How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[2PhiloVoid]

This is complete nonsense. Do you want me to list every instance of someone who has an influence on my upbringing? Everyone who I have heard, listened to or spoke to that has informed my moral positions? Every book I have read? Don't be ridiculous. If you have a personal position, arrived at personally then you can explain it. If you want to reference someone to back up that position then quote them. That is par for the course.

But you don't do that. What you have been doing is making lists of authors and posting links to books saying 'Look how well read I am!' And suggesting, in supercillious tones, that we peons should get up to speed so we might be able to grasp what you are talking about.

And here's a heads up on what you have been talking about. In my not-so-humble opinion, it hasn't been worth the bandwidth so far.

So, does this mean you're ready to engage the authors and sources that I cite? Somehow, I doubt you really intend to imply that. No, you're blowing more smoke.

Just know that I WILL engage your sources. And I WILL evaluate them. That's how it works. If you think you can live in some kind of autonomous social vaccum where you don't have to be at least partially accountable to other for citing your sources within some level of transpareny, then THAT is on YOU! And you won't get away with it for very long, nor should anyone just let you.

Be warned!

 

[Robban]

Okay, never mind. I've been down this road many times. I know where it goes. So I'll quietly take my leave.

Cheer up mate,

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, that’s not how I’d put it, but close enough.

So you agree the Christian worldview has, and continues to change; is that correct?

 

[Bradskii]

So, does this mean you're ready to engage the authors and sources that I cite?

Yeah. Sure. I'll run through your personal 'Dozen books and authors I need you to read before I'll offer any thoughts of my own.'

Actually...no, I won't. As I said, this ain't a book club. I interact with people on this forum because I have personal positions on certain matters and I want to know their personal views. If you aren't interested then I really could care less.

 

[Hammster]

So you agree the Christian worldview has, and continues to change; is that correct?

Some of it has, of course.

 

[Ken-1122]

Some of it has, of course.

So the Christian worldview is no better than mine.

 

[Hammster]

So the Christian worldview is no better than mine.

Whether it is or isn’t is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Ken-1122]

Whether it is or isn’t is irrelevant to the discussion.

Then why did you bring it up? After all; you're the one who made the claim of the importance of a "fixed worldview"!

 

[Hammster]

Then why did you bring it up? After all; you're the one who made the claim of the importance of a "fixed worldview"!

No, a fixed point of reference. Kinda like the elephant and the blind men.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, a fixed point of reference. Kinda like the elephant and the blind men.

What good is having a fixed point of reference when that reference allows you to change your moral views whenever you see fit?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What good is having a fixed point of reference when that reference allows you to change your moral views whenever you see fit?

Ok. Ken. So, what do you want Christians everywhere to do now that you've shown up to tell us all off?

For my part, I don't see the Christian faith as a "fixed" worldview. And it doesn't need to be. Nothing is fixed anyway if by fixed we mean to refer to an idea or principle or piece of data that is situated in a comprehensive, static epistemically verifiable framework. Besides, the term "fixed" implies a particular conceptualization about the essence of Truth, Reality and/or History, that these things are certain and comprehensive in nature. But they aren't and that's also, therefore, not what we have with the Christian faith or with the Bible.

At the same time, I think it's safe to say that there are some historically emergent properties that are common among various worldviews that are informed by the Christian faith, all of which then by proxy affect the ethical and moral outlook of any one Christian, particularly any one Trinitarian Christian.

One property of any Christian worldview is the historical claim that "Jesus of Nazareth existed, lived, taught and died...and rose again." So, while the contexts that may be implied by that property aren't perfectly discernible among all Christians and are, like many facts, open to some degree of varied interpretation, the core property is still very similar among Christians, and they should be expected to have some common moral recognitions among themselves because of it.

I don't think that non-Christians can say the same about their Ethics and moral outlooks. Take the modern, secular concept of Human Rights or the all too general notions about "well-being" among the Liberal Left as but two examples ... there's really little there to hold these positions together other than an amalgamated, amorphous, protean "blob" of idealization born from what are deemed to be 'pragmatic necessities.'

Influential Reference in my thinking:

Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. Ken. So, what do you want Christians everywhere to do now that you've shown up to tell us all off?

You jokin' right???

For my part, I don't see the Christian faith as a "fixed" worldview. And it doesn't need to be. Nothing is fixed anyway if by fixed we mean to refer to an idea or principle or piece of data that is situated in a comprehensive, static epistemically verifiable framework. Besides, the term "fixed" implies a particular conceptualization about the essence of Truth, Reality and/or History, that these things are certain and comprehensive in nature. But they aren't and that's also, therefore, not what we have with the Christian faith or with the Bible.

Perhaps you should parley that bit of information to the person I've been debating with; it is he that you need to convince of this; not me.

I don't think that non-Christians can say the same about their Ethics and moral outlooks. Take the modern, secular concept of Human Rights or the all too general notions about "well-being" among the Liberal Left as but two examples ... there's really little there to hold these positions together other than an amalgamated, amorphous, protean "blob" of idealization born from what are deemed to be 'pragmatic necessities.'

Okay 2PhiloVoid. So what do you want non-Christians everywhere to do now that you've shown up to tell us all off?

 

[Hammster]

What good is having a fixed point of reference when that reference allows you to change your moral views whenever you see fit?

It doesn’t allow you to do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You jokin' right???

More or less.

Perhaps you should parley that bit of information to the person I've been debating with; it is he that you need to convince of this; not me.

I already understand the "Reformed" point of view. What's there for me to do? I've already laid out for you the 'why' as to the reason there is variability among Christians in how they use their core beliefs which then play into their larger respective worldviews. His worldview is expected by me to be a little different than mine. From my Hermeneutical vantage point, it's ok. I can have general solidarity with him even if he may or may not return that favor.

Okay 2PhiloVoid. So what do you want non-Christians everywhere to do now that you've shown up to tell us all off?

What? .....wait a minute? I could have sworn that this is a Christian Forum and that I've been on here for over 12 years already. Did I somehow land on the Ex-Christian website as an invader by accident?

Please notice that I'm not the one "landing" on a public social platform that is anti-thetical to my own. I'm not telling folks off; no, I'm DEFENDING. You're the one on offense.

See the difference? Context always, always makes a difference.

Influential Reference in my thinking:

Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Woodbridge, John D. Doing theology in today's world: Essays in honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer. Zondervan, 1994.

 

[Ken-1122]

It doesn’t allow you to do that.

But they do it anyway. So though it may not allow you to do it, it doesn't prevent you from doing it either. So........

 

[Ken-1122]

More or less.

Well.... the next time you decide to grace me with unsolicited jokes, PLEASE MAKE SURE THEY ARE FUNNY!!!!

I already understand the "Reformed" point of view. What's there for me to do? I've already laid out for you the 'why' as to the reason there is variability among Christians in how they use their core beliefs which then play into their larger respective worldviews. His worldview is expected by me to be a little different than mine. From my Hermeneutical vantage point, it's ok. I can have general solidarity with him even if he may or may not return that favor.

And you are telling me this because????

What? .....wait a minute? I could have sworn that this is a Christian Forum and that I've been on here for over 12 years already. Did I somehow land on the Ex-Christian website as an invader by accident?

No! You landed on the section of this Christian forum that invites non-Christian responses, and you’ve inserted yourself into a conversation this non-Christian was having with another Christian who apparently has different views than you have concerning Christianity, so naturally my responses are gonna be in the context of what HE believes; rather than what you believe.

Please notice that I'm not the one "landing" on a public social platform that is anti-thetical to my own. I'm not telling folks off; no, I'm DEFENDING. You're the one on offense.

See the difference? Context always, always makes a difference.

So let me see if I’ve got this straight:
You insert yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else, you begin making unfounded accusations against me, and you call this DEFENDING yourself?
Defending yourself against who? You weren't even a part of the conversation!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well.... the next time you decide to grace me with unsolicited jokes, PLEASE MAKE SURE THEY ARE FUNNY!!!!

What kinds of things do you find funny so I'll know for future reference?

And you are telling me this because????

Why do you think I'm telling you?

No! You landed on the section of this Christian forum that invites non-Christian responses, and you’ve inserted yourself into a conversation this non-Christian was having with another Christian who apparently has different views than you have concerning Christianity, so naturally my responses are gonna be in the context of what HE believes; rather than what you believe.

I'm afraid we both have utterly different perspectives on what it "means" to be on Christian Forums. In my view, it makes little to no difference whether this is a Christians only forum or an All-out, All Party forum. It's all still nestled within a Christian community and will either militate for or against the Christian faith.

Kapeesh?

So let me see if I’ve got this straight:
You insert yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else, you begin making unfounded accusations against me, and you call this DEFENDING yourself?

Exactly. An infraction on one Christian is, in my view, an infraction on ALL of Christians, everywhere. I might disagree with Hammster on a few things, but that doesn't mean he somehow fails to be my brother in Christ. So, he gets extra consideration, just like I'd offer any other Trinitarian Christian who seems to live and hold to good character as he/she pursues Jesus Christ in faith.

But I get it. Some of you atheists would like to see us Christians "police" ourselves better on some counts. And maybe we should. But I don't think that any variance I may have with other Christians about whether or not we Christians indeed have a "fixed" Worldview is one I need to offer much in the way of any admonition or correction. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, Jesus is a permanent fixture of my own Worldview, too, so, y'know, even though I can have a slight difference in the semantic application of the concept "fixed," I'll still generally view Jesus as "moral fixture" which coalesces with Hammster's worldview (or that of any other Trinitarian Christian on this forum).

So, yeah. I'll intercede in a conversation when I wish to add some other point or angle of consideration.

Defending yourself against who? You weren't even a part of the conversation!

I'm defending the Christian faith and The Church against ............................................. whomever comes our way and wants to knock Christians and their faith, whichever forum. Surely, you can understand my essentially Communitarian stance and the positive feelings I may have for my own worldview community, right? Or don't you? You might also have to understand Pascal's Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics to truly get a feel for why you're one of many individuals on this website whom I keep my eye on.

 

[Ken-1122]

What kinds of things do you find funny so I'll know for future reference?

Why do you think I'm telling you?

I'm afraid we both have utterly different perspectives on what it "means" to be on Christian Forums. In my view, it makes little to no difference whether this is a Christians only forum or an All-out, All Party forum. It's all still nestled within a Christian community and will either militate for or against the Christian faith.

Kapeesh?

No. You’ve left out the neutral option. My beliefs does not have to be either ally or enemy of yours.

Exactly. An infraction on one Christian is, in my view, an infraction on ALL of Christians, everywhere. I might disagree with Hammster on a few things, but that doesn't mean he somehow fails to be my brother in Christ. So, he gets extra consideration, just like I'd offer any other Trinitarian Christian who seems to live and hold to good character as he/she pursues Jesus Christ in faith.

But I get it. Some of you atheists would like to see us Christians "police" ourselves better on some counts. And maybe we should. But I don't think that any variance I may have with other Christians about whether or not we Christians indeed have a "fixed" Worldview is one I need to offer much in the way of any admonition or correction. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, Jesus is a permanent fixture of my own Worldview, too, so, y'know, even though I can have a slight difference in the semantic application of the concept "fixed," I'll still generally view Jesus as "moral fixture" which coalesces with Hammster's worldview (or that of any other Trinitarian Christian on this forum).

So, yeah. I'll intercede in a conversation when I wish to add some other point or angle of consideration.

Okay; but when you intercede, don’t assume because I am a skeptic, I must be attacking or somehow being hostile towards him or his beliefs. He asked questions concerning why and how I believe the way I do, and I was only explaining to him why my views make sense to me. As I said before, ally or foe are not the only options, we can remain peaceful and respectful even though we don’t agree.

 

[Hammster]

But they do it anyway. So though it may not allow you to do it, it doesn't prevent you from doing it either. So........

I also make rules for my children. That doesn’t make them follow. But it does spell out consequences.

 

[Ken-1122]

I also make rules for my children. That doesn’t make them follow. But it does spell out consequences.

Are those consequences you spell out for your children for this lifetime? Or some other lifetime.