When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

The culture in which it exists. That's the problem with the whole relativism of morality. That culture says it's not harmful, therefore it's not.

That's obviously nonsensical.

 

[Kylie]

In some cultures, exposure of children (abandoning children to die in the wilderness) wasn't considered murder. In some cultures to this day, it's also acceptable to kill your daughter if she is raped, as a way of atoning for social shame. Those are all examples of how Christianity has shaped our notions of what is, and isn't, murder.

No they aren't. You've just pointed out that some cultures have different morals than our culture, and said that since the morals our culture has are the same as the cultures that Christianity has, the morals of our culture must have come from Christianity.

It's entirely possible that the cultures that our modern western culture developed from had those moral viewpoints long before Christianity, and Christianity is taking credit for those viewpoints. After all, those differing viewpoints that you spoke of are hardly common, are they? They tend to be the outliers, not the standard.

 

[Kylie]

I haven't found any historical evidence to support your view. I found the opposite, where murder was celebrated as a good thing by all the secular/pagan ethnic groups.

Every ethnic group celebrated ritual murder as a religious sacrament, most murdered their children as an offering to their Demon gods. That practice is more popular in todays secular world, than any time in ancient history.

These days millions of children are murdered, by their secular mothers. Although the mothers won't admit it, they're actually murdering their children in an act called "abortion". Their reason for murdering their children is the same as the ancients, it's an act of obedience to their Demon gods.

So nothing has changed, mankind is still as wicked as ever if not worse. That's why Christians are different, we don't murder our children to offer them to Demons. We obey God, who commanded us to have lots of children and not to harm them in any way.

I don't think you looked very hard.

The Code of Ur-Nammu, written two thousand years before Christianity was around, specifies that the punishment for murder was death. That tends to indicate that the people thought that murdering others was a bad thing. And the idea of "don't kill others who are in your social structure" is everywhere. Even animals follow that rule. Chimps, lions and many other animals that live in social units tend to avoid killing others in that social unit.

In any case, if you were right and murder was celebrated as a good thing by certain groups, how could those groups survive? Killing other members tends to reduce the population, and if everyone was going around murdering others, then they'd very quickly run out of people.

And how in the world do you figure that people are sacrificed to demon gods in today's secular society? I'm about as secular as they come, and I've never sacrificed anyone. What "gods" do you think are worshipped by secular people anyway? (Please note, the word "gods" there in quotation marks was intended to represent the nebulous idea of a god of any kind, and was not referring to the Judeo-Christian god. Sadly, I've learnt from experience that I need to specify such things, as some people here have tended to become report-happy.) By the very definition, secular people do not believe in gods.

Also, the claim that Christians don't murder children doesn't bear up to scrutiny. The American political right refuses to engage any laws that would actually reduce gun deaths, leading to countless children killed in school shootings every year.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's entirely possible that the cultures that our modern western culture developed from had those moral viewpoints long before Christianity, and Christianity is taking credit for those viewpoints. After all, those differing viewpoints that you spoke of are hardly common, are they? They tend to be the outliers, not the standard.

They aren't exactly the standard, but "outlier" also isn't adequate. There is no universal "standard". And they didn't merely predate Christianity, for instance, the Romans practiced infanticide through exposure, something Christians rejected.

My point is that what we in the west think of as "human nature" and "common sense morality" is largely a social construct, and the reality is that human societies can vary a great deal in what they consider moral. Secular liberals merely take for granted Christian moral assumptions as natural or universal.

 

[Bradskii]

Secular liberals merely take for granted Christian moral assumptions as natural or universal.

As opposed to considering what are natural moral assumptions to be Christian.

 

[FireDragon76]

As opposed to considering what are natural moral assumptions to be Christian.

The very fact you consider your moral assumptions to be natural or universal presupposes a Christian worldview.

 

[Bradskii]

The very fact you consider your moral assumptions to be natural or universal presupposes a Christian worldview.

I believe they are natural because they have evolved naturally. And they are universal because we are all the same species. One big happy family born of common descent. You might as well say that I presupposes Bhuddist or Hindu worldview.

 

[Dan1988]

I don't think you looked very hard.

The Code of Ur-Nammu, written two thousand years before Christianity was around, specifies that the punishment for murder was death. That tends to indicate that the people thought that murdering others was a bad thing. And the idea of "don't kill others who are in your social structure" is everywhere. Even animals follow that rule. Chimps, lions and many other animals that live in social units tend to avoid killing others in that social unit.

In any case, if you were right and murder was celebrated as a good thing by certain groups, how could those groups survive? Killing other members tends to reduce the population, and if everyone was going around murdering others, then they'd very quickly run out of people.

And how in the world do you figure that people are sacrificed to demon gods in today's secular society? I'm about as secular as they come, and I've never sacrificed anyone. What "gods" do you think are worshipped by secular people anyway? (Please note, the word "gods" there in quotation marks was intended to represent the nebulous idea of a god of any kind, and was not referring to the Judeo-Christian god. Sadly, I've learnt from experience that I need to specify such things, as some people here have tended to become report-happy.) By the very definition, secular people do not believe in gods.

Also, the claim that Christians don't murder children doesn't bear up to scrutiny. The American political right refuses to engage any laws that would actually reduce gun deaths, leading to countless children killed in school shootings every year.

When God created mankind, He wrote His law on our hears. The secular world calls it "conscience", so we feel guilty when we sin. That's why every tribe and people group formulated some kind of code of ethics, based on their views. The Bible teaches Christians that everyone inherited a sinful and rebellious heart from our parents Adam and Eve, so mankind is not capable of writing fair laws.

When Adam and Eve sinned, the whole of creation became hostile, savage and violent. This curse infected the animal kingdom as well as mankind. Animals don't have a conscience, they just have an instinct to survive and pass on their genes so they will turn on others in their group if they feel they're being threatened.

Not sure how you missed the fact that all of the ancient people groups became extinct, due to the fact that they celebrated murdering each other. Todays people groups are no different, we celebrate killing each other and our children. So will soon also self destruct just as every past people group has done.

Christians know about the spiritual realm, we know there are wicked Demonic Spirits influencing and possessing non Christians all the time, they never sleep or rest. This is why Christians always pray that the non Christians would open their eyes to realize that they're being corrupted, influenced and controlled by evil spirits. That's why the world is full of hatred, murder, drug abuse and false teaching in the world.

God gave us the 10 Commandments for our own protection from Demonic Spirits, who would have no power or influence over us if we didn't allow them access to our souls by breaking God's Laws. If we all put our trust in the Lord, the world would change instantly, we would all be super rich as there would be no need to spend trillions on wars, military, police, security, prisons, corrupt governments, fraud and the list goes on endlessly.

The Lord Jesus Christ said, "You can only serve one of two Masters" He went on to explain, that people who think they are free and don't serve any master actually serve the Devil because they are doing exactly what He wants them to do. Man wasn't created to be an island or autonomous creature. We were created to worship, so if we worship anything other than the Lord, we're actually worshiping idols which is to worship the Devil by proxy.

As for the second amendment, that debate has been raging for a long time now. We're not going to resolve it by debating it here, let those who are responsible for that amendment debate and change it if necessary, according to lawful procedure.

 

[Kylie]

They aren't exactly the standard, but "outlier" also isn't adequate. There is no universal "standard". And they didn't merely predate Christianity, for instance, the Romans practiced infanticide through exposure, something Christians rejected.

My point is that what we in the west think of as "human nature" and "common sense morality" is largely a social construct, and the reality is that human societies can vary a great deal in what they consider moral. Secular liberals merely take for granted Christian moral assumptions as natural or universal.

This doesn't refute my point. You haven't shown that no one had the "Murder is wrong" idea until Christianity.

 

[Kylie]

When God created mankind, He wrote His law on our hears. The secular world calls it "conscience", so we feel guilty when we sin. That's why every tribe and people group formulated some kind of code of ethics, based on their views. The Bible teaches Christians that everyone inherited a sinful and rebellious heart from our parents Adam and Eve, so mankind is not capable of writing fair laws.

When Adam and Eve sinned, the whole of creation became hostile, savage and violent. This curse infected the animal kingdom as well as mankind. Animals don't have a conscience, they just have an instinct to survive and pass on their genes so they will turn on others in their group if they feel they're being threatened.

Not sure how you missed the fact that all of the ancient people groups became extinct, due to the fact that they celebrated murdering each other. Todays people groups are no different, we celebrate killing each other and our children. So will soon also self destruct just as every past people group has done.

Christians know about the spiritual realm, we know there are wicked Demonic Spirits influencing and possessing non Christians all the time, they never sleep or rest. This is why Christians always pray that the non Christians would open their eyes to realize that they're being corrupted, influenced and controlled by evil spirits. That's why the world is full of hatred, murder, drug abuse and false teaching in the world.

God gave us the 10 Commandments for our own protection from Demonic Spirits, who would have no power or influence over us if we didn't allow them access to our souls by breaking God's Laws. If we all put our trust in the Lord, the world would change instantly, we would all be super rich as there would be no need to spend trillions on wars, military, police, security, prisons, corrupt governments, fraud and the list goes on endlessly.

The Lord Jesus Christ said, "You can only serve one of two Masters" He went on to explain, that people who think they are free and don't serve any master actually serve the Devil because they are doing exactly what He wants them to do. Man wasn't created to be an island or autonomous creature. We were created to worship, so if we worship anything other than the Lord, we're actually worshiping idols which is to worship the Devil by proxy.

As for the second amendment, that debate has been raging for a long time now. We're not going to resolve it by debating it here, let those who are responsible for that amendment debate and change it if necessary, according to lawful procedure.

Yeah, as soon as you start with the assumption that your beliefs are true and then try to fit reality into them, there's nothing to talk about.

 

[rjs330]

That's obviously nonsensical.

Why? We've seen it throughout the cultures of man. Just cause you say so, doesn't mean other cultures say so.

 

[Bradskii]

Why? We've seen it throughout the cultures of man. Just cause you say so, doesn't mean other cultures say so.

It is obviously harmful. Whether someone feels that it is justified is another matter. But it's simply not possible to claim that is it not harmful. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Dan1988]

Yeah, as soon as you start with the assumption that your beliefs are true and then try to fit reality into them, there's nothing to talk about.

It's evident that you've convinced yourself that your beliefs are true, so there really isn't anything to discuss here

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, as soon as you start with the assumption that your beliefs are true and then try to fit reality into them, there's nothing to talk about.

Everyone has some kind of presuppositions or beliefs about the world as a given.

 

[rjs330]

It is obviously harmful. Whether someone feels that it is justified is another matter. But it's simply not possible to claim that is it not harmful. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

So? So what if it's harmful. It's harmful in you mind, but maybe not there's. Who says morality has to be based upon what you think is harmful?

 

[o_mlly]

I believe they [moral assumptions] are natural because they have evolved naturally. And they are universal because we are all the same species.

Looks like we have a convert. "Natural" and "universal" moral assumptions -- aka -- an objective morality.

 

[rjs330]

One thing that people often miss in the Christianity discussion is that actual Christianity didn't happen until Christ. However, God still had a moral command long before Christ was here. Even before the 10 commandments. There was a moral compass in all of us which we could choose to ignore. Able was the first murder and even his murderer knew it was wrong. That was way before the 10 commandments or any other laws or documents by any civilization. So the idea that and kind of morality existed before the ten commandments shows that God had nothing to do with it does not reflect reality. In reality God's compass existed before any of those civilizations at the early stages of man.

 

[Bradskii]

So? So what if it's harmful. It's harmful in you mind, but maybe not there's.

No, it's harmful. Period. I can't immediately think of a more obvious example. If you want to argue whether harm can be used as a basis for moral decision making then and your case. But to say that the example isn't harmful...well, you've excused yourself from any sensible discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

Looks like we have a convert. "Natural" and "universal" moral assumptions -- aka -- an objective morality.

Two things before I continue. Something that is natural is not necessarily what we would describe as good. And something that is universally agreed upon is not necessarily good. So your claim above obviously fails on both counts.

The point that has been made (and I quoted part of my post 2 to you earlier - which has not received a response) that some things can be determined to be harmful and some not. Objectively so. And from that we can assume moral positions. It's not the case that we declared something to be morally wrong and then discover that society didn't work if people kept on doing it. What worked was good. What didn't was bad. And we personally decided that these things could then be described as morally good and bad.

Lying, for example, can lead to a lack of trust. Which can harm the relationship between two people. So there follows from that relatively obvious statement that we can assume that lying is generally bad. So we determine lying to be morally wrong. In the first instance. Without any qualifications. But there isn't a moral position that can be determined without context. You can lie to gain a personal benefit or you can lie to save a life. So 'lying is wrong' is not an objective fact. It isn't an objective moral position.

It's the same with harm. Causing harm is an objective fact. There's no denying it, although some are desperate enough to avoid this obvious statement by suggesting that some people, culturally, may not consider it to be so. Which is nonsensical. Harm has definitely been done. We just have to determine whether it is justified. If we didn't have to do that then causing harm would be objectively wrong. So it rather obviously isn't.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's harmful. Period. I can't immediately think of a more obvious example. If you want to argue whether harm can be used as a basis for moral decision making then and your case. But to say that the example isn't harmful...well, you've excused yourself from any sensible discussion.

Not at all. You are not the arbiter of harm. You don't get to decide if something is harmful or not for every person and every culture. I'm not talking about a single example. I'm talking about the premise. Who determines harm? You? Who are you to make that decision for everyone?