Why no proof?

[Moral Orel]

I'm not bothered at all if you used a scientific source to answer what was going on in the brain or to address any other scientific questions. Just actual Christian stuff.

Well the argument is that morals come from God or morals come from humans, so I don't know how to defend that point that morals come from humans without the tool of science. You asked for a source that showed the biological differences between normal people and "evil" people, so I offered it. The point of the article was to show that evidence of morals is found in biology and not an intangible soul.

I can't begin to imagine what a paradox this would be for people according to their brain scans would be predisposed to murder and therefore should be locked up even before they commit a crime?

I'll respond to this with something you actually quoted:

It does of course state that people can go against their nature with other factors in play

Just because a mind has a predisposition to something doesn't mean that we should "lock them up" for it because some people do fight their nature to do something other than evil. It was actually the author of the article and the scientist behind the research who found his brain looked similar to those of serial killers. I in no way proposed that people with certain brain scans are to be deemed dangerous, I merely showed that when we find people doing things that are evil there is something biologically different about them, and not intangibly different about them.

I think there is a reason why the McNaghten's Rules stand the test of time.

McNaghten's rules are for those people who are so insane that they don't understand that plunging a knife into another person will kill them. Or for those people who kill someone because they think they are something else. Knowing that something is illegal doesn't mean that you believe it is wrong.

Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. What if you lived in one of those countries where praying to Jesus was illegal? Would you then know that it was wrong to pray to Jesus? I'm not saying it is, but you're equating knowing something is illegal with knowing something is morally wrong. You have your belief that praying to Jesus is good, and some folk have a belief that killing people is good because it benefits them and who cares about anyone else. Both of you will do the thing that you find morally acceptable in secret to avoid being convicted of the crime, and so both of you will show the evidence that you are hiding your crimes because you know it is wrong.

And before you say that you won't hide your faith, remember that Jesus said you should pray in your closet at home so that you aren't doing it to show off, so there's no reason to go out and be a martyr.

Somehow this part of the conversation got around to feelings.

How else do you explain the difference between knowing something is illegal and knowing something is immoral? You have to feel something is immoral. "Knowing" just means you were told that it is. You have to, in some way, feel a belief.

A person can "know" something is bad but still boast about it.

Sure, they can. And they can know something is good and boast about it. But what you claimed is that a person boasting about a crime is proof that he knew it was bad. What I am pointing out is that boasting is not evidence of wrong doing.

What makes you think that the drugs were going to interfere with your responsibilities? In what way? and who told you that would happen?

I have a son. If I were to be caught with illicit substances, he could be taken away from me. If I am under the influence of illicit substances, and he needs something from me, such as a trip to the hospital, then I would be incapable of performing my duties as his caretaker.

I have a job that does random drug testing now. If I were to show positive for certain illicit substances, I could lose my job and then be rendered incapable of supporting my family.

I looked at the consequences of my actions (even just potential consequences that aren't guaranteed), and made a choice.

Christian faith objects to killing. We certainly would not do it to defend our property or kill pedophiles. We rely on the laws of the land to deal with people who commit crimes.

You say "we" as if you speak for all Christians or that you are making the "no true scotsman" argument. Take a look at the gun-crazed American south and tell me that bible-thumping, gun-toting Christians don't exist.

Are you trying to tell me that you would defend your property by killing the thieving person, or kill a person accused of pedophilia?

Defend my property with killing? No. Defend myself? Yes. Defend someone else? Yes. Someone "accused" of pedophilia? No. If I witness a pedophile in the act? Yes.
You still want to draw my moral character into question as part of your argument, so I guess I'll oblige.

I've always understood the purpose of war is to protect our borders.

The Crusades weren't protecting borders, and they weren't armies raised by a country. They were far away and led by religion.

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’a]" 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the "two" shall become one flesh’; b]" so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So Jesus talked about divorce. So what? If after those two are one, and the man gets another wife and they become one flesh, it doesn't mean the first woman is separated from him. I believe some Christians are reading into that what they want.

Think about pieces of wood. You nail two pieces of wood together, now they're one thing. Nail another piece of wood to one of them, now their one thing and two of them never have to touch. And you can keep nailing new boards to that first, central board ad-nauseum, continually making one thing, and never having to have two "female" boards get together, which would be the only thing that the Bible did say something bad about.

If you think that a particular act is bad today but is ok tomorrow, would you call that changing with the times or a moral decline?

It used to be illegal for African Americans to vote in America. Now it is legal. Is that moral decline? You feel like it is moral decline because some of your morals are not being upheld forever, but I believe some morals of the Bible to be wrong. So I call that moral development.

 

[MishSill]

Well the argument is that morals come from God or morals come from humans, so I don't know how to defend that point that morals come from humans without the tool of science. You asked for a source that showed the biological differences between normal people and "evil" people, so I offered it. The point of the article was to show that evidence of morals is found in biology and not an intangible soul.

My argument all along has been that if there is no objective morality then you are left with the subjective that will be ever changing. What was wrong yesterday is ok today. What was ok to do yesterday is not ok today. We are seeing that happening.

Eg. spare the rod and spoil the child is biblically based. Abusing a child though is never acceptable. But now disciplining a child is unacceptable. This is what I mean by moral decline because social workers and psychologists believe there are other methods that should work.

Given that from the time it has been handed down in the ten commandments murder still remains a crime, theft still remains a crime, false witness is still considered perjury in the Courts.

You have to have order in society right?

That means you require a collective subjective morality all standing in agreement.

God does not change. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever. I would rather have His objective morality to follow something I can continuously assess myself against without change, than have human's subjective morals where anything goes.

I'll respond to this with something you actually quoted:

It does of course state that people can go against their nature with other factors in play

Just because a mind has a predisposition to something doesn't mean that we should "lock them up" for it because some people do fight their nature to do something other than evil. It was actually the author of the article and the scientist behind the research who found his brain looked similar to those of serial killers. I in no way proposed that people with certain brain scans are to be deemed dangerous, I merely showed that when we find people doing things that are evil there is something biologically different about them, and not intangibly different about them.[/QUOTE]

Considering the soul doesn't appear on brain scans no you're not likely to see it are you? My point of giving you the example of my father's scan was that what was showing on the scan was the result of a lack of oxygen causing his brain to die. There is always a cause to what you see on a scan. The physical is only the by product.

Demonised people (if you believe that can happen) I'm sure would have quite interesting brain scans but the demons are going to show up on the scan. I don't think so.

Knowing that something is illegal doesn't mean that you believe it is wrong.

I agree. It was never my point, seen as we are discussing morals. Of course our laws are based on some morals.

Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. What if you lived in one of those countries where praying to Jesus was illegal? Would you then know that it was wrong to pray to Jesus? I'm not saying it is, but you're equating knowing something is illegal with knowing something is morally wrong. You have your belief that praying to Jesus is good, and some folk have a belief that killing people is good because it benefits them and who cares about anyone else. Both of you will do the thing that you find morally acceptable in secret to avoid being convicted of the crime, and so both of you will show the evidence that you are hiding your crimes because you know it is wrong.

And before you say that you won't hide your faith, remember that Jesus said you should p

The quote didn't copy properly you said we should pray in the closet.

God also said to fulfill his great comission going to the ends of the earth and preaching His gospel. The scripture you were referring to was clearly pointing out not to be fake. You don't go putting on a showing to get people approval. Praying in the closet means that you are for real with God. I don't literally step inside a closet but I do have my "closet" time with God.

Again I'll repeat. There are people out there who know that raping is wrong, they know that killing is wrong. It makes no speck of difference whether or not they feel good about it. These are moralistic values.

How else do you explain the difference between knowing something is illegal and knowing something is immoral? You have to feel something is immoral. "Knowing" just means you were told that it is. You have to, in some way, feel a belief.

The kind of knowing (I don't know how I know, I just kow) that comes from deep within. Most people out there will confess they have it. I had it before I knew God.

Sure, they can. And they can know something is good and boast about it. But what you claimed is that a person boasting about a crime is proof that he knew it was bad. What I am pointing out is that boasting is not evidence of wrong doing.

Yes well... boasting of a crime is something we in the legal profession call "confession" of commiting that crime. If a person boasts about killing they know they've done it, contrary to an insane person who would have no such knowledge because they don't even realise what killing someone is.

I have a son. If I were to be caught with illicit substances, he could be taken away from me. If I am under the influence of illicit substances, and he needs something from me, such as a trip to the hospital, then I would be incapable of performing my duties as his caretaker.

I have a job that does random drug testing now. If I were to show positive for certain illicit substances, I could lose my job and then be rendered incapable of supporting my family.

I looked at the consequences of my actions (even just potential consequences that aren't guaranteed), and made a choice.

So if you didn't have to worry about random testing or the risk of having your child removed from your custody, would you still do it?

You say "we" as if you speak for all Christians or that you are making the "no true scotsman" argument. Take a look at the gun-crazed American south and tell me that bible-thumping, gun-toting Christians don't exist.

By way of suggestion how about posting the scenario in another thread and see what Christians have to say about it.

The Crusades weren't protecting borders, and they weren't armies raised by a country. They were far away and led by religion.

Oh yes they were and we called on by the Pope. Don't forget the papal system was governmental. There has since been the separation of church and state.

So Jesus talked about divorce. So what? If after those two are one, and the man gets another wife and they become one flesh, it doesn't mean the first woman is separated from him. I believe some Christians are reading into that what they want.

Think about pieces of wood. You nail two pieces of wood together, now they're one thing. Nail another piece of wood to one of them, now their one thing and two of them never have to touch. And you can keep nailing new boards to that first, central board ad-nauseum, continually making one thing, and never having to have two "female" boards get together, which would be the only thing that the Bible did say something bad about.

My point is the "two" will become one flesh not six or seven. Clearly the scriputures are alluding to monogamy. If polygamy was meant to be, then God would have created several women for Adam not one. Both old and new testaments allude to what God intended regardless of what went on with human beings. Jacob and David were not good stories.

The bible is very clear about adultery. Unless adultery is committed, a divorced person who remarries commits adultery. In other words, you can't have many wives without committing adultery.

It used to be illegal for African Americans to vote in America. Now it is legal. Is that moral decline? You feel like it is moral decline because some of your morals are not being upheld forever, but I believe some morals of the Bible to be wrong. So I call that moral development.

Voting is not morals. Freedom is. That change is in line with God's morals.

Once again, I thank you for the discussion and hope that you have been able to glean some understanding of Christian morality. I will after today only be on here on the weekends.

All the best and God's blessings be upon you Nicholas

 

[Moral Orel]

Once again, I thank you for the discussion and hope that you have been able to glean some understanding of Christian morality. I will after today only be on here on the weekends.

I have gleaned an idea about some morals, and it doesn't make me more likely to accept the Bible. I have had the following things defended to me as moral: slavery, genocide, child abuse, oppression of women, and persecution of people with different beliefs from Christianity. I know that you don't see it that way, but it is clear to me that holding on to a view that morals are objective means accepting terrible things as moral. Sure some of the basics are covered, don't murder, don't steal, etc, but there are a lot more that are not in line with what I think a peaceable, productive, caring society should have. If God was tapping me on the shoulder, I think he should have pointed me in a different direction.

 

[MishSill]

I have gleaned an idea about some morals, and it doesn't make me more likely to accept the Bible. I have had the following things defended to me as moral: slavery, genocide, child abuse, oppression of women, and persecution of people with different beliefs from Christianity.

Know and understand what God meant for good, humans can and will take advantage of it.

1 Peter 3:1-7New King James Version (NKJV)
Submission to Husbands
3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

A Word to Husbands
7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/discipline_of_children...remember children under 10 years not considered to be criminally liable...hence the purpose of discipline.

The same people who carried out the crusades also carried out the spanish inquisition. Do you honestly believe that was inspired by God?

Displaced people had nowhere to go. We discussed that before. Slavery of that time is not what you perceived it to be. Those people could could flee bad masters if they were illtreated.

Its Christians who get persecuted not the other way around.

This is all I can say. Have a good week.

 

[DimEyesOpenHeart]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

God is so glorious that mere mortals cannot see his face without dying, also we killed Jesus once why would God make him go through that again? He will come again, in his own time, and that will be forever!

 

[Isaacsname]

I had always assumed that Jesus would be the only one to be able to " prove " god exists, because he would understand the nature of what it means to " prove " something, as well as possibly, imo, how natural and symbolic languages may be involved, a topic that goes over most peoples' heads

When you consider that the book says " every knee will bow " ( meaning acknowledge Christ's authority ) you couldn't have a situation where everybody " bows " but then still have people doubting the divine authorship of the Bible at the same time, there is that to consider

Some Jews believe that messiah will teach the hidden things of the scriptures when he is revealed, although this runs counter to the " whisked off into the sky " views that other people hold

It may turn out that only messiah can prove the Bible is from God, only messiah can prove God exists, etc

Time certainly will tell, won't it

 

[zippy2006]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence?

It's not.

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; (Rom 1:20)

31. Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person...

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Strictly speaking, it is logically impossible to have faith in the existence of a person when the the authority for that act of faith is the same person whose existence is in question. Faith always presupposes the existence of the person who we believe.

So we can have faith in the existence of God, but the act of faith cannot require believing God. Rather, we could believe mom or Aristotle when they tell us that God exists. We can believe Jim about the existence of Joe, but not about the existence of Jim.

 

[KimT]

I think many people expect God to act in ways that we perceive are rational. He is God and we are not. He reveals to us what he pleases. We are His creation. His ways are higher than our ways and we must accept that He reveals what he wishes and the rest remains a mystery. I've had experiences that could only be of God because they make no earthly sense. I'm putting my trust in Him to work everything out.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

This is truly simply. In accordance to the New Covenant, one needs to be saved by faith alone. If God shows up to everyone, which simultaneously means no one can be saved. God needs to hide behind such that your faith in Him is required for you be saved in accordance to the covenant.

If God didn't show up to anyone, then humans can hardly know who He is. The only way for Him to make Himself (and His requirement set forth for humans) known to humans while without showing up to everyone is to show Himself to a small group of dedicated witnesses. Then these witnesses can write about Him (and what He wants from humans) for others to choose to believe with Faith or not. This process is called witnessing. This is the only way works, and that's why the term "witness" is explicitly unique in the Bible and Christianity but not in any other religions.

 

[Hawkins]

I have gleaned an idea about some morals, and it doesn't make me more likely to accept the Bible. I have had the following things defended to me as moral: slavery, genocide, child abuse, oppression of women, and persecution of people with different beliefs from Christianity. I know that you don't see it that way, but it is clear to me that holding on to a view that morals are objective means accepting terrible things as moral. Sure some of the basics are covered, don't murder, don't steal, etc, but there are a lot more that are not in line with what I think a peaceable, productive, caring society should have. If God was tapping me on the shoulder, I think he should have pointed me in a different direction.

God's main job on earth is to save human souls. Planet earth serves no other purpose but to facilitate God's purpose of harvesting human souls which are qualified for the future world - the eternal Heaven. God's job is to maximize the souls saved, that's the priority. Humans on the hand will die once one way or another.

As a result, God has to guarantee the survival of Israel with its surrounding cruel enemies. At that time, the Egyptians killed the children of the Jews just for the purpose of population control. The Canaanites kill their own children for the worshiping of their idol gods. Israel is in the middle of these cruel humans. God thus allow them to pay an eye to an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. God allows the Jews to eradicate their enemies such that the Jews will be able to survive the history to bring forward God's salvation to humanity.

As for slavery, you need to study more carefully. The Hebrew slavery system is completely different from the slavery system adopted by humans. It is just a labor system serving the purpose of helping the poor out. God emphasized many times that Hebrews are not allowed to actually enslave another Hebrew.

Leviticus 25:42 (NIV)
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.


Moreover, what the Bible is trying to say is the social role of man and woman for the achieving of a stable society from a design perspective along the past thousands of years of humanity. It's never about women suppression. it is basically one husband and one wife (in contrary to one husband many wives), the husband is a more "out-going" role while the wife is more of a "helper" role. This refers to a stable form of a human family and subsequently a human society. Today, you might think that husband and wife (i.e., man and woman) may have a more "equal" role in a family, it however by no means says that this family form is more stable. In contrary, divorce rate is expected to be high, children are expected to suffer from divorces this way.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

He hasn't withheld proof of his existence ; its plain thru creation which includes the highly personal / intelligence / and the animate not to mention over 150 life enabling physics constants to our Universe ALL required for our own existence to occur and be sustained. If that wasn't enough, he chose to enter history in the person of Jesus CHrist to which there is more historical evidence for his life, death, and resurrection than any other ancient event . Add to that the Bible which reveals God , his love for us, his plans for us, and the finality of history.....which can be shown to be supernatural in origin .... and you have solid evidence for our personal loving theistic Creator who is worthy of our worship upon willful submission of our authority (but most don't wish to surrender ones own authority to the authority of God which is the real problem , and not that there isn't enough evidence for Gods existence). Regards. http://www.reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998

 

[gregscott]

“Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.””
‭‭John‬ ‭20:24-29‬

There is not one man or woman that can make you believe. You seek your answer from finite man and not infinite deity.
Honestly It will be Jesus that reveals himself in you and to you. It will be the Holy Spirit that moves In you when you finally take the wall down.

there is plenty of proof. Just for starters I would venture to guess that almost every person above me has had what I call a suddenly moment. Or a knocked off their horse moment when the truth of Jesus Christ strikes them and they are absolutely riveted by his love.
As naturally born sinners before being justified by our faith in Christ the world was temporarily fulfilling. Go crazy the night before and wake up feeling more empty than when we first started. <-That used to be me. Reason why is because the flesh is never satisfied. One of my close friends said the other day "if all of this was not real I would not be here and I'd either be dead or partying my self to death in the world". Because here's what happens...satan causes the problem under the radar and makes himself to look like the solution. Honestly I was in your shoes at one time. It took me truly seeking Jesus to get past all the swarms of "self figuring it out" and it was not a person that convinced me. When I went to the altar the pastor could have said "mary had a little lamb" and I still would have gone because it was the drawing of Gods spirit and love that shook me to my core and drew me to my knees. Not man. (Side note) I am in no way saying that encouragement from another under the anointing of God will not affect you because it can.

Let me finish because I could talk about Jesus all day lol.

Just remember at the end of the day even after all the things people say to you to try and convince you...the most important thing to know is that Jesus does love you no matter what you have been through, done in the past, or even what your conclusion is.
Love you brother

 

[The_Gaurdian87]

Well the bible does say Jesus is coming back one day. We just don't know when that day will be since God's time is different than our time.

But I do understand what your trying to say TC. As a Christian, I do wish that Jesus would come back ASAP so that unbelievers could see for themselves that God is real, Jesus is real and that he died for our sins. We were just created randomly by an explosion but God created each and every one of us with a plan and purpose for our lives. Or we have big moments like the burning bush.

But I think the reason God/Jesus doesn't make it super obvious because faith is something stronger than just believing something when it's right in your face you know? I think God wants his creations to encounter him for themselves and not feel obligated to because Jesus is walking among us or there was a big super natural event.

But staying in faith and having a personal relationship with him, when the world try's to discredit his existence honors God in a way and shows you really love him. That's my personal take on it.

 

[CGL1023]

You are asking God to do what He wiil not do. He will tell you what He desires of you and and you can choose to do it or not. God does state that if you blindly believe what He says and you do what He says then you love Him. If not, He considers you disobedient. The only reasonable choice is to read the Word of God to get to understand and know Him. The bible, in many ways, is God's story about himself and His dealings with His human creation.

It is God that has the words of life, there is nothing we can do for God that would make His life better -- except that we believe what He says and do what He says. He desires that we yield our will to Him. You may say that is too difficult to do. God will wait; He owns time. The individual is the one with only finite time available.