Are Morals Relative, Progressive, Objective, Absolute, Other?

[DogmaHunter]

Why would I bother when you cannot even live honestly with the worldview you claim to have.

You mean with the worldview that you claim he has....

 

[DogmaHunter]

You clearly aren't listening at all. Do you have no fear of God at all?

I fear God about as much as I fear the Jedi or Darth Vader.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

People write letters to people they 'know' exist. They do not write letters to people they think may not exist. Even when a child writes a letter to "Santa", it's because the child thinks "Santa" exists. But if the child, in adult form, continued to write letters to "Santa", after they no longer think "Santa" existed, that would be odd.

If God does not answer the prayer while you are alive, (like 'please heal my cancer', 'please restore my amputated limb', etc..) then it's safe to say He did not answer your prayer. I don't think cancer or an amputated limb matters much postmortem.

The only question that remains is do you pray to God in complete belief that he exists, or are you praying to test whether or not he exists?

 

[Phil 1:21]

If you yourself doubt the existence of such an absolute authority it means (by definition) that your own 'morals' are resting only upon your relativistic desires and feelings.

Bingo! The end result, predictably, is that one's morality just happens to coincide with their depravity.

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:5

 

[Noxot]

you know, it's pretty funny. I used to be the naive kind of fellow that irrationally thought that atheist were bad people. it's really embarrassing.

 

[Phil 1:21]

you know, it's pretty funny. I used to be the naive kind of fellow that irrationally thought that atheist were bad people. it's really embarrassing.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23

 

[cvanwey]

The only question that remains is do you pray to God in complete belief that he exists, or are you praying to test whether or not he exists?

I was a practicing Christian for 30+ years. I wholeheartedly had no question that Christianity was indeed the correct conclusion. It was without question. However, my primary reasons for this conclusion more-so stemmed from psychology of belief in god, faith, indoctrination, belief preservation, appeals to emotion, conformation bias, other logical fallacies, and a need for cognitive closure.

It was never because of perceived answered prayer. I always wondered why, but just figured I was not praying hard enough, or that I was not doing it right.

Once I started taking a more unbiased approach, and started to study the origin of the Bible, and also actually study the actual claims from the Bible, this is when it started to sink in for me. That the Bible does not appear to account for nearly as many facts as previous thought. This started to then make more sense, as to why I never received an answer to any of my prayers.

It wasn't until after I studied the claims of the Bible in depth, did I then go back to prayer to conclude why I never received actual answers. It then started to make much more logical sense.

This does not mean anything, other than, if something larger than humans exist, it would appear that whomever wrote the Bible does not clearly explain it's revelation. Why? Because too many claims and details do not appear to align with actual reality. I can only be intellectually honest with myself. If I'm wrong, according to Christianity, it appears to have no relevance. Why? Because belief is really the theme for Christianity (not morality). I either believe it, or not. I cannot make myself believe something in which I now have severe doubt upon.

So when I look back at the many years I prayed, I now seem to better 'know' why I never received any genuine answers. Because I was talking to myself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because belief is really the theme for Christianity (not morality).

Morality is evidence of belief.

It is not enough to believe in God, one must also believe God, and more importantly be led by his spirit.

 

[cvanwey]

Bingo! The end result, predictably, is that one's morality just happens to coincide with their depravity.

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:5

If by 'depravity', you mean 'the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin', this would also mean one must reject a fairly large scientific theory. Well, I've studied such a scientific theory and believe it is true, due to evidential accounts. Belief does not validate that the belief is correct; just that one believes it. So even if my belief is false, I still believe it. But the conclusion of this belief means I have no choice but to not believe in the concept of 'original sin'. And since belief is the primary tenet in Christianity, I guess I'm screwed, if actually true.

However, luckily, it would appear that whoever wrote the Bible did not appear to have a clear grasp on reality (at least from my estimation).

Is it my inherent depravity which makes me conclude this scientific theory correct, which makes me then also conclude, using intellectual honesty, that I can not longer accept the claim for 'original sin?'

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If by 'depravity', you mean 'the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin', this would also mean one must reject a fairly large scientific theory. Well, I've studied such a scientific theory and believe it is true, due to evidential accounts. Belief does not validate that the belief is correct; just that one believes it. So even if my belief is false, I still believe it. But the conclusion of this belief means I have no choice but to not believe in the concept of 'original sin'. And since belief is the primary tenet in Christianity, I guess I'm screwed, if actually true.

However, luckily, it would appear that whoever wrote the Bible did not appear to have a clear grasp on reality (at least from my estimation).

Is it my inherent depravity which makes me conclude this scientific theory correct, which makes me then also conclude, using intellectual honesty, that I can not longer accept the claim for 'original sin?'

What is the scientific theory regarding sin?

 

[cvanwey]

Morality is evidence of belief.

It is not enough to believe in God, one must also believe God, and more importantly be led by his spirit.

I believed in God wholeheartedly for 30+ years. I was never aware of any 'spirit'? How might one 'know' they are lead by this 'spirit'?

 

[Phil 1:21]

If by 'depravity', you mean 'the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin', this would also mean one must reject a fairly large scientific theory. Well, I've studied such a scientific theory and believe it is true, due to evidential accounts. Belief does not validate that the belief is correct; just that one believes it. So even if my belief is false, I still believe it. But the conclusion of this belief means I have no choice but to not believe in the concept of 'original sin'. And since belief is the primary tenet in Christianity, I guess I'm screwed, if actually true.

However, luckily, it would appear that whoever wrote the Bible did not appear to have a clear grasp on reality (at least from my estimation).

Is it my inherent depravity which makes me conclude this scientific theory correct, which makes me then also conclude, using intellectual honesty, that I can not longer accept the claim for 'original sin?'

Definition of depravity
plural depravities
1: a corrupt act or practice

• the depravities of war

2: the quality or state of being corrupt, evil, or perverted : the quality or state of being depraved

Definition of DEPRAVITY

Nice strawman though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believed in God wholeheartedly for 30+ years. I was never aware of any 'spirit'? How might one 'know' they are lead by this 'spirit'?

The spirit is that "still small voice" that speaks to your conscience.

 

[cvanwey]

What is the scientific theory regarding sin?

Evolutionary theory. I did not state it, because it really conflicts, and may move one away from the original topic of morals. However, it was one of the nails in the coffin, as to why my belief later wavered.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I believed in God wholeheartedly for 30+ years. I was never aware of any 'spirit'? How might one 'know' they are lead by this 'spirit'?

I think your second sentence speaks to the first.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 1 John 2:19

 

[Noxot]

Evolutionary theory. I did not state it, because it really conflicts, and may move one away from the original topic of morals. However, it was one of the nails in the coffin, as to why my belief later wavered.

hmm that's weird, I think that stuff like evolutionary psychology goes well with the NT idea of the flesh.

 

[cvanwey]

Definition of depravity
plural depravities
1: a corrupt act or practice

• the depravities of war

2: the quality or state of being corrupt, evil, or perverted : the quality or state of being depraved

Definition of DEPRAVITY

Nice strawman though.

You are so taking my response out of context. I'm not trying to create something easier to defeat. Further, I'm fully aware that 'depravity' has multiple definitions. I was trying to use it in the context in which you 'might' have been using it in. This is why I asked, 'if you mean', before providing one of the definitions. It was for clarification.

So rather than rubber stamping my response with a perceived intended fallacy and calling it a victory, maybe actual read the sincerity of my response, and then realize I'm trying to answer your response with intellectual honesty.

BTW, I used the following definition, as applied to:

• Christian Theology
  the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin.

Thanks!

 

[cvanwey]

I think your second sentence speaks to the first.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 1 John 2:19

whatever

 

[Phil 1:21]

You are so taking my response out of context. I'm not trying to create something easier to defeat.

Sure you were (at least, in your opinion). That's why you created your strawman instead of asking for clarification, and why you didn't address the post once clarification was given.

 

[cvanwey]

The spirit is that "still small voice" that speaks to your conscience.

Oh, you mean my conscious?