How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[devolved]

Really? You think our "moral system" is better today?

Personally, I think saying that "good" and "evil" are social constructs (the result of "social conditioning") is truly an oversimplification.

1) Yes. Our moral system is far superior than the moral system you'd find in the OT. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'd be glad to.

2) I think I've demonstrated what happens when we yank the social conditioning out of the childhood experience. You end up with a animal-like behavior that's void of virtually all moral considerations.

 

[razzelflabben]

Again, you seem to misunderstand what I'm asking.

Any experiment has a set up premise that dives into specific description. I'm not asking you to name names. I merely asking to see your thought process when you test these things in the real world as to what it actually translates into.

For example, you gave examples about people suffering loss and then experiencing certain peace of mind. How do you determine that God is the only common denominator that's viable as an explanation.

Another-words, I'm asking about the reality of such tests and the method you would use to rule out other possibilities.

maybe this is your problem with understanding....all the tests would have to have a common denominator...there would not be such a thing in only one test....geesh...I gave you examples and that wasn't enough, what is, we would need many many tests in order to show a common denominator...that makes us way off topic.

 

[amariselle]

1) Yes. Our moral system is far superior than the moral system you'd find in the OT. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'd be glad to.

Well, I was specifically referring to a Christian moral system, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Personally, I think that in terms of morality, our culture is falling apart.

2) I think I've demonstrated what happens when we yank the social conditioning out of the childhood experience. You end up with a animal-like behavior that's void of virtually all moral considerations.

Sure, I don't disagree that we need human interaction. That is obvious.

 

[devolved]

so you were on that thread? Interesting, do you remember the story? you see, I made it clear in my post I was not referring to you, so again a misrepresentation unless you were part of that discussion, would have been years ago now...do you remember the story?

It's hard for me to carry this discussion along when you continually assume some wrongdoing on my part without even recognizing that it's not the case....

"When our son died, in the midst of deep grief and nasty stuff surrounding that, I talked to the young woman whose house and party we were at when it happened. I told her that it wasn't her fault and held her while she cried. Some other private things were said and she knew instantly it was a love like none she had known. In fact, she wrote a college paper about a Love that she didn't know was possible on this earth..."

You then mentioned Meninite shootings and forgiveness and etc. It's all in this thread.

 

[devolved]

.but I keep telling you in this format we cannot demonstrate that because it requires many many different tests all that show the common denominator

I'm not asking your for definitive demonstration with all of the tested data here. I'm asking you about the method when it comes to analyzing a single person... before you move on to analizing lots and lots of people.

If your method is valid, then I would make a fool out of myself trying to show that it's wrong, especially in a forum setting where people are very much welcome to pick false logic apart.

That's how scientific method works. First we set up constraints and method in a specific setting. We determine what we are going to measure.... SPECIFICALLY, and then we move on to analysis of wide range of subjects to study.

If you can't even walk me through a hypothetical scenario about how you would test a single claim on a single person, and then determine what you would consider to be the "God-related" common denominator that you'd be looking for.... how are you going to expect such method to be applied more broadly? Is it such a difficult question to answer?

We are talking about "how" in this thread, right? And I'm merely inquiring about specifics of your method.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I really don't get what you think you are trying to argue with me, seriously I don't.

That's because I'm not arguing with you - I've been asking about your procedures and critiquing your methodology and interpretations.

I have been clear, I was the one that talked first about the need for tests that can be measured, quantified, verified, and that address every possible variable we can think of not to mention thorough testing.

Yes, you were quite right about that.

... you try to insult my intelligence by acting like I don't already know all of this even though I was the one who brought it all up in the first place.

No, I'm suggesting that although you know what should be done, you appear not to know how to do it.

Honestly, I am out of patience for that kind of non sense. If you missed all that discussion, it is up to you to review it before pretending that I don't know how to test for something when I demonstrated I clearly do. ignored on purpose since you don't seem to want to address me but rather some warped image of me that you have made up in your mind.

The histrionics don't impress, this is the philosophy forum - simplicity, clarity, and sound argument are the aims. I've read through the discussion more than once, and your posts contain logical errors that undermine your case. I can understand that you probably disagree, so I'm happy to go through them if you'd like - as long as you remain civil.

please show the post where I said that the only tests that could be used to know if a belief is truth or delusion were one's we do for ourselves? I would really like to see where I said or suggested such a thing since it is totally contrary to what I believe and have said in the past.

Straw man - I haven't claimed you said that.

like I said, I was the first one to bring all this up on this thread...so challenge away...oh wait, you think you are challenging me by saying the same things I have already said as if I didn't say them already....sarcasm...tired of you attacking my character simply because you didn't read what has already been stated and really tired of being told I believe things I don't. Second warning, I have adopted a personal policy that after three warnings I take the misrepresentation and attacks of my character as intentional. that is what others thought too which is why all this has already been discussed and why I had to teach them how the whole scientific method works in the first place. this thread will prove your "suspicions" to not only be false but after showing that they were false an attack of my character and beliefs. You know, slander after being shown that you are wrong. have done so dozens of times over, don't have the heart to do it again if your just going to try to tell me once again I believe something I don't and then try to prove that your misrepresentation is truth...sooner or later if I say I believe X you have to accept I believe X after I demonstrate a knowledge of Y which is the process to get to X, you sooner or later have to accept that I am not the mindless twit you are pretending I am.

This is a philosophy forum; criticising the ideas and arguments people post is what happens in philosophy forums. This is not an attack on your character or beliefs, and no excuse for such accusations.

More to the point, I'm noting a complete absence of answers to my very simple questions about your testing criteria, and an awful lot of bluster and bafflegab. I recommend taking a deep breath and thinking before you post.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Surely evolution could/would have produced better results than what constitutes "evil?" Why would we, as the most advanced species, also not be the kindest and least likely to do destructive and harmful things? (In fact, it is quite the opposite)

Evolution doesn't work to any moral program; success is simply surviving to reproduce, which leads to existential competition: 'Nature, red in tooth and claw' (In Memoriam A.H.H., by Alfred, Lord Tennyson) says it eloquently. As the 'most advanced' species, we have actually tempered our violent destructiveness over time (see 'The Better angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker), although just being us these days is pretty destructive...

 

[amariselle]

Evolution doesn't work to any moral program; success is simply surviving to reproduce, which leads to existential competition: 'Nature, red in tooth and claw' (In Memoriam A.H.H., by Alfred, Lord Tennyson) says it eloquently. As the 'most advanced' species, we have actually tempered our violent destructiveness over time (see 'The Better angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker), although just being us these days is pretty destructive...

Hmmm, I don't see how we've "tempered our violent destructiveness over time" at all. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[devolved]

Well, I was specifically referring to a Christian moral system, sorry for the misunderstanding.

You mean, sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me type of thing? Or are you talking about something else?

To clarify... there's an "ideal Christian morality", and there's a morality that Christians actually live by, which doesn't seem to be very different from cultural norms of the everyday life.

The explanation for the disparity seems to be that nobody's perfect, and that's why people needed Jesus to die.

So, what the point of such morality other than seeing how far off it is from reality of the world, including and especially the Christian world?

 

[amariselle]

You mean, sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me type of thing? Or are you talking about something else?

To clarify... there's an "ideal Christian morality", and there's a morality that Christians actually live by, which doesn't seem to be very different from cultural norms of the everyday life.

The explanation for the disparity seems to be that nobody's perfect, and that's why people needed Jesus to die.

So, what the point of such morality other than seeing how far off it is from reality of the world, including and especially the Christian world?

Well, there is no doubt that the reality of this world is quite different from what Jesus taught and commanded.

I agree with you, many Christians are in fact too much like the world. And I know that this can include me.

However, yes, we ARE sinners and we have all fallen short. Christians are not perfect.

But we all still have a sense of how things should be, and in my opinion, that says something.

 

[devolved]

Hmmm, I don't see how we've "tempered our violent destructiveness over time" at all. Quite the opposite actually.

Are you basing it on a hunch or some data, because the data we have actually shows the opposite - violent crimes has been on decline globally for quite some time now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#18d043b67733

Interestingly enough, people think that it's climbing... and I think that the crime TV shows, and media sensationalism comes to play.

 

[devolved]

Well, there is no doubt that the reality of this world is quite different from what Jesus taught and commanded.

I agree with you, many Christians are in fact too much like the world. And I know that this can include me.

However, yes, we ARE sinners and we have all fallen short. Christians are not perfect.

But we all still have a sense of how things should be, and in my opinion, that says something.

But, what would make this set up a "moral system" then? It would indicate that you have some set of unattainable ideals, and your actions coincide with these once in a while... which wouldn't be much different than a non-Christian neighbor (I don't really know you, so by you I mean a hypothetical "you Christian")

It's not that Christians don't follow the teachings some of the time. Christians globally are not even trying hard to conform to the very same ideals that they are judging the rest of the world by (with a few notable exceptions).

So, what makes such system to be a system of Christian morality? I think it would be great if I was a 6-10 18 year old playing in the NBA. But, if such ideal is far exceeding the reality of my life, why would that ideal matter? What would it say about me, especially if I expect everyone else to be 6-10 NBA players?

How is that a better moral system to have ideals that virtually no one follows... especially when it comes to people who seem to promote these ideals?

I get the imperfection concept, but we are not talking about perfection. We are talking about a systematic failure to uphold some of the core concepts, especially when it comes to how one spends their money and time.

 

[devolved]

For instance, talents we say are a gift from God. The prodigy is talented in one or several areas, he/she could be genius, something not inherited from parents or taught. So how do explain this, punctuated equilibrium?
How do explain Beethoven or Mozart at very young ages writing and playing masterpieces?

Well, I would explain it simply by saying that they have an aptitude to learn certain things faster and thus do it better than other people would.

None of them simply picked up an instrument without knowing what it was and began playing. They likely observed and it made sense to them, since they learned faster, simply because their brain was wired in a way that would be conducive to learning and using these instruments.

It still revolves around learning. When we say "gifted", that's what we mean by it - they know how to use it better, because learning to do something comes easy to that particular person than it does any other.

Let's examine someone else you haven't heard of, Akianne Krimarik. This little girl at an early age of 3 and 4 started to have visions of heaven, angels and Jesus. Her parents were both atheists and she had never heard nor was taught of such a place, nor did they tell her of Jesus. She started drawing and then painting these visions / dreams that she continued to see. By the age of eight, she painted a portrait of Jesus that she had seen. This portrait was verified by a young boy who claimed when he was in a coma, went to heaven. He said he saw Jesus and so his father searched far and wide to find all the portraits of Jesus that he could find and would show them to his son and his son would say nope, nope, no, that's not him over and over again. Finally, he heard about Akianne Krimarik and her story and showed him this portrait that she painted at eight years old. He looked at and said, that's Him.

https://www.akiane.com/store/

I did hear of her, and I have to point out a couple of things.

1) The boy who claimed that he went in coma and went to heaven actually admitted that he was lying about it. His parents though milked this concept to no end with a book and a movie based on this idea. I guess he felt guilty and admitted that he lied.

2) See #1, and ask yourself as to whether it's possible that the very same thing could be said of the other child. I don't know whether her visions are real, or whether she gleaned something from the culture around her and it traumatized her to the point that she would express it through art when she grew up and discovered her painting talents. I merely looking at the #1 and seeing what is more likely in a scope of what we observe to be true.

The point being... it's a very poor evidence that God exists, especially if it surfaces in as a few occasional children that do something better than other children and adults, while millions of children are starving and dying. In that context, why would God reveal himself through paintings of a girl whose parents sell these for profit? It seems rather odd, don't you think?

Our nation alone is an example of God directing and guiding men like George Washington, John Adams, and Abe Lincoln. Most of the presidents claimed a relationship with Jesus and give Him the credit to the success of this great nation -- though it has fallen off the path and has become corrupt with greed and power.

Again, I'm not quite sure how you get from DNA and design into "presidents believed cultural religion that they grew up in" and that was popular-enough in this country that if one claim that he didn't believe in God it would essentially bare them from office.

Essentially what you seem to be saying here is that God exists because people believe in him? I'm asking you for evidence of what they believe is true. A lot of important people in history believed a lot of things that we know are false today.

Based on a natural universe without God, that would be true. If nothing existed, then nothing can cause anything to happen. The OP ruled this out, under the section causality.

No one claims that nothing existed. The claim is that there was always something, and we get something from something.

The mechanics of the universe is evidence. Life is evidence. Life did not spontaneous generate from the simple combination of water + energy + chemicals over time and then puff. Information was involved as in the DNA. WHERE DID THAT INFORMATION COME FROM? The smallest amoeba is very complex. There is an irreducible complexity in the microscopic one-celled animals. Life comes from life.

Information in its simplest form is a inalienable property of matter that determines its behavior. That's what information is in the scope of the mechanics of the universe, and it's found in both living and non-living matter. Living matter simply carries a more complex set of information, simply because it's a compound matter that behaves and assembles in a complex way and likewise reacts in a complex way to that information.

Simple carriers of information would react in simpler way. For example, some matter reacts in certain way with other matter based on inherent properties of its composition. We have models that describe that composition and behavior.

I'll give you a simple example to make it clear. If you assemble a pool table and measure the events, then the way we hit the cue stick and where we hit the cue stick on the breaking ball will determine the outcome of where the rest of the balls will fly. That's what information is in a nutshell, when we break it down to the bare mechanics of physical properties and how simple and complex matter reacts to these properties and composition.

The problem with a lot of the above is the continuum problem. Life is made from non-life, and information is made from non-information (the way both are described). Thus it seems like it's merely a category label rather than any commentary on ontology of reality. In reality we merely have functional patterns that continually react with each other and either break down, or assemble into larger patterns.

Likewise, it seems that with a God presupposition you are merely moving the question a step backwards. Isn't God a form of "live" and "information" in its own sense? Why would God get to be unmade, and everything else has to come from somewhere? It seem like "my dad is infinity + 1" type of answer that doesn't really explain anything, but explains the mystery of our existence with even a bigger mystery.

Beauty is esthetically pleasing to us. There is so much beauty in the world and to each person, beauty is seen sometimes differently. God designed beauty into nature and our own appearance so that we could enjoy life, so that it would please us. People look up at the stars and say that it is beautiful. Beauty is a reliable guide to truth. The colors, images, patterns, the ways of the eco-system, how animals live within all has God's imprint on it. It's intelligent design, pleasing and awesome. A peacock was always a peacock. A rose was always a rose. And man was made finished. Eve was gorgeous, when God made her, Adam said W O W ... M A N!

I understand what you believe, but I'd like to know why you believe it. Why would we need God to explain beauty, when there are more pragmatic explanations that derive from what we find desirable and undesirable... especially since our perception of beauty is subjective and shifted greatly over time.

 

[Ronald]

It still revolves around learning. When we say "gifted", that's what we mean by it - they know how to use it better, because learning to do something comes easy to that particular person than it does any other.

Highly intelligent learned people cannot sing a note in tune or play anything, yet they know how to learn. I'm a musician and I know this to be true. Gifted musicians sometimes can't learn and excel in anything else.

The boy who claimed that he went in coma and went to heaven actually admitted that he was lying about it. His parents though milked this concept to no end with a book and a movie based on this idea. I guess he felt guilty and admitted that he lied.

You are mistaken. Alex Malarkey in "The Boy Who Went to Heaven" admitted that his story was a fabrication.
Colton Burpo in "Heaven Is For Real" did not make up the story. The also made a movie as well. I read both books; Colton is the boy I was referring to.

Again, I'm not quite sure how you get from DNA and design into "presidents believed cultural religion that they grew up in" and that was popular-enough in this country that if one claim that he didn't believe in God it would essentially bare them from office.

You have a different world view, a secular view, when you look at history. This is what drastically changes when you are enlightened, you just see God's hand in history in your own life and the lives of others. You see how his blessings when they come and his judgments as well. You understand at a particular moment in your life that He has loved you all along and you feel this godly sorrow that leads you to turn to Him and ask for forgiveness.

Essentially what you seem to be saying here is that God exists because people believe in him? I'm asking you for evidence of what they believe is true. A lot of important people in history believed a lot of things that we know are false today.

No, God existed prior to people, He created them. The evidence is in changed lives. If you know people before and after, you can see their fruit.
The fruit of the Spirit is kindness, joy, peace, love, goodness, patience, self-control, hope and faith. This is evidence. If you've heard of dark, evil people that have done bad things then they come to Jesus and are saved and become loving, giving, gentle spirits and sometimes pastors -- you know them by their fruit.

No one claims that nothing existed. The claim is that there was always something, and we get something from something.

Well nothing but a condensed basketball that exploded into what we see? I don't buy that. I wouldn't even believe that the ball was as large as all the stellar masses put together and then blew up and organized itself with such precision. Nope.

The problem with a lot of the above is the continuum problem. Life is made from non-life, and information is made from non-information (the way both are described). Thus it seems like it's merely a category label rather than any commentary on ontology of reality. In reality we merely have functional patterns that continually react with each other and either break down, or assemble into larger patterns.

Nope, life comes from life. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life ... The word truth means reality and He is the source of life.

I understand what you believe, but I'd like to know why you believe it. Why would we need God to explain beauty, when there are more pragmatic explanations that derive from what we find desirable and undesirable... especially since our perception of beauty is subjective and shifted greatly over time.

If you can explain how a one-celled animal turned into a fish, then amphibian, then animal on up the chain to Marilyn Monroe ... No don't bother, I've studied it and heard it all before.
Let me tell something that you don't know about yourself or you won't admit. You are rebellious towards God, but you don't perceive that way, because you'll say I don't believe in God, so how could I be against Him. You're clinging to evolution and the Big Bang desperately to justify your disbelief. Astronomers and desperately searching for water on other planets and get excited because they believe if there is water, life may have been possible there too. CETI sent out signals for decades and got nothing and they finally closed the program -- a waste of time. They cling to this notion that they will soon find life out there in their demise to disprove the existence of God once and for all.

 

[devolved]

Highly intelligent learned people cannot sing a note in tune or play anything, yet they know how to learn. I'm a musician and I know this to be true. Gifted musicians sometimes can't learn and excel in anything else.

That actually wasn't my point. A lot of retarded people have exceptional skills in something that highly intelligent people don't. The point being is that the structure of their brain allows them to excel in one particular area and do it better than everyone else.

They still have to learn what they do. They merely learn it faster and better. Intelligence isn't a uniform concept. Some people are more intelligent in some capacity and not other.

You are mistaken. Alex Malarkey in "The Boy Who Went to Heaven" admitted that his story was a fabrication.
Colton Burpo in "Heaven Is For Real" did not make up the story. The also made a movie as well. I read both books; Colton is the boy I was referring to.

I've reviewed that and stand corrected, but the point still stands though. What would indicate that the dreams of this child where just that ... a Childhood dream in context of the stories that the child heard?

Again, you are not explaining as to how and why we don't hear a lot more of that, especially since many children experience clinical deaths every year and are resuscitated.

You have a different world view, a secular view, when you look at history. This is what drastically changes when you are enlightened, you just see God's hand in history in your own life and the lives of others. You see how his blessings when they come and his judgments as well. You understand at a particular moment in your life that He has loved you all along and you feel this godly sorrow that leads you to turn to Him and ask for forgiveness.

I actually have both. I didn't start with a secular view, and was a believing Christian for a majority of my life.

No, God existed prior to people, He created them. The evidence is in changed lives. If you know people before and after, you can see their fruit.
The fruit of the Spirit is kindness, joy, peace, love, goodness, patience, self-control, hope and faith. This is evidence. If you've heard of dark, evil people that have done bad things then they come to Jesus and are saved and become loving, giving, gentle spirits and sometimes pastors -- you know them by their fruit.

But the problem is that I don't see that fruit to be any different than that of a non-believer. Christians at large don't seem to be better or more caring people when it comes to the ideals you are describing.

I've heard of dark and evil people who don't come to Jesus and change. What seems to be common is people changing and not Jesus. So, it seems to me that people can change, and there's seems to be nothing supernatural about it.

Well nothing but a condensed basketball that exploded into what we see? I don't buy that. I wouldn't even believe that the ball was as large as all the stellar masses put together and then blew up and organized itself with such precision. Nope.

No. It didn't explode into what we see. There were so many iterations and stems and time before we get to what we see that it's very difficult to put the number on it. You are skipping about trillion trillion trillion trillion to the power of trillion steps and iterations that have failed. It's not that the reality that we exist in magically organized itslef. Quite the opposite... every other version of reality that could fail did fail, and what we are left with is this one.

You are looking at it backwards.

Nope, life comes from life. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life ... The word truth means reality and He is the source of life.

Again, I'm more interested in why you believe something as opposed to what you believe... which I'm very much familiar with.

Secondly, you've ignored the points I was making. Life consists of non-life in a way that you would define life. The question is, at which point of that division would you get "non-life" as opposed to life? Life is a concept. It's not a being. It's a pattern we recognize and label it so based on some attributes.

If you can explain how a one-celled animal turned into a fish, then amphibian, then animal on up the chain to Marilyn Monroe ... No don't bother, I've studied it and heard it all before.
Let me tell something that you don't know about yourself or you won't admit. You are rebellious towards God, but you don't perceive that way, because you'll say I don't believe in God, so how could I be against Him. You're clinging to evolution and the Big Bang desperately to justify your disbelief. Astronomers and desperately searching for water on other planets and get excited because they believe if there is water, life may have been possible there too. CETI sent out signals for decades and got nothing and they finally closed the program -- a waste of time. They cling to this notion that they will soon find life out there in their demise to disprove the existence of God once and for all.

Hmm... no, and no. You assumption fails on more than one level here:

1) Evolution isn't a science about Godless orginins of life. Majority of Christians on this planet actually think that God used evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact.

2) Simply because I can't explain evolution in great detail doesn't mean that we don't see the pattern that we describe as very likely. For example, just because I can't explain how it is exactly that apple falls down, doesn't mean that the gravity isn't real.

Evolution simply describes the general concept of development and it's a science in its infancy with plentiful problems to tackle. It may be wrong about plenty of things. I highly doubt that it's wrong when it comes to development of life on this planet.

You are free to believe otherwise, but that's one of the many reasons why we have secular movement today ... you'd seem to reject something that's very difficult to deny when it comes to observable data.

Likewise, the fact that there is life on other planets don't automatically invalidate the claim that God is real.

Do you really think that if we find life on other planet today that Christians will stop believing? Not at all. They will merely say that it also was created by God and things will progress as usual.

As far as me rebelling against God... quite the contrary. I very much would love to know if God exists, but he problem is that the evidence seems to be that of a a couple little boys and girls having a childhood visions and drawing pictures... in a way you present it. I really can't take it seriously in a scope of a claim - infinite God which can reveal himself in a matter that's a lot more conclusive than that.

So, we have three viable options:

1) I'm somehow unable to see or recognize the evidence, or I'm closed to it (which I try very hard not to do)
2) God doesn't want me to conclusively known about his existence, and thus it's hiding from me for unknown to me reasons and asking me to trust people who I find highly unreliable when it comes to evaluating how they live vs what they claim to know and believe
3) God doesn't exist... at least not in the form that Christian describe God to be

I really don't see the purposeful rebellion as an honest assessment of where I am, but I get as to why you may need to believe that.

 

[bhsmte]

Oversimplification. Psychology (or nature v.s. nurture) does not explain the amount or extent of evil we see in the world.

Sure it does.

Personal psychology can vary wildly and when you add in mental illness, humans are capable of a lot.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I was specifically referring to a Christian moral system, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Personally, I think that in terms of morality, our culture is falling apart.



Sure, I don't disagree that we need human interaction. That is obvious.

Do you believe all christians have the same personal morals?

 

[amariselle]

Are you basing it on a hunch or some data, because the data we have actually shows the opposite - violent crimes has been on decline globally for quite some time now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#18d043b67733

Interestingly enough, people think that it's climbing... and I think that the crime TV shows, and media sensationalism comes to play.

Fair enough.

 

[amariselle]

But, what would make this set up a "moral system" then? It would indicate that you have some set of unattainable ideals, and your actions coincide with these once in a while... which wouldn't be much different than a non-Christian neighbor (I don't really know you, so by you I mean a hypothetical "you Christian")

It's not that Christians don't follow the teachings some of the time. Christians globally are not even trying hard to conform to the very same ideals that they are judging the rest of the world by (with a few notable exceptions).

So, what makes such system to be a system of Christian morality? I think it would be great if I was a 6-10 18 year old playing in the NBA. But, if such ideal is far exceeding the reality of my life, why would that ideal matter? What would it say about me, especially if I expect everyone else to be 6-10 NBA players?

How is that a better moral system to have ideals that virtually no one follows... especially when it comes to people who seem to promote these ideals?

I get the imperfection concept, but we are not talking about perfection. We are talking about a systematic failure to uphold some of the core concepts, especially when it comes to how one spends their money and time.

I understand what you're talking about, and I don't disagree with you.

I can't speak to what is going on in every other Christian's life in regard to their own faith, but I can speak for myself.

I wish I was better, and I know the example and commands of Jesus are worth striving for, even when I fall short.

In the end, my faith is in God, not myself and not in anyone else. I know this world will never be perfect, not in this life.

Somewhere inside of us though, we all have a sense of how things should be.

And, the worth of this "moral system" that Jesus set in place, isn't worth less just because many choose not to obey Him.

 

[amariselle]

Sure it does.

Personal psychology can vary wildly and when you add in mental illness, humans are capable of a lot.

But what about the evil people don't cause? What about disease and deaths from natural disasters?