and muslims?"

-"Convert to Christianity."

Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. In what other ways are Christians superior to non-Christians?

Christianity is Gods way of reaching down to mankind in the from form of his Jesus Christ.

What information do you base this on?

Its in the bible. "a high priest [who] meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26) and is "unblemished" (Hebrews 9:14)".

 

[oi_antz]

Its in the bible. "a high priest [who] meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26) and is "unblemished" (Hebrews 9:14)".

That means He did not sin, His conscience is clear. I knew that. Why do you say though that He did not have a 'sin nature'? Is it just an assumption you have made because it makes best sense, or is there actual scriptural information that makes this official knowledge? Thanks. Just I do not know of information that states this so I don't make this assumption. I want to be sure that I should not consider altering this belief.

 

[AlexDTX]

What information do you base this on?

For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21)​

If you have to ask this question, I wonder what kind of Christian you are supposed to be.

 

[JGG]

Some think they are. Not all. Why do you care? Do you think you are morally superior to a rapist, or murderer, or drug pusher? If you do, don't you think they might object to your moral superiority?

Not necessarily. Some murderers and drug pushers have paid the price, or done their time for their moral failings. Some have taken responsibility for their actions. I would not presume to say I'm morally superior to them. As a general thing however, I'm sure I have better morals than people we are defining by their moral failings.

That being said, in your analogy, non-Christians would the ones represented as murderers and drug dealers?

The Christian's grounding for their morality is certainly superior to that of atheists.

I don't see how, nor do I see how such a statement is distinct from saying that Christians are superior from atheists. It seems like a verbal workaround to claim superiority, while providing deniability that you claim superiority. Does that sound right?

And, being a Christian, I believe the Christian worldview is superior to that of the atheist or Muslim. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Christian, would I?

If you're a Christian because you want to feel you have a superior worldview, I suppose not.

Again, though, why do you care?

Just "exploring".

 

[bhsmte]

Not necessarily. Some murderers and drug pushers have paid the price for their moral failings. I would not presume to say I'm morally superior to them. As a general thing however, I'm sure I have better morals than people we are defining by their moral failings.

That being said in your analogy, non-Christians would the murderers and drug dealers?



I don't see how, nor do I see how such a statement is distinct from saying that Christians are superior from atheists. Is that your claim?

IMO, with some Christians, they feel what is the purpose of being a Christian, if it does not make me superior in some way to non Christians.

 

[aiki]

Not necessarily. Some murderers and drug pushers have paid the price, or done their time for their moral failings. Some have taken responsibility for their actions. I would not presume to say I'm morally superior to them. As a general thing however, I'm sure I have better morals than people we are defining by their moral failings.

That being said, in your analogy, non-Christians would the ones represented as murderers and drug dealers?

So, there are drug pushers and murderers toward whom you do feel morally superior? I assume you would feel morally superior to a person who molested children or a man who regularly beats his wife, too. And rightly so, it seems to me. Certainly, this difference in the moral quality of one's behaviour is what the law acknowledges when a person is convicted of, and punished for, child molestation, or rape, or selling illicit drugs to minors. So, the idea of one person feeling morally superior to another is not necessarily an illegitimate or bad thing - if that feeling is warranted.

I didn't offer an analogy, but simply asked a question about when it might be appropriate to feel morally-superior to someone else.

I don't see how, nor do I see how such a statement is distinct from saying that Christians are superior from atheists. It seems like a verbal workaround to claim superiority, while providing deniability that you claim superiority. Does that sound right?

I'm afraid you aren't making careful distinctions here. Having a more reasonable and solid ground for the moral values and duties to which I hold does not make me, therefore, necessarily morally superior. As atheists are so fond of pointing out, Christians can be as hypocritical as anyone else. I can have a mechanically-superior vehicle to the guy next to me on the road, but still be a rotten driver. The quality of my vehicle and the quality of my driving are not one and the same thing. Likewise, the Christian has a better moral "vehicle" than the atheist, but that does not mean the Christian is therefore necessarily a better "driver" morally than the atheist. This isn't clever semantics but merely being careful not to mistake things that may be closely related as identical.

If you're a Christian because you want to feel you have a superior worldview, I suppose not.

Why would I want to hold a worldview I believed was inferior? You wouldn't do that, would you? I'm assuming you are an atheist because you think it is better in some way than being a theist.

Selah.

 

[Job8]

Okay. No offence, but I have no interest in that answer. Clearly, there is a significant portion of Christianity that claims superiority. I'd like to hear from them.

Christians do not claim to be "superior" per se but genuine Christians are (1) saved by grace, therefore they are (2) children of God through the New Birth, (3) heirs of God, (4) joint-heirs with Christ, and (5) kings and priests (a Royal Priesthood) for eternity. Christians also have (6) an eternal home in Heaven and (7) an eternal inheritance in Heaven, and (8) they shall be perfected and glorified by Christ. Therefore (9) they will live and reign with Christ, and (10) have eternal and perfect fellowship with the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

All of this has been given to Christians purely by God's grace AS A GIFT, and soley because of what Christ accomplished in His life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. So all the glory belongs to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.

 

[JGG]

I didn't offer an analogy, but simply asked a question about when it might be appropriate to feel morally-superior to someone else.

It was either an analogy or a non-sequitur. You brought up murderers and drug pushers, how does it relate to the conversation?

I'm afraid you aren't making careful distinctions here. Having a more reasonable and solid ground for the moral values and duties to which I hold does not make me, therefore, necessarily morally superior. As atheists are so fond of pointing out, Christians can be as hypocritical as anyone else. I can have a mechanically-superior vehicle to the guy next to me on the road, but still be a rotten driver. The quality of my vehicle and the quality of my driving are not one and the same thing. Likewise, the Christian has a better moral "vehicle" than the atheist, but that does not mean the Christian is therefore necessarily a better "driver" morally than the atheist. This isn't clever semantics but merely being careful not to mistake things that may be closely related as identical.

I'm not following this analogy at all. What is the moral base? Is it the car? Are you then suggesting that I need to be a "superior" driver to make up for the fact that my "car" is inferior to yours? What difference does it make having a "superior" car? How is your "car" certainly superior to mine? Why would one want a superior "car" if it's the driving ability that matters?

When you make use of the "moral base" argument you should remember that it assumes that I have no "car" at all.

Why would I want to hold a worldview I believed was inferior? You wouldn't do that, would you?

But I don't assume that just because a worldview isn't superior that it is inferior. Just like while I am not superior to you, neither am I inferior.

I'm assuming you are an atheist because you think it is better in some way than being a theist.

No, I'm a skeptic. My worldview is somewhat accommodating of skepticism. I don't know that my worldview is better, it basically consists of "I don't know."

Again, are you saying that you're a Christian simply because you feel the worldview is superior?

 

[BabylonWeary]

No, I'm a skeptic. My worldview is somewhat accommodating of skepticism. I don't know that my worldview is better, it basically consists of "I don't know."

You sure do know how to get a good thread going, I must say.

Well, you can't control the misunderstandings of others, in some ways it's a miracle that knowledge and wisdom can be shared at all in times and places where people are so adamant they are completely right or others are completely wrong. There's a frustration in that, too. You say "I don't know", someone else is capable of then saying you're a totally incapable of knowing anything, which is a lie, but when you're a Christian those sorts of lies get told about you from time to time based upon faulty straw-man logic.

That is like, have you ever seen the movie called "Wizard of Oz", and whether it's fun to see it or not is a matter of taste, but either way you could analyze the symbolism and how that relates to the economics of the United State. The more accurate the study is doesn't matter because there will always be people who think it balderdash, that it could never be more than just some fairy tale about a little girl lost in a dream world.

So it is with prophecy and parables, the worst accusation anyone could make honestly is that whoever is doing the interpretation has made a mistake in it, any other kind of accusation is generally dishonest, and so the motives of the accuser are worth questioning.

Even the most polite pedestrian is no match against a road raging drunk driver, I suppose.

 

[aiki]

It was either an analogy or a non-sequitur. You brought up murderers and drug pushers, how does it relate to the conversation?

Well, as I said, I asked you a question; I did not offer an analogy. You seem to dislike that Christians view themselves as morally-superior to atheists, but you hold yourself morally-superior to a murderer, or rapist, or drug dealer. I hoped to highlight this inconsistency by asking you if, in fact, you did hold yourself as morally-superior to such people. With a minor caveat, you agreed that you do. Where's the non sequitur? As far as I can see, there is none.

I'm not following this analogy at all. What is the moral base? Is it the car? Are you then suggesting that I need to be a "superior" driver to make up for the fact that my "car" is inferior to yours? What difference does it make having a "superior" car? How is your "car" certainly superior to mine? Why would one want a superior "car" if it's the driving ability that matters?

When you make use of the "moral base" argument you should remember that it assumes that I have no "car" at all.

Forget the analogy. Explaining it to you will just bog down the discussion. Simply put, you have confused the ground for my morality with my moral conduct. Though they are related, they are not identical. Saying I have more reasonable and solid ground than an atheist upon which to rest my system of moral values and duties is not the same, then, as saying I am in my conduct morally-superior to you. This seems plainly obvious to me, so I am not going to make any further explanations on this point to you.

But I don't assume that just because a worldview isn't superior that it is inferior. Just like while I am not superior to you, neither am I inferior.

If an alternative worldview to your own is not superior nor inferior, the only other option, it seems to me, is that it is equal. Do you think of Christianity as a worldview equal to your own? In any case, I did not say one must hold that a worldview that is not superior to one's own is necessarily inferior.

No, I'm a skeptic. My worldview is somewhat accommodating of skepticism. I don't know that my worldview is better, it basically consists of "I don't know."

So, you are not an atheist (though, you sound very much like one)? Instead, you are agnostic? It has been my observation that skepticism is a very easy position to adopt philosophically, but it is an impossible one to live out.

Again, are you saying that you're a Christian simply because you feel the worldview is superior?

No. First of all, feelings have little to nothing to do with my Christian belief. Second, I am a Christian because the evidence in support of the Christian worldview offers me excellent reason to think Christianity is true; because I have a daily experience of the God revealed to me in the Bible; and because the Christian worldview better explains and/or corresponds to reality than any other worldview. So, no, I am not a Christian simply because I feel the Christian worldview is superior.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

Well, as I said, I asked you a question; I did not offer an analogy. You seem to dislike that Christians view themselves as morally-superior to atheists, but you hold yourself morally-superior to a murderer, or rapist, or drug dealer.

These are people who we are defining by their moral failings, as though that makes it equivalent. I am no more or less moral than Jews, Asians, baseball fans, computer engineers, or comic book collectors. They are all groups defined something other than their moral failings?

If your question does not serve as an analogy then how is it relevant? Why do Christians view themselves as morally superior to atheists (as you said), or non-Christians in general (as I said) if not because in Christian doctrine they are defined as being morally deficient?

Let's try this: I'm willing to bet that I am taller than most people with dwarfism. I am not prepared to bet that I am taller than say a Buddhist. That is because those with dwarfism are, by definition, shorter than I am. Buddhists are not.

I hoped to highlight this inconsistency by asking you if, in fact, you did hold yourself as morally-superior to such people. With a minor caveat, you agreed that you do. Where's the non sequitur? As far as I can see, there is none.

So tell me why you believe non-Christians are "shorter" than thou. Why do Christians believe themselves morally "taller"? Either you are trying to justify feeling morally superior to non-Christians, or this is a non-sequitur.

Forget the analogy. Explaining it to you will just bog down the discussion. Simply put, you have confused the ground for my morality with my moral conduct. Though they are related, they are not identical. Saying I have more reasonable and solid ground than an atheist upon which to rest my system of moral values and duties is not the same, then, as saying I am in my conduct morally-superior to you. This seems plainly obvious to me, so I am not going to make any further explanations on this point to you.

Why not? This is exactly my question. Why is your moral ground superior? What is your moral ground? How do you know it is superior? What difference does moral ground make if not moral conduct? These are rather simple questions to be discussed in light of your rather bold claim. You may think these are plainly obvious to you, but you seem incapable of explaining how or why. Might I suggest that you know the answer. Go ahead and say what you're trying so hard not to say.

If an alternative worldview to your own is not superior nor inferior, the only other option, it seems to me, is that it is equal. Do you think of Christianity as a worldview equal to your own?

I have no idea. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Remember my worldview is "I don't know."

In any case, I did not say one must hold that a worldview that is not superior to one's own is necessarily inferior.

That was the assumption you made, remember?

If you're a Christian because you want to feel you have a superior worldview, I suppose not.

Why would I want to hold a worldview I believed was inferior? You wouldn't do that, would you?

So, you are not an atheist (though, you sound very much like one)? Instead, you are agnostic?

Yes, I am agnostic. I don't know whether deities exists or not. As a result, I do no believe in them. If I don't believe in deities that makes me an atheist.

It has been my observation that skepticism is a very easy position to adopt philosophically, but it is an impossible one to live out.

What philosophy is not impossible to live out? We still have it in mind, right?

No. First of all, feelings have little to nothing to do with my Christian belief. Second, I am a Christian because the evidence in support of the Christian worldview offers me excellent reason to think Christianity is true; because I have a daily experience of the God revealed to me in the Bible; and because the Christian worldview better explains and/or corresponds to reality than any other worldview. So, no, I am not a Christian simply because I feel the Christian worldview is superior.

So whether the worldview is superior or not, you would still be a Christian?

 

[aiki]

These are people who we are defining by their moral failings, as though that makes it equivalent. I am no more or less moral than Jews, Asians, baseball fans, computer engineers, or comic book collectors. They are all groups defined something other than their moral failings?

It may be that you are morally equal to Jews, Asians, baseball fans, etc. That is rather beside my point, which was that there are instances where an atheist may think himself morally-superior to someone else. But if an atheist has grounds for thinking this way, why should he object if the Christian thinks he has grounds to do so as well?

Why do Christians view themselves as morally superior to atheists (as you said), or non-Christians in general (as I said) if not because in Christian doctrine they are defined as being morally deficient?

As I have explained quite thoroughly, Christians as a rule do not think of themselves as morally-superior to atheists. They believe that the ground for their morality is superior, but this does not necessarily translate into morally-superior conduct. And if a Christian is not in their conduct morally-superior to an atheist, on what grounds can the Christian claim any moral superiority?

So tell me why you believe non-Christians are "shorter" than thou. Why do Christians believe themselves morally "taller"? Either you are trying to justify feeling morally superior to non-Christians, or this is a non-sequitur.

I'm afraid you've shown here that you don't quite understand what a non sequitur is. My question in and of itself offered no conclusion, which protects it from the charge of being a non sequitur.

Why is your moral ground superior? What is your moral ground?

I should think this is obvious. My moral ground is superior because it emanates from the Ground of All Reality, God Himself.

You may think these are plainly obvious to you, but you seem incapable of explaining how or why.

I'm willing to discuss the ground for Christian moral values and duties. I only refused to continue to explain the distinction between the ground for morality and moral conduct.

Might I suggest that you know the answer. Go ahead and say what you're trying so hard not to say.

Yes, I do know the answer, but over the years I've grown very reluctant to just spill all that I know right off only to have it all dismissed out-of-hand. I also find offering information a bit at a time helps to keep a discussion on point and on track.

I have no idea. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Remember my worldview is "I don't know."

But you don't post like someone who doesn't know. You make far too many negative assertions and declarations about the Christian faith to claim you don't know if the Christian worldview is equal to your own.

That was the assumption you made, remember?

No, it was an assumption you charged me with making, but it was never something I actually asserted.

Yes, I am agnostic. I don't know whether deities exists or not. As a result, I do no believe in them. If I don't believe in deities that makes me an atheist.

Goodness! If you wrote something like this in a first-year philosophy class essay at university, you would have got an "F"! Here's the problem: You can't be both agnostic and atheistic at the same time about the same thing. See the Law of Non-Contradiction.

So whether the worldview is superior or not, you would still be a Christian?

It is because I believe the worldview is true that I believe it at all.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

It may be that you are morally equal to Jews, Asians, baseball fans, etc. That is rather beside my point, which was that there are instances where an atheist may think himself morally-superior to someone else. But if an atheist has grounds for thinking this way, why should he object if the Christian thinks he also has grounds to do so as well?

Okay. But again, an atheist, or Christian, or Cheese Maker could hold themselves morally superior because they are being compared to a group defined by their moral failings. So on what grounds do Christians have to think they are superior to non-Christians?

As I have explained quite thoroughly, Christians as a rule do not think of themselves as morally-superior to atheists.

Clearly not as a rule. Two Christians in this thread have said in no uncertain terms that Christians are superior, never mind in the dozens of threads that have come before. You yourself have stated that Christians believe themselves superior, and that Christians have the grounds to believe themselves superior.

They believe that the ground for their morality is superior, but this does not necessarily translate into morally-superior conduct. And if a Christian is not in their conduct morally-superior to an atheist, on what grounds can the Christian claim any moral superiority?

That's what I'm asking. What difference does the ground of their morality make?

I'm afraid you've shown here that you don't quite understand what a non sequitur is. My question in and of itself offered no conclusion, which protects it from the charge of being a non sequitur.

A non-sequitur is a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question. How do murderers, rapists and drug pushers relate to non-Christians?

I should think this is obvious. My moral ground is superior because it emanates from the Ground of All Reality, God Himself.

Does not all morality come from God in your view? If morality is that which is good, is morality not simply a reflection of a God who is pure goodness? If my moral conduct is as good as yours, where does mine come from? Surely not somewhere different from where you get yours? If they id come from somewhere different, but mine are no worse than yours, how is your grounding better?

On the other hand, if morality is not of God, where does it come from? Is morality "bigger" than God? Would that mean that God is subservient to morality? Or maybe God and morality are actually unrelated. Maybe God could be morally neutral, and morality is just a social construct.

So...no not at all obvious. This is why I'm asking about "moral ground" it seems a very vague, poorly defined concept. I'm sure you know why it exists, don't you?

I'm willing to discuss the ground for Christian moral values and duties. I only refused to continue to explain the distinction between the ground for morality and moral conduct.

There really is no distinction, though is there? How is my morality, as an atheist, different from yours?

Yes, I do know the answer, but over the years I've grown very reluctant to just spill all that I know right off only to have it all dismissed out-of-hand. I also find offering information a bit at a time helps to keep a discussion on point and on track.

Really? "Yes, I know the answer, but I'm not going to tell you because of [reason]?" You'll understand my skepticism.


...how about now? Can you explain it now?

But you don't post like someone who doesn't know. You make far too many negative assertions and declarations about the Christian faith to claim you don't know if the Christian worldview is equal to your own.

I cannot make sense of this paragraph. Just because I don't know whether Christianity is true does not mean that I do not see faults within Christianity. Indeed, it is a pretty major reason why I am not a Christian.

No, it was an assumption you charged me with making, but it was never something I actually asserted.

Of course. You took the "these worldviews could be equal" position the whole time.

Goodness! If you wrote something like this in a first-year philosophy class essay at university, you would have got an "F"! Here's the problem: You can't be both agnostic and atheistic at the same time about the same thing. See the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Yes, I certainly can. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnostic (-gnost- being the latin for know) is a position on belief in knowledge. I could be agnostic about anything really, but generally it used to describe not having knowledge in deities. By saying I am an agnostic I am saying "I don't believe I have knowledge", and in this case "about gods".

Atheism is a position on belief in God(s) (-theo- being latin for deity). By saying I am an atheist, I am saying "I do not hold belief in God; I do not have faith in Gods". Do you see how someone can hold both positions simultaneously?

As a theist, you say "I believe there is a God". If I do not know if there is a God, if I am undecided, or have severe doubts about God, or I simply admit that I do not know, then I cannot make the same claim about belief. I cannot say that I am a believer, and thus I am not a theist. So what is the word we use to describe someone who is not a theist? Atheist. Are you following?

There really ought to be a sticky for this around here somewhere I have to explain it so often. This will have to do. I suppose it's possible Robert Flint got an "F" in first year philosophy.

And, for what it's worth, I took philosophy classes well into graduate school.

It is because I believe the worldview is true that I believe it at all.

Ah. So because you believe the worldview is true, it is necessarily superior.

 

[aiki]

Clearly not as a rule. Two Christians here have said in no uncertain terms that Christians are superior. You yourself have stated, twice, that Christians believe themselves superior, and that Christians have the grounds to believe themselves superior?

I may have said that some Christians will say they are morally-superior to all non-Christians, but I did not say this was true of all Christians. I also did not say Christians have the grounds for thinking themselves morally-superior. I said (now, once again) that the ground - or, if you like, foundation - for their moral values and duties is superior to that of atheists. This is not the same as saying, "I have grounds to think I am morally-superior to atheists."

That's what I'm asking. What difference does the ground of their morality make?

Quite a bit of difference, I think. For one, it offers an objective, and authoritative, and reasonable basis for the morality Christians work to uphold (or try to, at least). They aren't reduced to a quagmire of shifting and competing personal preferences and opinions in the matter of moral values and duties.

A non-sequitur is a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question.

"Non sequitur" literally means "does not follow." In the most common and strictest sense, a non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from its premises. It can also refer to a statement that is not clearly related to anything previously said. In either case, my question does not qualify as a non sequitur. It was merely a question.

Does not all morality come from God in your view? If morality is that which is good, is morality simply a reflection of God. If my moral conduct is as good as yours where does it come from?

No, I don't believe all morality comes from God. Clearly, not everything humans embrace as moral is in agreement with what God has declared is moral (see the Bible for God's Moral Law). The idea that morality is whatever is good is far too ambiguous a definition of morality. What is "good"? Who gets to decide? Why do they get to decide? Where does your morality come from if it is as good as mine? That depends. How do you know yours is as good as mine? And if it is the same as mine, where you got it from is a very good question! My suspicion would be that you borrowed yours.

There really is no distinction, though is there? How is my morality, as an atheist, different from yours?

I have no idea. I know virtually nothing about your morality, so how could I possibly comment?

Really? "Yes, I know the answer, but I'm not going to tell you because of [reason]?"

Yup. Really.

I cannot make sense of this paragraph. Just because I don't know whether Christianity is true does not mean that I do not see faults within Christianity. Indeed, it is a pretty major reason why I am not a Christian.

Are you saying that the faults you see in Christianity do not impinge on its claim of being true? The fact that those faults have propelled you away from Christianity suggests very strongly that you think those faults do impinge. But is this an entirely agnostic response to the faults? I don't think so...

By saying I am an atheist "I do not hold belief in God; I do not have faith in Gods". Do you see how someone can hold both positions simultaneously? If I do not know if there is a God, if I am undecided, or waffling, or have severe doubts about God. At the same time I cannot say that I am a believer. As someone who is not a believer, that makes me an atheist: "One who does not hold belief in God; One who does not have faith in God."

I don't accept the "soft atheism" you've adopted as a legitimate philosophical position. As far as I'm concerned, atheism has meant - and still means - a belief that God does not exist. If you say to me that your atheism is just the absence of any belief whatever about God, then you have offered me, not a philosophical position, but a psychological one. "I don't have any belief whatever about God describes a mental state that is shared by cats, and insects, and mud puddles. All of these things are devoid of any belief about God, too. But none of these things (as well as the soft atheist) are so in any philosophical sense.

If you say, "I don't know if God exists or not," you are properly agnostic. But this is plainly not the same thing as saying, "I believe God does not exist," which is a properly atheistic statement. To say you hold both views at once is clearly logically contradictory.

Ah. So because you believe the worldview is true, it is necessarily superior.

Well, if the Christian worldview is objectively true, it is so regardless of my belief about it. And my belief that Christianity is objectively true really has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it is superior. Superiority is a characteristic it achieves as a result of being true, not of my believing that it is. This seems rather obvious to me...

Selah.

 

[JGG]

I may have said that some Christians will say they are morally-superior to all non-Christians, but I did not say this was true of all Christians. I also did not say Christians have the grounds for thinking themselves morally-superior. I said (now, once again) that the ground - or, if you like, foundation - for their moral values and duties is superior to that of atheists. This is not the same as saying, "I have grounds to think I am morally-superior to atheists."

You said:

But if an atheist has grounds for thinking this way, why should he object if the Christian thinks he has grounds to do so as well?

So again, on what grounds does the Christian think that he is morally superior to non-Christians?

Quite a bit of difference, I think. For one, it offers an objective, and authoritative, and reasonable basis for the morality Christians work to uphold (or try to, at least). They aren't reduced to a quagmire of shifting and competing personal preferences and opinions in the matter of moral values and duties.

Is there a moral question, perhaps a complex one, that I could ask you and another Christian where you will disagree on the answer?

"Non sequitur" literally means "does not follow." In the most common and strictest sense, a non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from its premises. It can also refer to a statement that is not clearly related to anything previously said. In either case, my question does not qualify as a non sequitur. It was merely a question.

Right, and we're still investigating how rapists, murderers and drug pushers relate to non-Christians.

No, I don't believe all morality comes from God. Clearly, not everything humans embrace as moral is in agreement with what God has declared is moral (see the Bible for God's Moral Law).

Let me rephrase: All that is moral must come from God. I meant moral in the "truly moral" sense.

The idea that morality is whatever is good is far too ambiguous a definition of morality. What is "good"?

From the Christian perspective, presumably that which is of God. But feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

Who gets to decide?

Again, from the Christian perspective presumably God. Again, tell me if I'm wrong.

Why do they get to decide? Where does your morality come from if it is as good as mine? That depends. How do you know yours is as good as mine?

I'm that average atheist, you are presumably the average Christian. Is the average atheist's morality inferior to the average Christian's?

And if it is the same as mine, where you got it from is a very good question!

You're the one who claims to know where everyone's morality comes from.

My suspicion would be that you borrowed yours.

Borrowed?

I have no idea. I know virtually nothing about your morality, so how could I possibly comment?

You have some idea. I'm an atheist, you're a Christian. You're the one who claims that you are not morally superior, so you should know what my morals are.

Yup. Really.

Be honest. You don't really know, do you?

Are you saying that the faults you see in Christianity do not impinge on its claim of being true?

Of course it does. I would certainly have to question whether it is true based on what I've read, seen, and experienced. If I didn't question whether it was true, I would likely be a Christian. Remember there is a big grey area between true and false called "I don't know."

The fact that those faults have propelled you away from Christianity suggests very strongly that you think those faults do impinge. But is this an entirely agnostic response to the faults? I don't think so...

Why not? Do you even understand the agnostic atheist worldview?

I don't accept the "soft atheism" you've adopted as a legitimate philosophical position. As far as I'm concerned, atheism has meant - and still means - a belief that God does not exist.

You can think it's a popsicle if you'd like.

If you say to me that your atheism is just the absence of any belief whatever about God, then you have offered me, not a philosophical position, but a psychological one. "I don't have any belief whatever about God describes a mental state that is shared by cats, and insects, and mud puddles. All of these things are devoid of any belief about God, too. But none of these things (as well as the soft atheist) are so in any philosophical sense.

Cats, insects and mud puddles cannot philosophize. And as a psychologist allow me to point out that I have never heard of a psychological position. There are "thoughts" if that's what you mean.

If you say, "I don't know if God exists or not," you are properly agnostic. But this is plainly not the same thing as saying, "I believe God does not exist," which is a properly atheistic statement. To say you hold both views at once is clearly logically contradictory.

So you're saying you want me to use your definition of atheism ("God does not exist"), and then you want to use that new definition to claim that they are clearly contradictory? Fair enough, but only if I get to change the definition of orange juice to coffee, and vodka to cream so I can say I drink two screwdrivers each morning. I would also like to change the definition of blue to mean left, so I can look right and blue before crossing the street.

Well, if the Christian worldview is objectively true, it is so regardless of my belief about it. And my belief that Christianity is objectively true really has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it is superior. Superiority is a characteristic it achieves as a result of being true, not of my believing that it is. This seems rather obvious to me...

Yes, in theory. However, the mechanism that makes it superior is your belief that it is true:

If Christianity is true then it is superior.
You believe it is true, therefore tell us it is superior.

However, if you didn't believe it was true (like, say, a Jew wouldn't), you wouldn't tell us it is superior.

Christianity, therefore is only superior because you believe it. Not only that, but as far as you're concerned, it must be true for me, for Jodi Foster, for Jack Black, for Malala Yousafzai, for the Dalai Lama, for everyone, simply because you believe it. That is some tremendous power you have there.

Right?

 

[bhsmte]

I may have said that some Christians will say they are morally-superior to all non-Christians, but I did not say this was true of all Christians. I also did not say Christians have the grounds for thinking themselves morally-superior. I said (now, once again) that the ground - or, if you like, foundation - for their moral values and duties is superior to that of atheists. This is not the same as saying, "I have grounds to think I am morally-superior to atheists."



Quite a bit of difference, I think. For one, it offers an objective, and authoritative, and reasonable basis for the morality Christians work to uphold (or try to, at least). They aren't reduced to a quagmire of shifting and competing personal preferences and opinions in the matter of moral values and duties.



"Non sequitur" literally means "does not follow." In the most common and strictest sense, a non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from its premises. It can also refer to a statement that is not clearly related to anything previously said. In either case, my question does not qualify as a non sequitur. It was merely a question.



No, I don't believe all morality comes from God. Clearly, not everything humans embrace as moral is in agreement with what God has declared is moral (see the Bible for God's Moral Law). The idea that morality is whatever is good is far too ambiguous a definition of morality. What is "good"? Who gets to decide? Why do they get to decide? Where does your morality come from if it is as good as mine? That depends. How do you know yours is as good as mine? And if it is the same as mine, where you got it from is a very good question! My suspicion would be that you borrowed yours.



I have no idea. I know virtually nothing about your morality, so how could I possibly comment?



Yup. Really.



Are you saying that the faults you see in Christianity do not impinge on its claim of being true? The fact that those faults have propelled you away from Christianity suggests very strongly that you think those faults do impinge. But is this an entirely agnostic response to the faults? I don't think so...



I don't accept the "soft atheism" you've adopted as a legitimate philosophical position. As far as I'm concerned, atheism has meant - and still means - a belief that God does not exist. If you say to me that your atheism is just the absence of any belief whatever about God, then you have offered me, not a philosophical position, but a psychological one. "I don't have any belief whatever about God describes a mental state that is shared by cats, and insects, and mud puddles. All of these things are devoid of any belief about God, too. But none of these things (as well as the soft atheist) are so in any philosophical sense.

If you say, "I don't know if God exists or not," you are properly agnostic. But this is plainly not the same thing as saying, "I believe God does not exist," which is a properly atheistic statement. To say you hold both views at once is clearly logically contradictory.



Well, if the Christian worldview is objectively true, it is so regardless of my belief about it. And my belief that Christianity is objectively true really has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it is superior. Superiority is a characteristic it achieves as a result of being true, not of my believing that it is. This seems rather obvious to me...

Selah.

If Christian morality is so good, why is it, that many of the countries in the world with the fewest amount of Christians, have the lowest crime rates and highest quality of life? In the United States, the states with the highest crime rates are those with the highest amount of Christians.

 

[aiki]

Is there a moral question, perhaps a complex one, that I could ask you and another Christian where you will disagree on the answer?

Possibly. But whether or not we agreed, I would always be rooting my moral choices ultimately in the Moral Law of God communicated to me in His Word. And I would hope the other Christian - being a Christian - would be doing the same. So, although there might be disagreement, it would not be because we had worked up our own subjective set of moral preferences and opinions and found them contradictory to the other's subjective morality.

All that is moral must come from God. I meant moral in the "truly moral" sense.

God's Moral Law is truly moral, yes.

I'm that average atheist, you are presumably the average Christian. Is the average atheist's morality inferior to the average Christian's?

The "average" Christian is, I think, typically only nominally Christian, in which case he/she is not truly Christian at all. Of the average genuine believers that I know, and comparing them to the atheists that I know, I would say the Christians generally behave more morally than the atheists. Certainly, they enact a different morality in various respects than the atheists. We all tend to live up to our moral code, which means at times we don't quite reach it, so perhaps the atheists I know have a better morality in theory than they do in practice.

You're the one who claims to know where everyone's morality comes from.

Oh? When did I make that claim? I think at best you could say that I have asserted that Christians and atheists derive their morality from different sources. At least for atheists, I haven't, except for the generalization of working from a subjective source, made any declaration about where precisely they derive their morality.

Cats, insects and mud puddles cannot philosophize.

That was exactly my point.

And as a psychologist allow me to point out that I have never heard of a psychological position. There are "thoughts" if that's what you mean.

Psychological state or condition, if it suits you better.

So you're saying you want me to use your definition of atheism ("God does not exist"), and then you want to that claim that they are clearly contradictory?

It's not that simple, though, is it? The definition of "atheism" has, until relatively recently, been "the belief that God does not exist." I'm not working, then, from just my definition of atheism, but the definition that has for a long time been the common definition of the term. And operating from that definition, your agnosticism and your atheism are very clearly in contradiction.

If you want to insist on using what is a philosophically meaningless definition of atheism, then I don't see how we can discuss matters regarding your "atheism."

Fair enough, but only if I get to change the definition of orange juice to coffee, and vodka to cream so I can say I drink two screwdrivers each morning. I would also like to change the definition of blue to mean left, so I can look right and blue before crossing the street.

Inasmuch as your "atheism" is essentially philosophically meaningless, this wouldn't be far off of what you're already doing in regards to your atheism.

Yes, in theory. However, the mechanism that makes it superior is your belief that it is true:

If Christianity is true then it is superior.
You believe it is true, therefore tell us it is superior.

However, if you didn't believe it was true (like, say, a Jew wouldn't), you wouldn't tell us it is superior.

It seems to me a brute fact that a true morality is superior to a false one. That is a necessary quality of a true thing relative to a false one. But in your syllogism you are conflating this objective fact with my subjective belief about it. An objectively true morality is superior to a false morality even if no one believes it is. This mind-independent quality is what is meant by "objective."

Christianity, therefore is only superior because you believe it. Not only that, but as far as you're concerned, it must be true for me, for Jodi Foster, for Jack Black, for Malala Yousafzai, for the Dalai Lama, for everyone, simply because you believe it. That is some tremendous power you have there.

Right?

See above. Your assertion here was anticipated, which is why I brought in the matter of the objective grounding of Christian morality. God's Moral Law is an objective one that is, therefore, totally independently of my belief about it. As such, it is binding upon me and everyone else, not because I believe it is, but because it is, in fact, objectively that way.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

Possibly. But whether or not we agreed, I would always be rooting my moral choices ultimately in the Moral Law of God communicated to me in His Word. And I would hope the other Christian - being a Christian - would be doing the same. So, although there might be disagreement, it would not be because we had worked up our own subjective set of moral preferences and opinions and found them contradictory to the other's subjective morality.

Wait. I'm confused. Your moral ground is objective and authoritative, yet you and another Christian may disagree about it, and not because your moral preferences are subjective? So how do we account for the difference?

God's Moral Law is truly moral, yes.

The "average" Christian is, I think, typically only nominally Christian, in which case he/she is not truly Christian at all.

Is it safe to say that, morally speaking, you are an "above average" or "superior" Christian?

Of the average genuine believers that I know, and comparing them to the atheists that I know, I would say the Christians generally behave more morally than the atheists.

Now you're saying that True Christians, such as yourself, are indeed morally superior to atheists? I thought there was a rule.

Certainly, they enact a different morality in various respects than the atheists. We all tend to live up to our moral code, which means at times we don't quite reach it, so perhaps the atheists I know have a better morality in theory than they do in practice.

Moral Code? So we have moral grounds, moral code, moral preference, and moral practice? How does moral code and moral preference fit into the car analogy? How is a Christian's moral code significantly different from an atheists?

Oh? When did I make that claim? I think at best you could say that I have asserted that Christians and atheists derive their morality from different sources. At least for atheists, I haven't, except for the generalization of working from a subjective source, made any declaration about where precisely they derive their morality.

How do you know Christians and atheists derive their morals from different sources? If God is the source of true morality, and atheists are as moral in practice as Christians (a claim you will soon have to back away from), is it not safe to say that the morals themselves come from the same place? Earlier you described the moral ground as being akin to a car. That seems clearly wrong, the moral ground would be rules of the road we are supposed to follow, not the car we are driving. Disagreements?

That was exactly my point.

Humans can.

Psychological state or condition, if it suits you better.

So your claim is that all atheists suffer from this psychological condition (atheism), and Christians do not. Is this another way Christians are superior to atheists at least?

Philosophy is a system to explain why we believe things happen, what we know, the state of the world or reality. I can explain to you why I do not accept the claims theists make. A mud puddle can not do that.

It's not that simple, though, is it? The definition of "atheism" has, until relatively recently, been "the belief that God does not exist." I'm not working, then, from just my definition of atheism, but the definition that has for a long time been the common definition of the term. And operating from that definition, your agnosticism and your atheism are very clearly in contradiction.

Actually, the earliest use of the term was the literal translation "not a theist" or "not a person who believes in God". When reading latin we start with the end and go to the beginning (-ism = belief; -theo- = deity; a- = not; none; no). Seeing as a theist is someone who does believe in deities, an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe. You will find that definition in most dictionaries. However, it doesn't matter. I can be an agnostic if that pleases you. It makes no difference to me.

If you want to insist on using what is a philosophically meaningless definition of atheism, then I don't see how we can discuss matters regarding your "atheism."

Fine. We don't have to. For the sake of this conversation I will be an agnostic.

Inasmuch as your "atheism" is essentially philosophically meaningless, this wouldn't be far off of what you're already doing in regards to your atheism.

If you say so.

It seems to me a brute fact that a true morality is superior to a false one. That is a necessary quality of a true thing relative to a false one. But in your syllogism you are conflating this objective fact with my subjective belief about it. An objectively true morality is superior to a false morality even if no one believes it is. This mind-independent quality is what is meant by "objective."

But it is an "objective fact" only because you believe it is. In fact, the truth of Christianity is quite subjective. Certainly, most of the world does not accept Christianity as true. It is objectively true, and Christians are objectively superior only because you believe you are.

See above. Your assertion here was anticipated, which is why I brought in the matter of the objective grounding of Christian morality. God's Moral Law is an objective one that is, therefore, totally independently of my belief about it. As such, it is binding upon me and everyone else, not because I believe it is, but because it is, in fact, objectively that way.

But it isn't. You yourself said that two Christians who have the same "objective, authoritative" moral base can still disagree on moral issues. How does that happen with an objective moral grounding?