Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

[Ana the Ist]

I have some historical knowledge of the early church and it seems you may not know all there is to know yourself. I am talking about the early church after Christ. This period was a period of great growth and many good examples of Christians living lives that were reflecting the life of Jesus. There were many martyred and persecuted. After Christs death Paul had spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and the far reaches of the empire. The church grew fairly fast and there were cases of thousands being converted at one time in places. The Romans believd in their pagan Gods and made people pay homage to them. Paul was showing how these gods were just idols of metal and wood and that God was the living God through Jesus.

The Christians had a fairly low key beginning as they were singled out for not following the Roman idols. But there are many examples through the first couple of centuries which showed that the Christian led good lives and showed that they lived in peace towards others. They were often mentioned for their good example of the way they lived and this also brought attention on them because many were suspicious as to what they were up to.

But even during the time of Nero Christians were being blamed for everything and the persecutions started right through to the 3rd century when Constantine order Christianity to be accepted that the persecutions continued. This is where the Christians were fed to the lions. But there were many Christian martyrs apart from the disciples. Many Christians like
Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's), Ptolemaeus and Lucius (died ca. 165 AD), Fabian (200 – 20 January 250) was the Bishop of Rome from 10 January 236 to his death in 250, Saint Sebastian (died c. 288). The Scillitan Martyrs were a company of twelve North African Christians who were executed for their beliefs on 17 July 180 and Saints Perpetua and Felicity (believed to have died 203) are just a few of the more famous ones. But thousands of Christians were persecuted and killed during the rise of the early church. Perpetua Is interesting as she had left a diary in her prison. She was 22 and with a baby. She was executed in the arena charged by a bull, attacked by a lion and then when she was still alive slaughtered by the sword. As she died she still got up to help the others.

There are some interesting writings describing the Christians of the early church which gives us an insight into how they lived. Pliny the Younger in a letter to the then emperor describes the Christians after interrogating them when they were being persecuted. He states they pledge to do no wrong and come together to sing hums to Christ as a God. But a couple of early letter describe in detail how the early Christians lived.

The Epistle to Diognetes, c. AD 130

They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all others; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death and restored to life. They are poor yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things and yet abound in all; they are dishonored and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of and yet are justified; they are reviled and bless; they are insulted and repay the insult with honor; they do good yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred. To sum it all up in one word -- what the soul is to the body, that are Christians in the world.

From the Apology of Tertullian, AD 197

The "apology" was not saying "sorry" but was a defense of a viewpoint. One of the most colorful early church scholars was the North African Tertullian, who lived from around AD 160-225. He commended the Christian faith to the pagan world. In this excerpt we get priceless insight into the practices of early Christian worship, discipline, leadership selection and financial giving. But most significantly, Tertullian preserves the amazing pagan observation of the Christians: "See how they love one another."
What Were Early Christians Like? - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline


And, finally, the observations of a prominent present day researcher.
Sociologist Rodney Stark analyzed the survival and growth of the early church in the first few centuries. Here is his fascinating summary of the Early Church.

". . . Christianity served as a revitalization movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear, and brutality of life in the urban Greco-Roman world. . . . Christianity revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms and new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent problems. To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachment. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced with epidemics, fire, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services. . . . For what they brought was not simply an urban movement, but a new culture capable of making life in Greco-Roman cities more tolerable." Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press, 1996, page 161.​

What Were Early Christians Like? - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline

The early church grew fast and spread throughout the Roman Empire. The early Christians set an example of peace and Love and were persecuted for what they believe because they didn't follow the Roman pagan gods. It wasn't until Constantine who was converted himself and allowed Christianity to be practiced without any persecution around 313 AD. Then Christianity becomes the dominate religion of the very empire that tried to snuff it out. So fro a cross on Calvary the birth of the Christian church grew and took over the greatest empire. After that man started to destroy things by changing and adding all these rules and regulations. The church should get involved in politics and try to run things. They should be just setting the example like Jesus did. Let the governments run the country and let Christians follow Jesus and set the example that Jesus said to help others.

Here's a book you should check out...

The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It describes all the evidence for the myth of persecution of early christians. Basically, christians invented a lot of their martyrdom stories which were based upon Roman and Greek ideals...it never happened. The evidence shows that out of the first 300 years, there was only about a decade of genuine christian persecution which was based upon political dissent...not religious freedom.

Truth of the matter is that Roman society was extremely tolerant of other religions. Yes, they did require people to burn incense to an image of the emperor. Yes, there were christians who were killed for not doing this...but not because they were christian. Supposedly, many people didn't participate in the burning of incense...christians just happened to make a big deal out of it. If you'd like to discuss any specific cases of martyrdom, I'd be glad to...the link I provided dispels the myths behind several of the examples you offered. As it turns out, early christians were practically begging to be martyred as they believed it would get them favored status in the afterlife.

Mass conversions are also likely a myth. Last I read, the growth rate of early christianity was around 40%...not at all unusual for a new religion. It's actually less than Mormonism and Scientology if you want to look at the numbers...and they've had no mass conversions

The reason I called it an "obscure jewish cult" is because it simply wasn't as popular as other religions. Perhaps obscure is the wrong word for a religion that the emperor belonged to but the fact remains that Rome flourished as a pluralistic society for hundreds of years...allowing all sorts of beliefs and religions to intermingle. Once christianity came to prominence, that ended...and so did the Roman empire shortly thereafter.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the role of christianity and the progress of mankind throughout the dark ages, I'd be more than glad to.

Edit: I managed to find a good review of the book I linked to above. It does a nice job of explaining some of the author's evidence for her conclusions. http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth_of_persecution_early_christians_werent_persecuted/

 

[essentialsaltes]

But are all those things that are against the law seen as morals by everyone[?]

No.

Just because its against the law doesn't mean its a moral to someone.

Correct. We *cannot* police people's thoughts.

The person who bashes his wife may not regard it as that and may think she deserved it.

And the law puts him in jail, and I'm fine with that. His thoughts are his own.

But even if I went along with you that they were morals

That's not going along with me. I agree with you that morality and legality are different things.

Secular society will have many different versions and those who believe in a Christian God will have the one versions. As Christ said He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Then why do Christians have different opinions on many moral issues, from divorce to drinking? There isn't one Christian version of morals. There are many that differ from person to person. And that's what subjective means.

No morality cant be objective otherwise we would have to allow all sorts of things. You would have to allow your neighbors beliefs in morals which says he can have several wives.

I do allow his beliefs. He is free to hold his belief about the morality of polygamy. There's no thought police that can do anything about it, anyway. But I do not have to allow him to marry several wives. In fact, our society doesn't allow that.

The moment you start to say no you cant do that you are then enforcing your morals onto them

Good for me!

and not allowing their right to practice what they believe.

I don't have to allow them to act on their misquided (to me) morals.

Recognizing that morality is subjective (it differs from person to person) DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYTHING GOES.

 

[stevevw]

Then why do Christians have different opinions on many moral issues, from divorce to drinking? There isn't one Christian version of morals. There are many that differ from person to person. And that's what subjective means.

There is no different view with Christians about drinking. They all agree that drinking in excess and making a fool of yourself to the point that you get in trouble is wrong. All Christians will say that a drink is OK, Jesus turned water into wine. But its in moderation and I think all Christians agree with that. Divorce is something that was allowed in the bible so I dont see any issue there. The problem is some think that divorce is the moral when its a end result of breaching a moral. The moral is about a relationship under God being held sacred. As the bible said when two people are join they shouldn't commit adultery. Thats the moral. Divorce is a consequence of breaking the moral of Marriage or a union under God. But divorce is the certified confirmation of a marriage ending. So I think all Christians will think that adultery is wrong so thats the actual moral where they should agree or disagree.

I do allow his beliefs. He is free to hold his belief about the morality of polygamy. There's no thought police that can do anything about it, anyway. But I do not have to allow him to marry several wives. In fact, our society doesn't allow that.

But then if he has that moral belief then how can you say he is wrong. You have no right to judge him. He believes that he is right in his moral view just as much as you do. That is enforcing your beliefs and morals onto him and isn't subjective anymore. That is doing what you accuse Christians of doing. So you are in some ways taking a stand for the Christian view on relationships that a man and women should have a monogamous relationship.

If you do allow his beliefs and he is free to hold those beliefs according to your objective moral view then if your daughter went to his country and married him and became his 5th wife wouldn't you be concerned. If we apply this to say stealing or killing then somewhere in the world you have to allow others with those moral views to do those things because they are allowed under subjective morals. You cant tell them they are wrong because this is what they honestly believe. Then we should be trying to enforce our morals onto others. That is more or less having objective and trying to make everyone else in the world take on your beliefs.

If someone in your own country believed that violent movies and porn was OK according to them you have to allow this because they believe its OK according to them. If someone who as a result of watching those videos killed your child as it set off something in them you cant do a thing about it or blame them as you have to accept that they had a right to watch those videos because it was part of what they believe d to be OK. This is how objective morals work.

Good for me!

But isn't that what your are accusing Christians of doing.

I don't have to allow them to act on their misquided (to me) morals.

Yes you said it misguided to you. You do have to allow them because to them they may not be misguided. They may think your morals are misguided. What right have you got to make judgements about their morals when subject-ism states that everyone's views on morals are included and no one has a exclusive right on the moral market. So you have to allow his moral acts even if you dont agree with them or like them or they affect your life. The moment you start to enforce your morals onto him you are doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing. If you times that by the rest of the world and make everyone conform to what your believe then that making your morals objective in the sense that you are saying every other person is wrong and I will not go along with their morals. Only my morals are correct.

Recognizing that morality is subjective (it differs from person to person) DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYTHING GOES.

But arent you also saying they have a right to practice their morals just like you do. If some of their morals are repulsive to you or allow strange or perverted acts dont you have to still allow them to have the rights to live them just like you live yours. What right have you got to tell them they cant follow what they believe is OK for them. Afterall they dont see what they do as wrong because its morally right to them according to subjective morality. So if we have to allow several different value sets that may allow strange and different behaviors to yours even if it may cause you to be repulsed or even cause harm isn't that allowing many different types of behaviors according to subject morals.

It may not be a case of anything goes but it still allows many types of beliefs in which we could have all sorts of crazy and bizarre ideas of what is acceptable or not that could be leading to some bad influences and harm. We see that now with stuff like bondage, porn, cults, witchcraft, wife swapping clubs and different sexually immoral acts of all sorts being allowed and accepted. Even if you disagree with them and they repulse you, you cant do anything about if because a free society where everyone has a right to practice all these sorts of things is allowed. I know I wouldn't want many of these things in a society I lived in for me or my family to even see or come in contact with. This is why many young people are being affected as the rights of others to put all that garbage on TV and in the media which have been know to have an affect on people is doing damage to them. But I cant do much about it as we have to allow it all under subject secular societies views that everyone has the right to freely express themselves.

 

[quatona]

You know what, steve? I´m beginning to think you´d prefer us to establish an anti-religious totalitarian state rather than a pluralistic society that calls for tolerating your views.
After all, your dream of being persecuted would come true, then.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is no different view with Christians about drinking. ... All Christians will say that a drink is OK, Jesus turned water into wine.

This is not true. The Southern Baptists "express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages"

Divorce is something that was allowed in the bible so I dont see any issue there.

Your church may allow it, but the Catholic church does not.

But then if he has that moral belief then how can you say he is wrong.

I don't claim that he is objectively wrong. Since morality is only subjective, the most I can say is "I think he's wrong."

That is enforcing your beliefs and morals onto him and isn't subjective anymore.

You are confusing morality and the law again. We both (apparently) agree that these are two different things. I make no claim that his belief is objectively right or wrong. I don't even think that has an answer. But I agree with the law the forbids polygamy, so I'm content. You disagree with the law that allows pornography, so you are not content. This has nothing to do with whether the foundation of morality is objective or subjective. The fact that we have different moral opinions seems to argue that my view is correct.

The fact that Christians cannot agree on their 'objective' morality suggests that my view is correct.

That is doing what you accuse Christians of doing.

Currently I'm only accusing Christians of pretending to have access to an objective morality. Their own differing opinions show that they do not.

That is more or less having objective and trying to make everyone else in the world take on your beliefs.

No, it isn't. I believe morals are subjective, but they are to be applied universally.

I believe wifebeating is wrong. (this is a true statement about my belief.)
Douglas Wifebeater believes wifebeating is moral. (this is a true statement about his belief.)
Wifebeating is objectively immoral. (This statement doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as objective morality.)
Wifebeating is illegal (This is a true statement about the law. This is not the same as saying that wifebeating is immoral.)

Since my belief and the law are in agreement, I am content.

Nothing requires me to stop enforcing the law simply because of Douglas' belief.

If someone who as a result of watching those videos killed your child as it set off something in them you cant do a thing about it or blame them

Why can't I? Murder is illegal. This has nothing to do with whether morality objectively exists. I think [<--- those words show that this is subjective] murder is wrong. Why can't I act on my own beliefs? How could I do otherwise? Of course my beliefs influence my actions.

So you have to allow his moral acts even if you dont agree with them or like them or they affect your life.

I really don't.

But arent you also saying they have a right to practice their morals just like you do.

No, why would I say that? I'm only contending that there is no objective basis for morals. That doesn't mean that my moral sense doesn't mean anything. Quite the contrary, my morality matters a lot to me, because it is mine.

So if we have to allow several different value sets

No we recognize that several different value sets exist. They do exist! Because different people have different moral senses, morality is subjective. Recognizing that different opinions exist, does not oblige us to allow people to act upon them. I recognize that leeches and sharks exist; I do not have to allow them in my swimming pool.

 

[stevevw]

quatona
You know what, steve? I´m beginning to think you´d prefer us to establish an anti-religious totalitarian state rather than a pluralistic society that calls for tolerating your views.
After all, your dream of being persecuted would come true, then.
Sorry if this comes out different as for some reason when I hit quote it didnt bring up any of your post.

I am not against having the freedom to choose. That is a basic right we all should have. I am not even saying that religion should run society. IN fact that doesn't work as they say religion and politics dont work. God gave the Israelites the choice to decide which way they wanted to live. God gives anyone the freedom to choose through free will.

I am just pointing out how humanity has tried to do things their way and it fails. Because they put themselves in the position of God and think they can know better it often goes off the rails. Man kinds truth is different to Gods truth and humans can corrupt and compromise things through their own selfish desires and motives.

But I am not saying we should force anyone to do it Gods way. People have to have the freedom to choose but I think we just allow things to go overboard with this rights thing. What starts out as a good things about having freedoms to choose turns into allowing things that can cause people trouble. Some say thats the price we have to pay for freedom. But then freedom is also up for interpretation. What many think is freedom can actually be shackles because it also gives us a whole lot of situations that we end up have to bring in measures to counter the effects of.

Like the freedoms we brought in for the young. Society had come to a point as a reaction against over displining kids by stopping that discipline altogether and saying kids should have all these rights. We didn't have anything to really replace what we use to use as a way to show and teach kids how to behave. Do gooders came in and said that we cant do this and that and before you know it kids were getting out of control with discipline. I just think we need a good set of morals to at least set as the standard. Something that is consistent and unified so that another version cant come along and undermine things.

This wont happen because people dont want to abide by something that tells them how to live. They would rather have nothing because they think its trying to control them. All I'm saying is we need a unified set of morals to at least hold up so that people can model themselves off that. They can take it or leave it but at least it would be consistent.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

quatona
You know what, steve? I´m beginning to think you´d prefer us to establish an anti-religious totalitarian state rather than a pluralistic society that calls for tolerating your views.
After all, your dream of being persecuted would come true, then.
Sorry if this comes out different as for some reason when I hit quote it didnt bring up any of your post.

I am not against having the freedom to choose. That is a basic right we all should have. I am not even saying that religion should run society. IN fact that doesn't work as they say religion and politics dont work. God gave the Israelites the choice to decide which way they wanted to live. God gives anyone the freedom to choose through free will.

I am just pointing out how humanity has tried to do things their way and it fails. Because they put themselves in the position of God and think they can know better it often goes off the rails. Man kinds truth is different to Gods truth and humans can corrupt and compromise things through their own selfish desires and motives.

We have also tried to do things "our way" and succeeded. We've touched the surface of the moon, spilt the atom, and cured diseases. We don't have a "God's way" to rely on.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, steve.

Sorry if this comes out different as for some reason when I hit quote it didnt bring up any of your post.

Yeah, I am encountering the same problem with your post. Something must be messed up with the quote function, and CF can´t seem to solve the issue.

Upfront: Seeing that I don´t believe in your concept of god in particular and not in any god concepts I am aware of in general, I think there is not much point in making the existence of a God a premise of our conversation. It would mean stacking the deck in your favour.
Thus, in order to keep this manageable, we better discuss our opinions (no matter which authority we may ascribe them to).

I am just pointing out how humanity has tried to do things their way and it fails.

Well, this is a statement with a couple of unspecified modifiers.
1. Humanity isn´t a monolithic entity - there is not one way of humanity. Humans are very different, and each would prefeer to have it their individual way.
2. Humanity/humans try to do things their way, indeed. But what´s the alternative? Who else´s way could they possibly do things? You, too, want things your way (even though you believe that this is the way the god of your concept wants it).
3. In order to agree that, or even only to start considering if humanity has "failed", we would have to define goals, purposes etc., to which we can compare the current results to. I don´t think we have done this so far, and I suspect that we won´t agree on them, in the first place. So it´s hard to agree that we have "failed" if we haven´t done our homework that´s necessary to define what would constitute "failing".
4. Even if I would agree that humanity (compared to my ideals and standards - which may be different than yours) is not perfect, I wouldn´t necessarily say it has failed. I see no reason to expect humanity to be perfect, in the first place.
5. Every human, beyond a certain age, has learned that "having things their way" is a very naive approach. It conflicts with the reality that there are other humans who want it their way (and this often is very different from mine).
I do understand that you, steve, are frustrated that you don´t always get things your way - but you are an adult. You should be beyond this state, and the discussion should be past this point.
The discussion hopefully is at the state of asking "What´s the best way to account for the fact that humanity is a diverse bunch, and different people (including their gods or whatever shapes their ideals) want different things?"
6. Even at this stage and on this level, we will encounter the same problem: People have different ideas which sort of society accounts for this fact best.

My idea is that pluralism (within certain limits) accounts for this fact best, and considering the ways humanity has gone and tried, I find the way our western pluralistic societies function doing remarkably well.
I understand that you, on the other hand, have complaints about this way of accounting for the fact of human diversity (which necessarily means that I don´t always get things my way - there´s a lot of things I personally would like to be different) , but I am missing your constructive alternative approach in accounting for this fact.

Because they put themselves in the position of God and think they can know better it often goes off the rails. Man kinds truth is different to Gods truth and humans can corrupt and compromise things through their own selfish desires and motives.

Well, now you are back at the immature demand "but I want things my way" (even though you believe that it´s your god´s way).
On a side note: The only persons I perceive as "putting themselves in the position of God" are those who would us believe they can speak on God´s behalf.

But I am not saying we should force anyone to do it Gods way. People have to have the freedom to choose but I think we just allow things to go overboard with this rights thing. What starts out as a good things about having freedoms to choose turns into allowing things that can cause people trouble. Some say thats the price we have to pay for freedom. But then freedom is also up for interpretation. What many think is freedom can actually be shackles because it also gives us a whole lot of situations that we end up have to bring in measures to counter the effects of.

Yes, trying to find out what´s the best way of accounting for the diversity within humanity (how much freedom and what sort of freedom should we allow each individual, etc. etc.) is a permanent process of trial and error, as is life in general. Now you can whine about this fact until the cows come home, but that doesn´t mean you have come up with a better alternative.

Like the freedoms we brought in for the young. Society had come to a point as a reaction against over displining kids by stopping that discipline altogether and saying kids should have all these rights. We didn't have anything to really replace what we use to use as a way to show and teach kids how to behave. Do gooders came in and said that we cant do this and that and before you know it kids were getting out of control with discipline. I just think we need a good set of morals to at least set as the standard. Something that is consistent and unified so that another version cant come along and undermine things.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the last statement: I would like us to equip our kids with a good set of morals. However, the problem is that people do not always agree what are "good" morals, so we do not only have to account for a diversity of different "wants" but also for a diversity different views on "good morals" and for a diversity in opinions how to account for this diversity.
E.g. your above paragraph tells me that you have fundamentally different ideas than I do as to what´s important in the upbringing of children, what morals would be good to teach them, and how these morals are taught best.

This wont happen because people dont want to abide by something that tells them how to live.

Indeed. I don´t want to abide by your ideas how to live, and I am pretty sure you don´t want to abide by mine.

They would rather have nothing because they think its trying to control them.

Now, how´s that for a false dichotomy? Just because you don´t want to abide by my ideas of good morals surely doesn´t mean you rather would have nothing. And the same is true for me.

All I'm saying is we need a unified set of morals to at least hold up so that people can model themselves off that.

I do not necessarily agree with you that this would be a desirable thing to have, but let´s, for argument´s sake pretend I do.
So where do we take this "unified set of morals" from - seeing that people´s opinions as to what are "good" morals differ?
Are you willing to abide by someone else´s (or their Gods´ or whatever they bring to the table as their authority) morals that are completely different than yours, just for the sake of there being a unified set of morals?

You know, you can complain about the current state of affairs and dream up a better world and all, but in the end of the day you will have to come up with a workable alternative and plan that accounts for the fact that the problems you want to solve exist, in the first place. "I wish there were a unified set of morals" isn´t getting you very far.

 

[stevevw]

To quatona, its still not bring up your post when I hit reply so I will do my best.



​

Well, this is a statement with a couple of unspecified modifiers.
1. Humanity isn´t a monolithic entity - there is not one way of humanity. Humans are very different, and each would prefeer to have it their individual way.

When I say humans want to do it there way I realize there will be many different ways people think about how to do something but basically I am referring to a self will rather than a Gods will.

2. Humanity/humans try to do things their way, indeed. But what´s the alternative? Who else´s way could they possibly do things? You, too, want things your way (even though you believe that this is the way the god of your concept wants it).

Once again there is mans way which is more to do with him being the god of his own world and thinking he has all the power, answers and abilities with out the need for a God. I dont believe that my way is the best way as I have seen in my own life that I can get it wrong and havnt got the strength and to overcome my sinful nature which can lead me astray. The 2nd step in AA says. "We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity". Now even though this is more extreme as it is talking about someone who has a drinking problem and their life has become unmanagable the principle behind this step is said to be a life principle as we. After trying to control their drinking through trying to use their will power a person with a drinking problem has to come to the point where they realize that their power and will just cant do it. So they then turn to a power greater than themselves to help restore that manageability. This is the same for anyone accept not in such an extreme way. We need a power greater than ourselves to give us the support, strength and guidence to keep on track. It can be a source of encouragemnet, inspiriation, guidence that is outside ourselves.

3. In order to agree that, or even only to start considering if humanity has "failed", we would have to define goals, purposes etc., to which we can compare the current results to. I don´t think we have done this so far, and I suspect that we won´t agree on them, in the first place. So it´s hard to agree that we have "failed" if we haven´t done our homework that´s necessary to define what would constitute "failing".

Yes it would be hard. But generally I think about this as an ideal that most people want. That is to live in peace and safty, be happy and content and have all our important needs like food, shelter, health and education be available. I dont think we have ever achieved this as a world and it is grossly lacking in many parts of the world for one reason or another. The other side of the equation is the state of our planet and how we look after ourselves and the environment. I see we fail on both these accounts as well. I believe we will never achieve these goals and in the case of the planet we will gradually destroy it as it then causes grave repercussions which will come back on us.

As a people I see that we will also gradually deteriorate but more in our spiritually and mental health. We will never achieve things like peace and eradicate things like famine, poverty and poor health for many because we are to selfish. Unless we radically change our attitudes towards consumerism and commercialism we will always have some with comfortable lives and many without. If a world can go about their lives in greed while knowing that their human brothers are starving to death from not a pinch of food when others trow out tons then we will never find peace and harmony.

4. Even if I would agree that humanity (compared to my ideals and standards - which may be different than yours) is not perfect, I wouldn´t necessarily say it has failed. I see no reason to expect humanity to be perfect, in the first place.

5. Every human, beyond a certain age, has learned that "having things their way" is a very naive approach. It conflicts with the reality that there are other humans who want it their way (and this often is very different from mine).
I do understand that you, steve, are frustrated that you don´t always get things your way - but you are an adult. You should be beyond this state, and the discussion should be past this point.
The discussion hopefully is at the state of asking "What´s the best way to account for the fact that humanity is a diverse bunch, and different people (including their gods or whatever shapes their ideals) want different things?"

Its not always about having your own way as in a child. It just is that way as part of a selfish society that bases happiness and success on having things. Putting profits and materialism before people. If we all gave up our comfortable lives and just had what we needed then we could have enough for the whole world. Western countries use around 4 planets worth of resources while 3rd world countries use less than 1 planet. But western countries are not going to gibve up anything. They want their mod coms and comfy lives and dont really care about anyone else let alone someone dropping dead from not even having a cup of water. We will exploit the 3rd world people to enhance our lives with slave labor and taking advantage of their desperation. Global commercialism is charging along like a big grader smashing down rain forsets to make their money.

6. Even at this stage and on this level, we will encounter the same problem: People have different ideas which sort of society accounts for this fact best.

I think its more about what we have and what else can we get. The 3rd world countries are wanting to have a good life as well and the big companies are moving in. But that means we need more things and more resources, more land, more rubbish and more pollution. There has to be a breaking point. The world is getting more populated and being stripped of all its resources and the strain is starting to show. It cant go on for to long. Is it past the point of no return and have we already done to much damage. If you add all the trouble with war and rumors of war and terrorism plus the economic strain that the world is under with massive debt and I think we have some crisis points coming our way. Who knows only time will tell. The biggest problem is we keep telling ourselves theres no need to worry and we are big enough and smart enough to deal with it all. Sometimes I wonder whos kidding who. But this is that mankind's pride and aggogance about him being the god of his own destint and world. I just think thats the pride before the fall.

My idea is that pluralism (within certain limits) accounts for this fact best, and considering the ways humanity has gone and tried, I find the way our western pluralistic societies function doing remarkably well.

I dont, but then maybe they are according to the level of comfort for some. But then ask the billions inpoverty or suffering displacement or diseases. I guess it depends from where yo stand as to how well you may think your going. But also those who think they are going well are often living under a false reality. Everyone thought we were riding high on the crest of a wave with the economic boom just before the GFC and everything collasped and countries went broke. You have to remeber we didnt deal with that back then when it hit. We just put it off and it will hit again but next time even harder than before. I would say the US will be in big trouble and so will all that depend on her. But thats what we do we tell ourselves we are going great and live in denial.

I understand that you, on the other hand, have complaints about this way of accounting for the fact of human diversity (which necessarily means that I don´t always get things my way - there´s a lot of things I personally would like to be different) , but I am missing your constructive alternative approach in accounting for this fact.[/quote I am happy with my lot as I dont base it on having things. I dont live for this world to make me happy and dont put all my faith and hope in it. Thats why we have one person committing suicide evry 40 seconds now because this world just isnt giving them what they need and want.

​

Well, now you are back at the immature demand "but I want things my way" (even though you believe that it´s your god´s way).
On a side note: The only persons I perceive as "putting themselves in the position of God" are those who would us believe they can speak on God´s behalf.

No Gods way to me isnt always my way though I do realize that it really is the best way. I dont always see that because its easy to go for whats in front of you like the nice shinny new car or other things. But that just doesn't really give me true happiness and fulfillment. Helping others gives me the greatest rewards. If we follow Gods will and live as Jesus said we will not be trying to play God. We will be servants to God and doing Hiswill. We will be bringing glory to God not us. We will be a shining example of love and helping and saving others to find God.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the last statement: I would like us to equip our kids with a good set of morals. However, the problem is that people do not always agree what are "good" morals, so we do not only have to account for a diversity of different "wants" but also for a diversity different views on "good morals" and for a diversity in opinions how to account for this diversity.

That is our problem and what is causing us to lose our way. We need a united way. We need a hero and role model that we all can look up to. One that is without blemish and can be relied upon to show us the way. Because everything we have tried has not worked and is actually causing the problems. Its not so much that we have even tried anything apart from our own ways of man made versions of many different things. But we always pervert the truth and compromise things and let ourselves down. We are just not good enough to do it in the end.

E.g. your above paragraph tells me that you have fundamentally different ideas than I do as to what´s important in the upbringing of children, what morals would be good to teach them, and how these morals are taught best.

That is the problem with objective morality it never settles for one and includes many even the ones that are not good for us. The trouble is the not so good ones always somehow work there way into things and have an effect.

Indeed. I don´t want to abide by your ideas how to live, and I am pretty sure you don´t want to abide by mine.

Thats the way Objectivity normally works so we end up with no real winners. No real foundation and no real direction.

​

Now, how´s that for a false dichotomy? Just because you don´t want to abide by my ideas of good morals surely doesn´t mean you rather would have nothing. And the same is true for me.

What do we really have though. We have the laws but they are there because they have to be. They cover some basic things that have to be controlled or we will have anarchy. But apart from that our morals are not really specified. I have to accept that someone who wants to have porn all over the place can because thats their right. Someone who believe s in abortion can have their right because individual rights has somehow justified that. Whoever can rationalize and justify their beliefs will be able to talk their own version of things into reality. Ofeten its compromised with personal motives or corrupted with money or power to get it sway intoithe system. But there isnt any clear set of criteria as there are many influences. Because there is no clear set of standards and truth set out to begin with that cannot be changed then its open to interpretation.

I do not necessarily agree with you that this would be a desirable thing to have, but let´s, for argument´s sake pretend I do.
So where do we take this "unified set of morals" from - seeing that people´s opinions as to what are "good" morals differ?

Well obviously I am going to say from God. But I dont think it should be something that is forced onto people. Unfortunately many have given God a bad reputation and many see God as bad. So there has to be an uprising of good examples to show that God is real and good. This can only be done through Jesus. The Holy spirit has to work in peoples lives and the fruits of the spirit will come out and be seen. I think this will happen some time in the future and maybe not to far away. But at the same time those who will be showing Gods love will be persecuted. So it will be a battle for souls. God will pour out His spirit upon the earth as a way to show the way.

Are you willing to abide by someone else´s (or their Gods´ or whatever they bring to the table as their authority) morals that are completely different than yours, just for the sake of there being a unified set of morals?

I will follow God through Jesus, but I am not making anyone follow my God. If they say they have a god as it said in the bible let these gods show the people who is the one true God by their works. But part of people having different ways to follow to try and find a way to be happy and live is also through false religions. Just like I say that people use man made ways so can relaigion be used as a ma made way. Even more so. The best way for Satan to trick people is to use something that looks good on the outside.

You know, you can complain about the current state of affairs and dream up a better world and all, but in the end of the day you will have to come up with a workable alternative and plan that accounts for the fact that the problems you want to solve exist, in the first place. "I wish there were a unified set of morals" isn´t getting you very far.

That wont happen or be completed until the kingdom of God is established on earth and Satan is defeated.

Boy that was a long one but a good one.

__________________

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."​

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

quote=essentialsaltes;66462236]

'Then why do Christians have different opinions on many moral issues, from divorce to drinking? There isn't one Christian version of morals. There are many that differ from person to person. And that's what subjective means'

RESPONSE : Because not all CHristians go to the BIble to get their ultimate truth ; many apply their opinion to what they deem is correct for themselves and for society . There ARE one version of Christian Morals and Ethics and they are summed up in the 10 Commandments and all the teachings from Jesus himself ; if you don't find your answer with these two sets of absolute moral standards , then you look at the actual nature, character, and Person of God to see how it lines up with that. The term TRUTH means fidelity to the original...and that original is our Creator. The only reason to not want to find out the truth when it comes to right from wrong is because a Person would rather suppress his moral conscience so he/she can do as they like which is the entire basis behind Secular Humanism and 'freethinking' : To put MAN in charge and to void God. This is the inherent poison with Secular Humanism as was pointed out in the final post in the debate ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7841230/ )
​

 

[PsychoSarah]

The bible doesn't cover all possible situations that require morals to be evaluated. Its age and size prevent it. Is it moral for me to ever watch tv according to the bible? Who knows, TV didn't exist then, so the bible doesn't reference it. Even if the bible was some objective moral standard, and somehow everyone could evaluate those standards and apply them objectively, there would still be unanswered questions about morality which this claimed objective source has nothing to say about.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There ARE one version of Christian Morals and Ethics and they are summed up in the 10 Commandments and all the teachings from Jesus himself ; if you don't find your answer with these two sets of absolute moral standards

I think you have a problem when you have two sets of absolute moral standards.

Honour thy father and thy mother

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

[Loudmouth]

RESPONSE : Because not all CHristians go to the BIble to get their ultimate truth ; many apply their opinion to what they deem is correct for themselves and for society .

Christians who go to the Bible still have different opinions of what is and isn't moral.

There ARE one version of Christian Morals and Ethics and they are summed up in the 10 Commandments and all the teachings from Jesus himself ; if you don't find your answer with these two sets of absolute moral standards , then you look at the actual nature, character, and Person of God to see how it lines up with that.

How did you determine that following these teachings leads to moral behavior?

 

[quatona]

steve, thanks for your response. However, I don´t feel like going through the hassle of copy-pasting etc (since the quote function seems to be still messed up) and addressing each single point.
I do acknowledge that you put a lot of effort into your response (and I appreciate this), but seeing that
1. you didn´t respond to the actual points I meant to make,
2. you kept complaining about the state of affairs, but didn´t come up with a practical alternative to pluralism,
3. you kept referring to "God", which - until the existence of a God has been established and we have a solid verification which God it is and what this God´s moral opinion is - is irrelevant for any practical purpose, and which I will read as a euphemism of "I",
I don´t see much good coming from continuing this conversation, simply because I can´t get much out of complaints without any constructive proposal how to improve things.

Anyway, you went to great length about intra-social and inter-social material imbalances due to capitalistic exploitation, and - having been been determinedly critical of capitalism for all my life - I couldn´t agree more. Unfortunately, the majority of Christians are convinced that capitalism is the best social and economic system to account for their Gods´ morality - thus, while you and I could meet at this point and start to think about better alternatives, your permanent referral to God makes it hard for me to actually see "God vs. no-God" as the antagonistic factor you make it out to be. I suggest you first have a word with your fellow Christians, you convince them that God doesn´t like capitalism, and then you all come back to me with the proposal to blame the economic state of affairs on atheism.
Until then, I surely would like to take "God" out of the equation and actually address the current social problems as well hear your practical alternatives. The question what your or anybody else´s Gods allegedly have in mind for us is just a projection that complicates things unnecessarily, from where I stand.

 

[stevevw]

Thanks quatona for the way in which you reply to my posts. Its always respectful and considerate.

Yes you are right that there needs to be a solutions and not just talk. Many religions are hypocrites and live like they are for this world and not God. Jesus showed with the parable of the good Samaritan how we should be to inherit the kingdom of God. It seems there are even non religious people who do more and will probably be first in line when it comes to doing the right thing with God.

The bad examples of religion has put people off so the only way this can be rectified is for Christians to sacrifice themselves and their lives to God to help others. If they really have faith they will give up a lot of what they have to help others because they are putting their money where their mouth is. I like what the new pope represents but the Catholic church has so much material possessions they have to give up to truly be Christ like.

I point out the ways in which secular society lives and does things as a way of showing how this doesn't work. Mans way leads to problems. But you are right this is only half the solution. The other half is about being practical and helping others. By helping them in practical ways it sets the example for God and people will notice this more than anything. It also helps them in times of need. The charities have been doing this for some time but there needs to be a whole lot more. Only then will there be a noticeable difference.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a book you should check out...

The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It describes all the evidence for the myth of persecution of early christians. Basically, Christians invented a lot of their martyrdom stories which were based upon Roman and Greek ideals...it never happened. The evidence shows that out of the first 300 years, there was only about a decade of genuine christian persecution which was based upon political dissent...not religious freedom.

Truth of the matter is that Roman society was extremely tolerant of other religions. Yes, they did require people to burn incense to an image of the emperor. Yes, there were Christians who were killed for not doing this...but not because they were christian. Supposedly, many people didn't participate in the burning of incense...christians just happened to make a big deal out of it. If you'd like to discuss any specific cases of martyrdom, I'd be glad to...the link I provided dispels the myths behind several of the examples you offered. As it turns out, early christians were practically begging to be martyred as they believed it would get them favored status in the afterlife.

Mass conversions are also likely a myth. Last I read, the growth rate of early Christianity was around 40%...not at all unusual for a new religion. It's actually less than Mormonism and Scientology if you want to look at the numbers...and they've had no mass conversions

The reason I called it an "obscure Jewish cult" is because it simply wasn't as popular as other religions. Perhaps obscure is the wrong word for a religion that the emperor belonged to but the fact remains that Rome flourished as a pluralistic society for hundreds of years...allowing all sorts of beliefs and religions to intermingle. Once Christianity came to prominence, that ended...and so did the Roman empire shortly thereafter.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the role of Christianity and the progress of mankind throughout the dark ages, I'd be more than glad to.

Edit: I managed to find a good review of the book I linked to above. It does a nice job of explaining some of the author's evidence for her conclusions. &#8220;The Myth of Persecution&#8221;: Early Christians weren&#8217;t persecuted - Salon.com

Ive seen some of the sites that say the persecution of the Christians was a myth. But there is historical evidnece that it happened. It may not have been constant right through the first few centuries but it did happen over a long period which culminated with the organized persecution in the late 2nd century to early 3rd century. This is when Constantine made Christianity legal and the persecution stopped. This was a point in history that has been recognized. But there were also historical references earlier throughout time. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is one example. Along with this many jews were killed and others were enslaved and killed in the arenas for entertainment.

Nero referred to the Christians by blaming them for starting the fire that burned more. He talks about inflicting all sorts of tortures ion Christians. He talks about a class of people the Christians who were hated by the populace for their abominations. Suetonius also talks about persecution of Christians in his lives of Claudius (Nero’s predecessor) and Nero.

Pliny the younger in his letter to [FONT=&quot]Emperor Trajan [/FONT]refers to the Christians and how he interrogates interrogating them in 112AD. He talks about how he is asking if they are worshiping The gods of Rome or the Christ. So the Christians are persecuted for not following the Roman gods. It mentions how some Christians admitted they didn't follow Christ any more and so were let go. There are persecutions mentioned under other later emporers so even though it may not have been official and continuous it didn't cease and continued until it became an official law to wipe the Christians out around the mid 2nd century. This happened under two emperors [FONT=&quot]Decius (d251) and Diocletian (245-313). Then in around 313AD Constantine put a stop to it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]But this isn't the point and I didn't want to get into the persecutions alone. The early Christian Church grew fairly fast and spread throughout the empire. But because of the fear of persecution and at the very least Christians couldn't really promote themselves. But there are letters stating how they live good lives and how they primarily followed the teachings of Jesus. You have to remember the bible starts out with the disciples and Paul in particular who is spreading the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. There are 2nd generation disciples which are mentioned historically like Polycarp who show a good example of Christians. Some were also Martyred. I have mentioned some already but I am not sure I want to get into a debate about who was or was not martyred. What I am trying to establish is that the early church was a good example of the Christians living good lives.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, steve, and thanks for trying to understand.
I do sense from your response, however, that I haven´t made my points clear, or maybe, we aren´t even discussing the same question.

I do understand that you feel that if everyone believed in the God you believe in and did what you believe the God you believe in commands people to do, the world would be a better place.
This, I think, needn´t be repeated - it´s understood. Actually, it´s trivial - since we all believe that if everyone agreed with us in our worldview, ethics and morality the world would be a better place (and the mere fact that everyone would agree - no matter what worldview and morals they´d agree upon - the world would have lesser problems).

But unfortunately, we do not all agree. So even if your approach would create a perfect world, this is obviously not going to happen. This is a fact of reality, and - while we all like to dream at times - a practical approach to forming a society needs to account for this reality.
The resulting question is not "What would the world be ideally like?" (the question you keep responding to with reference to your God), but "What is the best world under the undeniable fact that people have different needs, different ideals, different beliefs and different Gods?" (a question that neither a reference to your or my dreams, ideals or Gods will help answering - they are part of the premise we have to deal with, after all.)

The latter was the question I thought you guys were discussing when I entered this conversation, and I meant to contribute to this discussion (as opposed to exchanging our dreams - which can be an entertaining past time, though).

How do we go about creating a society that accounts best for the fact that different people (and their Gods) want different worlds? "Well, we just do it my (my God´s) way" is just not addressing the question - it means falling back into dreaming up a world under the pretense that different and differing views don´t exist.

And just one other thing: While you are highly welcome to believe in whatever God you wish, and while I feel that everyone´s needs, wishes, ideas and ideals must be heard and considered when approaching the question above - don´t make a mistake: "My God and I" still gives you but one vote, and doesn´t give your needs, wishes, ideas and ideals anymore weight than anybody else´s (and their Gods´) in these considerations.
Thus, if you want your ideas, ideals, needs and wishes to be maximally influential, appealing to your God (whom not everybody believes in) is not the way to go (it will reliably and understandably earn you the response "Prove that your God exists, and prove that He holds these views - and then we can take his views into consideration"). You´d better present plausible, convincing reasons as to how and why the world of your dreams is more attractive than the alternatives.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I think you have a problem when you have two sets of absolute moral standards.

Honour thy father and thy mother

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

There aren't 'two sets' ... there are Gods 10 Commandments which now allow people to see how much they have missed the mark of living correctly and which are vitally important to follow , plus, there are the continuing absolute morals and ethics that Jesus spoke on which relate to the 10 Commandments . And they all come from the same Original Source --- the Creator , just given at different times in history.

Yes, honor your Parents.

Yes, following Jesus will often bring about division within a family.

How are you doing at seeing that youre a Sinner in need of a divine Savior so you can avoid condemnation by the Creator who loved you enough to die on the cross for you so your many accumulated sins could be totally forgiven and forgotton ?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How are you doing at seeing that youre a Sinner in need of a divine Savior so you can avoid condemnation by the Creator who loved you enough to die on the cross for you so your many accumulated sins could be totally forgiven and forgotton ?

The same as always, I invite god in, but am blown off every time

 

[stevevw]

Thanks for the reply quatona. It seems that the quote button is only not working on this forum as the other ones worked earlier tonight.

Sorry if I harped on but I wasn't intending to come across that way. As you said we have to be practical and show how one way can work and not the other. Thats why I was saying that we cant put any religion in charge because it will be rejected. Not just rejected but rebelled against. So this is why I was emphasizing the best way was to live the example of Jesus as Christians. Though it wont change the world overnight it will make a different one by one in little ways. Theres no sense talking about it you have to walk the walk. I try to do this in my work and life. I help people at my local community center when they have problems. They dont know that I am a Christian and my intentions are not to preach and get them to convert. Its just to help them. I have to be practical and help them with their daily problems and find the best solutions. I hope that Jesus will shine from me as an example and this may spread the love. But there's no sense preaching to someone when they need food or a roof over their head.

It is a big problem that we all face and how to come together to find solutions and make things happen. Thats why I was trying to give some practical solutions to how belief can work to solve the worlds problems. As I said we have to put people first before money and our comforts. This is hard as people want things and this world is based on this. You are right i that you cant make one persons views about what they believe be taken over others and everyone needs to be considered. Thats why I was saying that this is not the way to go with being a Christian. Its living the example and showing the way to go and everyone doing their little part to help. Keep chipping away and hoping it begins to grow. I dont believe its unreal or a dream and I'm out there doing my part.