Dirty Politics And The Doctrine Of The Trinity

[Ouroboros]

Please, go back to my post, I said that you cannot determine the success of worldly leaqders until after the fact; a posteriori. And so, YES, they were pragmatic. They thought their ideology would work and succeed - and they were stunned that they failed, which drove Hitler to despair and so he killed himself.

What you don't get is that my description of what is right and wrong is the same as yours. Do to others... etc. The only difference is that you believe it because "Jesus said so," while I believe it because there is a rational explanation to why. I was trying to give you the rational explanation to why the Golden rule applies even to state matters, but obviously you think that it doesn't. The Golden Rule to you only applies because "God said so," not because it makes sense.

 

I prefer to have rules which makes sense, instead of following blindly, like the German soldiers did.

 

So executing serial killers is then wrong?

 

How did you draw that conclusion to ask this question? Loving God and neighbor includes the execution of those people who are evil & depraved to the point of expressing their hatred of God & Man by commiting capital crimes.

So executing people who doesn't love God is morally right? That's kind of what you're saying there.

 

The second point is that you bring in "crimes," which is a social construct. We, humans, create law. We use reason and arguments to create them. We create them to make a safe and stable society.

 

TADA!!! That's what law, morality, etc is. It's about the social welfare. Not "God said it, so I do it" morality.

 

I assume you do not consider yourself to be part of the 'common people.' How did you become uncommon?

Do you know what "tongue-in-cheek" comments are? Or is that a concept you fail to recognize?

 

How do you jump to such conclusions? Biblical punishment is not 'smacking your kid around.' My children, who are all grown - are all doing well in their spiritual lives, marriages, work environments, etc. Biblical discipline is not driven by anger - it's driven by love and seeks to instill in people a healthy fear of sinful actions and their consequences.

What you don't get is that you exaggerate my points and view constantly, but get extremely agitated when I do that to you. You misrepresented, intentionally, my explanation several times regarding the morality and welfare of the state, and hence failed to see the commonality between my conclusion and yours. But when I give the same treatment to you, you get all worked-up. If you dish it, you better be ready to take it too.

 

There is not difference between smacking a kid or smacking a kid.

 

How many times did you hit your kids? You don't have to answer, because I really don't want to know, but ask yourself that question. Did it feel good? Where you happy you could show your superior strength and power? How many smacks did it take to make your children compliant to your laws? Ask yourself, and only answer yourself, not here.

 

And I agree that there are various means of punishment - both corporal and with-holding various priveleges. Parents are to use wisdom in determining which form of punishment would be both appropriate and effective to teach the lesson required.

Right. But I still believe it's wrong to smack your kid.

 

Studies show that lower class tend to correct their children with physical contact, while upper class tend to correct their children through discussion and removing privileges.

 

I assume you consider yourself as part of the 'upper class.' Was this always the case, or did you work your way up? If you worked your way up, how so?

"Tend" is a word which means, "in general." No, I'm not upper class, but the statistics prove that a majority in either camp do either thing, and there are even some explanations to why this is the case, but I won't even enter that area, since you don't believe in social welfare.

 

You see the problem here is that we both believe in the Golden Rule, but I believe in it because it has rational validity (without pointing to a god), while you believe we can't figure out a Golden Rule but have to get it supernaturally from a extra-dimensional being. I believe in reason, you believe in imagination. But we come to the same conclusions. (Except for physically hurting your children. It used to be legal to "correct" your wife too, but it was outlawed many years ago. It was also legal to "adjust" the behavior of slaves, but it was also outlawed, with slavery overall.)

[Shyone]

 

You see the problem here is that we both believe in the Golden Rule, but I believe in it because it has rational validity (without pointing to a god), while you believe we can't figure out a Golden Rule but have to get it supernaturally from a extra-dimensional being. I believe in reason, you believe in imagination. But we come to the same conclusions. (Except for physically hurting your children. It used to be legal to "correct" your wife too, but it was outlawed many years ago. It was also legal to "adjust" the behavior of slaves, but it was also outlawed, with slavery overall.)

You forgot to mention that you don't believe in burning witches, executing adulterers or homosexuals.

 

That's the Godly part of morality.

[rayskidude]

Thank you for your honest answer Ray. Its just that sometimes you come off differently, maybe because the internet is a hard way to communicate.

I must say that they way you continually quote scriptures at us makes me believe you can't think much for yourself.

 

I certainly apologize for any misunderstandings that I have generated. I only claim to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and I make an effort to follow His teachings. And I do not believe that folks on this sight are not pursuing good & moral lives - we just disgree on how to accomplish that goal. And I sincerely believe that 'ultimate good' that is helpful, effective, selfless, lasting, etc cannot be achieved apart from life in Christ.

 

John 15:3-5 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

 

I quote Scripture to establish the basis for my beliefs, actions, etc. But I have thought through many issues and considered a variety of alternative theories, philosophies, religions, evidence, etc - and though I see good things contained in a variety of worldviews - it's just that I have concluded that the God of the Bible is real, that Jesus Christ as God the Son is the greatest revelation of God, that the Bible is of divine origin, and that salavtion is available only through this One & Only Triune God of the universe.

 

There is no question that Hitler and the Nazis thought they were doing the "right thing" according to their own twisted views. I still would not call it "pragmatism".

 

Yes - I agree that Hitler et. al. thought they were being pragmatic - but they found that they were wrong. My point is that we can determine the morality and even "pragmatism" of a course of action prior to impementing it. A planned course of action to acheive a desired goal should be judged by how the plan conforms to the truths contained in Scripture.

 

If the plan runs contrary to Scripture - it will not work. Ultimately, God overrules in the affairs of men. The Nazis did use Luther (and Luther was immoral in his anti-Semitism), but I think that Hegel was the primary source for the Nazi 'supemacist' philosophy. And many evangelical Christian pastros were imprisoned, and some were martyred, for their opposition to Hitler. As were many intellectuals, college professors, musicians - anyone the Nazis thought could pose a threat to their rule.

[rayskidude]

What you don't get is that my description of what is right and wrong is the same as yours. Do to others... etc. The only difference is that you believe it because "Jesus said so," while I believe it because there is a rational explanation to why. I was trying to give you the rational explanation to why the Golden rule applies even to state matters, but obviously you think that it doesn't. The Golden Rule to you only applies because "God said so," not because it makes sense.

 

I get it - it's just that I believe that morality is (1) objectively defined by God, (2) understood to be rational & sensible by men, in general; (3) definitely applies in matters of government.

 

So executing people who doesn't love God is morally right? That's kind of what you're saying there.

 

The second point is that you bring in "crimes," which is a social construct. We, humans, create law. We use reason and arguments to create them. We create them to make a safe and stable society.

 

I use the word 'crimes' because it is part of our vernacular. But I equate the term 'crime' with sin, transgression, iniquity, and other Biblical terms which express that actions, words, thoughts are immoral, wrong, inflict harm, bring about mistrust, disrupt social welfare, etc.

 

You misrepresented, intentionally, my explanation several times regarding the morality and welfare of the state, and hence failed to see the commonality between my conclusion and yours. But when I give the same treatment to you, you get all worked-up. If you dish it, you better be ready to take it too.

 

I was only taking your philosophy of atheistic pragmatism to its logical end - and trying to show what sorts of ends 'pragmatism' can lead to - if we judge actions, philosophies, etc simply by the criteria of "what seems to work." Remember that Star Trek episode where the people on some planet imitated the Nazis? Just took atheistic pragmatism to its logical conclusion.

 

But love often does that which does not seem to promote societal & economic efficacy - love motivates us to care for the poor, infirm, disabled, etc. And love can lead to war in order to protect smaller weaker peoples from more powerful egotistic peoples. ALL these at first appear not to be pragmatic, but ultimately prove to be very moral & pragmatic, because care & concern for others at personal expense to ourselves will ultimatley generate the best form of society.

 

"Tend" is a word which means, "in general." No, I'm not upper class, but the statistics prove that a majority in either camp do either thing, and there are even some explanations to why this is the case, but I won't even enter that area, since you don't believe in social welfare.

 

Have you come across any spoiled rich kids?

 

You see the problem here is that we both believe in the Golden Rule, but I believe in it because it has rational validity (without pointing to a god), while you believe we can't figure out a Golden Rule but have to get it supernaturally from a extra-dimensional being. I believe in reason, you believe in imagination. But we come to the same conclusions.

 

But the real question is: will I hold to the Golden Rule when it puts me at great personal cost, or will I allow my inherenet selfishness (which I will justify in my mind to be the most pragmatic route) to be the basis for my decision? I agree that the Golden Rule is golden - I just don't believe that apart from instruction from God Himself on the import of the Golden Rule - that we would be able to practice it under conditions of duress.

[Shyone]

 

But the real question is: will I hold to the Golden Rule when it puts me at great personal cost, or will I allow my inherenet selfishness (which I will justify in my mind to be the most pragmatic route) to be the basis for my decision? I agree that the Golden Rule is golden - I just don't believe that apart from instruction from God Himself on the import of the Golden Rule - that we would be able to practice it under conditions of duress.

Is it relevant that the Golden Rule did not originate with Yahweh or Jesus, but rather pagans?

 

I would quote Babylonian literature here, but that is a cultural continuum in that the Israelites "borrowed" their literature. Better yet are cultures beyond Mesopotamia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

[Deva]

I quote Scripture to establish the basis for my beliefs, actions, etc. But I have thought through many issues and considered a variety of alternative theories, philosophies, religions, evidence, etc - and though I see good things contained in a variety of worldviews - it's just that I have concluded that the God of the Bible is real, that Jesus Christ as God the Son is the greatest revelation of God, that the Bible is of divine origin, and that salavtion is available only through this One & Only Triune God of the universe.

 

We already know your position, Ray. We have reviewed it for many years and come to a different conclusion. It seems futile to keep quoting if your idea is to persuade us.

 

There is no question that Hitler and the Nazis thought they were doing the "right thing" according to their own twisted views. I still would not call it "pragmatism"....If the plan runs contrary to Scripture - it will not work. Ultimately, God overrules in the affairs of men. The Nazis did use Luther (and Luther was immoral in his anti-Semitism), but I think that Hegel was the primary source for the Nazi 'supemacist' philosophy.

 

I don't claim to know much at all about Hegel, but I understand there were many occult Aryan master race cults existing in Germany that were the source.

 

I don't really know what you mean by "plan". Some "plans" that had no knowledge of the Bible seem to have worked quite well in history. Successful empires and religions lasting thousands of years, for example, in China, India Egypt and the Incas and Aztecs. Maybe you were saying that unknowingly they employed the same principles as in scripture.

 

 

And many evangelical Christian pastros were imprisoned, and some were martyred, for their opposition to Hitler. As were many intellectuals, college professors, musicians - anyone the Nazis thought could pose a threat to their rule.

 

Of course, but I still disagree that it was "many" pastors imprisoned. You have to admit that the Lutheran church came under Nazi control, there wasn't enough opposition from Christians to prevent it.

[NotBlinded]

I certainly apologize for any misunderstandings that I have generated. I only claim to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and I make an effort to follow His teachings. And I do not believe that folks on this sight are not pursuing good & moral lives - we just disgree on how to accomplish that goal. And I sincerely believe that 'ultimate good' that is helpful, effective, selfless, lasting, etc cannot be achieved apart from life in Christ.

I know it's hard to live with the contradiction that faces you everyday that is evident in what I bolded above in your response. I've been there and done that and didn't like it much and when I see it used by others, my stomach turns. Do you think it would literally make me feel sick if I didn't find it appaling in how this view is degrading to others outside your group?

 

Actually you did say pursing didn't you? You won't admit that we DO live good and moral lives will you? Now tell me which group of people really has lasting love, selflessness, caring for others, etc?

[Ouroboros]

I get it - it's just that I believe that morality is (1) objectively defined by God, (2) understood to be rational & sensible by men, in general; (3) definitely applies in matters of government.

The problem with your first point is: how do you know what God has defined as objective moral? You have to test it somehow. God can't be tested. His moral commands are given through prophets who are themselves subjective to misunderstanding. So how do you know what is God's objective morality? Through reason? Well, through reason we can all reach the same conclusions, because reason is reasonable. Why would God have to declare or define the Golden Rule, if the Golden Rule makes sense from a natural perspective? It only takes a few philosophers to realize the same thing, which actually happened, since the Golden Rule existed in similar forms before Jesus expressed it.

 

To me, morality is not about just understand what it is, but it is about being able to reason your way to why it is moral. I can. You can't. You must believe in God giving you the moral, but I can reason my way to why it is moral. I have an advantage.

 

And I agree that morality apply to matters of government.

 

I use the word 'crimes' because it is part of our vernacular. But I equate the term 'crime' with sin, transgression, iniquity, and other Biblical terms which express that actions, words, thoughts are immoral, wrong, inflict harm, bring about mistrust, disrupt social welfare, etc.

Right. But still, 'crimes' are based on social necessity rather than revelations from above.

 

I was only taking your philosophy of atheistic pragmatism to its logical end - and trying to show what sorts of ends 'pragmatism' can lead to - if we judge actions, philosophies, etc simply by the criteria of "what seems to work." Remember that Star Trek episode where the people on some planet imitated the Nazis? Just took atheistic pragmatism to its logical conclusion.

You do know what "pragmatic" means, don't you? It's a matter of being practical. Every secular Christian must be pragmatic about how they live in society and how they interact with people around them. It's a word to insist on how to live in a practical, most functional, way.

 

The funny thing is: I came up with the term "pragmatic atheist." It doesn't exist as a philosophy. I don't even have a handbook in what it "means." So how can you take it to its logical end? You're placing the cart before the horse here.

 

And regarding "what seems to work," is a misrepresentation of what pragmatism is. It also means: what is reasonable, and it also means to adjust when it doesn't work. We all do it, all the time. You do it. Everyone does it.

 

My label "pragmatic atheism" means that I live my life as practically as possible, based on the assumption that there is no God. Because God doesn't show himself or reveal his true intentions, so in all aspects, it is like living in a void of God. Everything you consider to be revelations of God, are just your personal views, subjective perspective, and your imaginations. We can't build society on your personal wanderings of the mind. How can we know it is God? We can't. With or without God, you have to be practical about life.

 

But love often does that which does not seem to promote societal & economic efficacy - love motivates us to care for the poor, infirm, disabled, etc. And love can lead to war in order to protect smaller weaker peoples from more powerful egotistic peoples. ALL these at first appear not to be pragmatic, but ultimately prove to be very moral & pragmatic, because care & concern for others at personal expense to ourselves will ultimatley generate the best form of society.

"Will ultimately generate the best form of society." Isn't that what I'm telling you? You are undercutting me by arguing that I'm shortsighted about the pragmatic view. The pragmatic view isn't necessarily to fix things just for the moment, but also to do it for the long run, but do it in such a matter that it still works at the moment.

 

For instance, I have written many computer programs over the years, and we have had the requirement to upgrade the software over and over again. The best way, it seems, is to lay out a long plan, where we find modules we can replace, one by one, to finally get to the final product. In other words, we don't just rewrite everything, and six years later we're done, and hopefully right. No, what we do is find the pieces we can upgrade, and slowly progress to the final goal. That is what we call "The Pragmatic Programmer." So you see, it's not about just fixing the bug right now and forget tomorrow, but rather to see the whole picture and progress in a practical manner to the end.

 

So when you are claiming that my approach doesn't work because it doesn't look at the future social benefits, then you are misunderstanding my approach. I'm talking about considering the whole picture and look into the future. If the best future is achieved by feeding the hungry and ending wars, then that is what we have to do.

 

Have you come across any spoiled rich kids?

Very few, actually. I do have a lot of acquaintances who are wealthy, and no, they are not spoiled. I know one who owns his own private jet, and his kids are just as well behaved (or just as little) as mine. I know another family who got a 36 feet yacht, a couple of luxury homes (10,000+ sqrft), and their two grownup sons are very well behaved and ethical. They never laid a hand on their sons.

 

The key is, you don't have to resort to violence to correct your kids. To spare the rod and it spoils the child, is a false dichotomy. You can adjust their behavior through other means of negative sanctions.

 

But the real question is: will I hold to the Golden Rule when it puts me at great personal cost, or will I allow my inherenet selfishness (which I will justify in my mind to be the most pragmatic route) to be the basis for my decision? I agree that the Golden Rule is golden - I just don't believe that apart from instruction from God Himself on the import of the Golden Rule - that we would be able to practice it under conditions of duress.

Hmm... you mean that to be pragmatic is the same as to be selfish? So when the carpenter decides to put the window in a different location because it's more practical, then he's selfish?

 

The question is, do you see Christians applying the Golden Rule, even if it puts them at great personal cost? My experience is that Christians are no better than anyone else. Actually, my experience (which caused a bit of an inner turmoil) was when some atheists, agnostics, and Jews, provided good acts beyond what they were required to do, while Christians had all excuses to not to. It's easier to say, "I'll pray for you," and then skip out on doing, than it is to be accountable and not having any magical being fixing things for you.

 

Things come back to you. I believe there is a truth to the law reciprocation. We get what we give. Not always. Not necessarily. But to some extent. So do I want to cheat, steal, harm, and lie to those I want to trust me? No. That's a bad idea. Because it's natural that they will respond in kind. What I do to them, they will do to me. Show kindness, and you'll receive kindness. I do believe in these things, because they are rational and reasonable. Not because "God said so."

 

If people only obey because "God commands it," then they are nothing but eye-servants. People who know what to do, and why, they can act because it makes sense and it's right in a larger perspective. Those who do it because they have to, will fall apart if they have no rational behind their reasons. I prefer to have reasons, instead of a list of commands.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, did you notice that you use "love" to explain the purpose of doing the right things? Now I'm going to tell you something that probably will shock you and shake your boots: I feel love too. If I would have some of my morals founded on my love, then where does it put God? Love as a foundation for morality still doesn't make it absolute, objective, or divine. Unless you have to take it a step further and start argue with me that "love" comes from God. And I don't believe it does.

[Shyone]

 

If people only obey because "God commands it," then they are nothing but eye-servants. People who know what to do, and why, they can act because it makes sense and it's right in a larger perspective. Those who do it because they have to, will fall apart if they have no rational behind their reasons. I prefer to have reasons, instead of a list of commands.

But Christians behave so much better than atheists. They don't commit adultery or murder at least.

 

They don't molest little children. They don't steal or embezzle.

 

Nope. Christians hike the Appalachian trails, teach children how to worship on their knees, and follow that there Golden Rule because God will smack them if they don't.

 

Unless, somehow, Christians can find a way to make those kinds into atheists - like saying they're not True Christians. Yep, that's it.

 

As for me, a simple minded atheist, I can't keep my zipper up, much less figure out what's wrong or right.

[NotBlinded]

 

If people only obey because "God commands it," then they are nothing but eye-servants. People who know what to do, and why, they can act because it makes sense and it's right in a larger perspective. Those who do it because they have to, will fall apart if they have no rational behind their reasons. I prefer to have reasons, instead of a list of commands.

But Christians behave so much better than atheists. They don't commit adultery or murder at least.

 

They don't molest little children. They don't steal or embezzle.

 

Nope. Christians hike the Appalachian trails, teach children how to worship on their knees, and follow that there Golden Rule because God will smack them if they don't.

 

Unless, somehow, Christians can find a way to make those kinds into atheists - like saying they're not True Christians. Yep, that's it.

 

As for me, a simple minded atheist, I can't keep my zipper up, much less figure out what's wrong or right.

Don' forget that they don't eat babies either. I had one and a half for breakfast this morning. My daughter didn't finish her's...

[Shyone]

 

Don' forget that they don't eat babies either. I had one and a half for breakfast this morning. My daughter didn't finish her's...

I'm on a budget. Any leftovers?

[Ouroboros]

 

Don' forget that they don't eat babies either. I had one and a half for breakfast this morning. My daughter didn't finish her's...

I'm on a budget. Any leftovers?

Only a left-arm.

[rayskidude]

Actually you did say pursing didn't you? You won't admit that we DO live good and moral lives will you? Now tell me which group of people really has lasting love, selflessness, caring for others, etc?

 

Actually, I my circles, to say that someone is pursuing a good and moral life is a high compliment. It acknowledges the direction the person is moving toward, while also acknowledging that this pursuit is a life-long commitment - as we will never achieve being like Jesus Christ in this life, in this body, in this world.

 

So, I commend all who are pursuing a good and moral lifestyle.

[rayskidude]

Why would God have to declare or define the Golden Rule, if the Golden Rule makes sense from a natural perspective? It only takes a few philosophers to realize the same thing, which actually happened, since the Golden Rule existed in similar forms before Jesus expressed it. To me, morality is not about just understand what it is, but it is about being able to reason your way to why it is moral. I can. You can't. You must believe in God giving you the moral, but I can reason my way to why it is moral. I have an advantage.

 

Actually, I arrive at the Golden Rule in two ways. #1 by God's declaration in the Bible; and #2 by my own reasoning that this rule is indeed golden as re: governing human behavior. However, I generally would not recommend relying on human reason/conscience alone - as our consciences have been stained by our inherent sin nature.

 

The funny thing is: I came up with the term "pragmatic atheist." It doesn't exist as a philosophy. I don't even have a handbook in what it "means." So how can you take it to its logical end? You're placing the cart before the horse here. And regarding "what seems to work," is a misrepresentation of what pragmatism is. It also means: what is reasonable, and it also means to adjust when it doesn't work. We all do it, all the time. You do it. Everyone does it.

 

According to Webster >> Practical = usable, workable, useful, sensible, utilitarian.

Pragmatism = method or tendency in philosophy started by C.S. Peirce and William James, which determines the meaning and truth of all concepts by their practical consequences.

Atheist = worldview that there is no God

 

Defining atheistic pragmatism is not difficult to do, just apply the definitions of the words.

 

Because God doesn't show himself or reveal his true intentions, so in all aspects, it is like living in a void of God. I have written many computer programs, and we have had the requirement to upgrade the software over and over again. The best way, it seems, is to lay out a long plan, where we find modules we can replace to finally get to the final product. In other words, we don't just rewrite everything, and six years later we're done, and hopefully right. No, what we do is find the pieces we can upgrade, and slowly progress to the final goal. That is what we call "The Pragmatic Programmer." So you see, it's not about just fixing the bug right now and forget tomorrow, but rather to see the whole picture and progress in a practical manner to the end.

 

Yes, but keep in mind that you are writing computer programs in a language developed by another person - who is the authority in that language. And that language must be applied as designed by the originator/inventor of that particular programming language in order for your program to work properly. So as you come upon various issues you want this program to address - you go back to the book that describes and teaches the language - and then apply those truths you've just read about in the programing manual.

 

SO in a similar manner, we have rules of belief and conduct recorded in a book authored by God Himself - the Bible; and believers seek to apply those rules to the various circumstances of life in order that we conduct ourselves in the best, most moral, most loving manner. But the use of God's precepts are not restricted to believers - because they are derived from God Himself, they will work properly for anyone who seeks to live by them consistently.

 

Hmm... you mean that to be pragmatic is the same as to be selfish? So when the carpenter decides to put the window in a different location because it's more practical, then he's selfish?

 

Note - that I indicated the test is whether we would live out the Golden Rule in times of duress - not typical carpentry decisions.

 

The question is, do you see Christians applying the Golden Rule, even if it puts them at great personal cost? My experience is that Christians are no better than anyone else. Actually, my experience (which caused a bit of an inner turmoil) was when some atheists, agnostics, and Jews, provided good acts beyond what they were required to do, while Christians had all excuses to not to. It's easier to say, "I'll pray for you," and then skip out on doing, than it is to be accountable and not having any magical being fixing things for you.

 

Yes - that is the question. And your experience is disappointing to me; it is inexcusable for Christians to not conduct themselves in a selfless manner - and I can see how that would cause consternation.

 

If people only obey because "God commands it," then they are nothing but eye-servants. People who know what to do, and why, they can act because it makes sense and it's right in a larger perspective. Those who do it because they have to, will fall apart if they have no rational behind their reasons. I prefer to have reasons, instead of a list of commands.

 

Believers obey God because this is how we demonstrate our love for God - and others. Same way you generally do things your wife asks you to do - becuase you love your wife and want to please her. This brings joy to her, you, and to your whole family. Do you sometimes do something for your wife because you "have to?" Probably - like you've said, we all do, from time to time. But again, why did you do it? Because you love your wife. So even though you didn't want to do it - you did it. ANd my guess is your wife knows that you've done things only because she asked you to - and she loves you for it because you've demonstrated the priority and importance she is to you by doing it. So "obedience" if I can use that term in this instance - obedience under "duress" is a real and measurable means of testing (and I'm not saying our wives purposely test us) and demonstrating love for others.

 

I feel love too. If I would have some of my morals founded on my love, then where does it put God? Love as a foundation for morality still doesn't make it absolute, objective, or divine. Unless you have to take it a step further and start argue with me that "love" comes from God. And I don't believe it does.

 

I don't find this shocking - I find it normal for most people regardless of religion, or lack thereof. But I would maintain that Christians are capable of greater levels of love than unbelievers. Not because of who we are; but because of God's work in our hearts.

[NotBlinded]

Actually you did say pursing didn't you? You won't admit that we DO live good and moral lives will you? Now tell me which group of people really has lasting love, selflessness, caring for others, etc?

 

Actually, I my circles, to say that someone is pursuing a good and moral life is a high compliment. It acknowledges the direction the person is moving toward, while also acknowledging that this pursuit is a life-long commitment - as we will never achieve being like Jesus Christ in this life, in this body, in this world.

 

So, I commend all who are pursuing a good and moral lifestyle.

Well...okay then.

 

Of course you can't be like Christ in your eyes because you see him as the one and only son of God. How can you be like him when you don't think that you are too...enter guilt.

 

Any one of us could be like Jesus. That is what he was telling people...exit guilt.

 

Sin is not inherent in our nature. The "sin" is not understanding your true (divine) nature. You "miss the mark" or "sin" when this is not understood. This is the irony in what Jesus was saying vs what Christians believe.

[Deva]

I generally would not recommend relying on human reason/conscience alone - as our consciences have been stained by our inherent sin nature.

 

You have just nailed the whole problem with Christianity - the complete denigration of our ability to reason and the slander of our own inner integrity. How can you then ever trust your own judgment with regard to anything?

 

But I would maintain that Christians are capable of greater levels of love than unbelievers. Not because of who we are; but because of God's work in our hearts.

 

Yikes! Just Yikes!

[Deva]

Yes - that is the question. And your experience is disappointing to me; it is inexcusable for Christians to not conduct themselves in a selfless manner - and I can see how that would cause consternation.

 

"Consternation" ? That has GOT to be the understatement of the century. I have seen many totally self-centered Christians. In fact, with all the emphasis on "self" and "am I right with God" "am I saved" crap, the "I" being capitalized here to the max, it isn't truly surprising either.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, I arrive at the Golden Rule in two ways. #1 by God's declaration in the Bible; and #2 by my own reasoning that this rule is indeed golden as re: governing human behavior. However, I generally would not recommend relying on human reason/conscience alone - as our consciences have been stained by our inherent sin nature.

That's not my experience.

 

I come from a socialist country where the government's intention is to take care of the weak, poor, and sick. Most of the socialist leaders were, and still are, atheists or agnostics.

 

America is #5 of the top Christianized countries in the world, and yet have more crime, more prisoners than any other country, and do less for the poor, sick, and weak.

 

If you were right, the fruit would show it. You know the tree from the fruit. Christianity does not improve morality in a country. Perhaps the reasons why America is what it is because of other reasons, but for sure we can see that Christianity does not improve it. The evidence is not there. Simple fact.

 

Yes, but keep in mind that you are writing computer programs in a language developed by another person - who is the authority in that language. And that language must be applied as designed by the originator/inventor of that particular programming language in order for your program to work properly. So as you come upon various issues you want this program to address - you go back to the book that describes and teaches the language - and then apply those truths you've just read about in the programing manual.

Red herring. Got nothing to do with our discussion.

 

SO in a similar manner, we have rules of belief and conduct recorded in a book authored by God Himself - the Bible; and believers seek to apply those rules to the various circumstances of life in order that we conduct ourselves in the best, most moral, most loving manner. But the use of God's precepts are not restricted to believers - because they are derived from God Himself, they will work properly for anyone who seeks to live by them consistently.

I have written my own programming languages and compilers over the years. Does it make me God?

 

Note - that I indicated the test is whether we would live out the Golden Rule in times of duress - not typical carpentry decisions.

Depends on the duress, doesn't it?

 

The famous question: if you were a German during WWII, hiding a Jewish family in your cellar, and the Nazi knocked on your door and asked you if you had seen a Jewish family run through. Would you lie to them (and break the golden rule), or would you tell them the truth (and still break the golden rule)?

 

Yes - that is the question. And your experience is disappointing to me; it is inexcusable for Christians to not conduct themselves in a selfless manner - and I can see how that would cause consternation.

I'm glad you agree. Think about the mega-churches bringing in millions of dollars, just to build some fancy tower? (Like Crystal Cathedral, or Oral Roberts, or ...)

 

Believers obey God because this is how we demonstrate our love for God - and others. Same way you generally do things your wife asks you to do - becuase you love your wife and want to please her. This brings joy to her, you, and to your whole family. Do you sometimes do something for your wife because you "have to?" Probably - like you've said, we all do, from time to time. But again, why did you do it? Because you love your wife. So even though you didn't want to do it - you did it. ANd my guess is your wife knows that you've done things only because she asked you to - and she loves you for it because you've demonstrated the priority and importance she is to you by doing it. So "obedience" if I can use that term in this instance - obedience under "duress" is a real and measurable means of testing (and I'm not saying our wives purposely test us) and demonstrating love for others.

True. But if God would command you to kill someone, would you? Or would that cause a dilemma for you?

 

I don't find this shocking - I find it normal for most people regardless of religion, or lack thereof. But I would maintain that Christians are capable of greater levels of love than unbelievers. Not because of who we are; but because of God's work in our hearts.

My experience is that people are the same, regardless of Christianity. The only difference is, unfortunately, is that Christians tend to be gullible and "wolves" got easy marks in Church. I saw it several times back in the days. The temptation to use people are far greater, because people are too trusting to each other. You expect your "brother" to be good, but that's exactly what the con-artists use. Of course they create a bad rep for Christianity, but I also saw the good servants being no better in general than the atheists I later met. It was one of the first shocks in my spiritual life, because I believed as you and realized it wasn't true. But I kept my faith for another 12 years, so it wasn't earth shaking in that sense.

 

Remember, everyone in my family is Christian. I'm the only atheist in a family of hundreds of people, and several generations of solid believers. And I don't think they are evil. So I don't think Christians are necessarily evil, but I also have atheist/Buddhist/Catholic/... friends. In general, no difference. Except I have reasons for why I'm doing good.

 

Just like you mentioned above. We might do good because we love someone. That is a reason, an argument, a foundation to why. And that's how it works. We don't need God to explain why I helped my wife with the dishes, do I? I don't have to say, "I helped my wife with the dishes because God commanded it, and God gave me a fricking sun-burn as punishment last time." But rather, "I helped my wife, because I love her." You see? It starts and ends with the interaction of real people, not an imaginary being.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' date='18 September 2009 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1253301081' post='486388']

I generally would not recommend relying on human reason/conscience alone - as our consciences have been stained by our inherent sin nature.

 

You have just nailed the whole problem with Christianity - the complete denigration of our ability to reason and the slander of our own inner integrity. How can you then ever trust your own judgment with regard to anything?

 

Please note that I said I wouldn't trust in human conscience ALONE. I believe we've all been made in the image & likeness of God - and we have consciences that generally function well; we all have generally the same sense of right vs wrong >> but again, under duress or in a position where we could profit without 'getting caught', I would not trust human conscience alone.

 

And in response to your other post;

 

I am the Master of Understatement >> and you can take that to the bank, baby!

[rayskidude]

America is #5 of the top Christianized countries in the world, and yet have more crime, more prisoners than any other country, and do less for the poor, sick, and weak.

 

I've seen recent stats from George Barna - he would maintain that about 8% of Americans are practicing Christians - the others profess Christianity, but admit that their lifestyles aren't consistent with Christian belief or religious conduct >> so yes, in that sense Christianity does not have much impact on American culture. In fact, I would say Biblical Christianity is ridiculed in our pop culture.

 

In the past, things were different. But now, the USA is similar to Western Europe >> we're in the post-modern, post Christian era. But it remains that Christianity still has significant impact in individual converts, and in some local communities. I would point to the Angola prison in Louisiana which underwent a 'revival' recently - and life in that prison has dramatically improved. I recommend you read the book Cain's Redemption for an account of what happened there.

 

I have written my own programming languages and compilers over the years. Does it make me God?

 

Actually, my example is not a red herring. And your creation of a computer language is evidence that you are made in the image & likeness of God - creativity is a god-like attribute that humans possess.

 

The famous question: if you were a German during WWII, hiding a Jewish family in your cellar, and the Nazi knocked on your door and asked you if you had seen a Jewish family run through. Would you lie to them (and break the golden rule), or would you tell them the truth (and still break the golden rule)?

 

There are a variety of ways to handle such a situation, but keep in mind that King David acted like a blubbering fool to escape execution. Deception in war is not necassarily lying. Believe it or not - Christianity is not simply a black & white religion re: conduct. The Scripture teaches that some stronger Christians can eat whatever they want, drink EtOH in moderation, consider all days the same, etc. >> while other 'weaker' Christians do not recognize that all things are from God and are therefore clean. So there is Chritian liberty re: some practices.

 

True. But if God would command you to kill someone, would you? Or would that cause a dilemma for you?

 

Of course it would cause a dilemma - but I'd have to know much more of the specific situation and of the 'revelation' that I've received. Many Christians would fast & pray over issues less serious - this scenario would initiate a great search in several areas. Are you referring to Abraham? Or do you know of anyone who has had such a command?

 

I admit that Christians are trusting people, and this can lead to being taken advantage of by others. And I would say that if sin happens between brothers - then there's a church discipline process laid out by Jesus in Matthew 18. And there's always the civil authorities if laws were broken. I'm glad that some 'preachers' have gone to jail deservedly - they are false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing. And if they do not repent, God will avenge and bring about justice.

 

But I wouldn't say that Christians are more gullible than the general population.

[Ouroboros]

I've seen recent stats from George Barna - he would maintain that about 8% of Americans are practicing Christians - the others profess Christianity, but admit that their lifestyles aren't consistent with Christian belief or religious conduct >> so yes, in that sense Christianity does not have much impact on American culture. In fact, I would say Biblical Christianity is ridiculed in our pop culture.

It all depends on how and who define what "consistent with Christian belief or religious conduct" is.

 

I could say that all atheists are good people. And if you argue that you've met any evil or bad atheist, I can just claim they aren't true atheists.

 

The no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't work.

 

In the past, things were different. But now, the USA is similar to Western Europe >> we're in the post-modern, post Christian era. But it remains that Christianity still has significant impact in individual converts, and in some local communities. I would point to the Angola prison in Louisiana which underwent a 'revival' recently - and life in that prison has dramatically improved. I recommend you read the book Cain's Redemption for an account of what happened there.

I don't think Christian religion has gone down in this country, I think it's pretty much the same. Perhaps it has gone done somewhat, but not much.

 

Actually, my example is not a red herring. And your creation of a computer language is evidence that you are made in the image & likeness of God - creativity is a god-like attribute that humans possess.

My example had nothing to do with "design." So therefore it's a sidetrack, and has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I know where you're going with it, and it has nothing to do with our current line of argument.

 

There are a variety of ways to handle such a situation, but keep in mind that King David acted like a blubbering fool to escape execution. Deception in war is not necassarily lying.

Where does it say that in the Bible? When did God reveal that exception to moral code to you?

 

Believe it or not - Christianity is not simply a black & white religion re: conduct. The Scripture teaches that some stronger Christians can eat whatever they want, drink EtOH in moderation, consider all days the same, etc. >> while other 'weaker' Christians do not recognize that all things are from God and are therefore clean. So there is Chritian liberty re: some practices.

Well, if it's not black and white, then you must agree that reason, logic, common sense, etc, are the only reasonable ways of knowing if something is from God or not? If someone claims, "God told me to kill this person," you would most likely react with doubt. Right? How would you know if it was a command from God or not?

 

Of course it would cause a dilemma - but I'd have to know much more of the specific situation and of the 'revelation' that I've received. Many Christians would fast & pray over issues less serious - this scenario would initiate a great search in several areas. Are you referring to Abraham? Or do you know of anyone who has had such a command?

It's a hypothetical question, since your premise that what God tell you is the first level of knowing morality. So how do you know if the command you hear is from God or not? And how would you hear it?

 

If God tell you to wash the dishes for your wife, then you think it must be God, because it's good. But why do you think it's good? Because you love her, and you know it'll make her happy.

 

If no one tells me to wash the dishes for my wife, but I come up with it on my own, and I do it because I love her and it'll make her happy. What difference is there in intent, morality, and action? I would do it because I'm a good person without God, but the person above would only know what to do and how to do good if God command them to. So who has a pure heart, and who has to be commanded to do good?

 

If God tells a person to kill another human being, just like Joshua, Moses, and many more in the old testament, how do you know it was God then, but not God now if he tells Bob across the street to do the same thing? If God told the president to invade a country, would it be right? How would you know if it was right or not?

 

I admit that Christians are trusting people, and this can lead to being taken advantage of by others. And I would say that if sin happens between brothers - then there's a church discipline process laid out by Jesus in Matthew 18. And there's always the civil authorities if laws were broken. I'm glad that some 'preachers' have gone to jail deservedly - they are false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing. And if they do not repent, God will avenge and bring about justice.

 

But I wouldn't say that Christians are more gullible than the general population.

In my experience they are, and very selfish. After all, you want to go Heaven, isn't it so? It's basic self-preservation, right?

[agnosticator]

Why would God have to declare or define the Golden Rule, if the Golden Rule makes sense from a natural perspective? It only takes a few philosophers to realize the same thing, which actually happened, since the Golden Rule existed in similar forms before Jesus expressed it. To me, morality is not about just understand what it is, but it is about being able to reason your way to why it is moral. I can. You can't. You must believe in God giving you the moral, but I can reason my way to why it is moral. I have an advantage.

 

Actually, I arrive at the Golden Rule in two ways. #1 by God's declaration in the Bible; and #2 by my own reasoning that this rule is indeed golden as re: governing human behavior. However, I generally would not recommend relying on human reason/conscience alone - as our consciences have been stained by our inherent sin nature.

 

The Golden Rule is just that: a rule. Morality is so much more than rules and principles. Han is right. If you don't trust yourself and use your reason, experience, conscience, and empathy, then there is no way you can be moral in all situations. Without your own maturity and reasonings, you become morally immature. I think you just don't realize the implications of what you are saying here, Ray.

 

 

But I would maintain that Christians are capable of greater levels of love than unbelievers. Not because of who we are; but because of God's work in our hearts.

 

I would be offended by this, but I know it's bullshit!

[Deva]

...under duress or in a position where we could profit without 'getting caught', I would not trust human conscience alone.

 

You have a very low view of us non-Christians, don't you? That we would only act with integrity out of fear of not getting caught. I can tell you that is not my motivation.

 

I am the Master of Understatement >> and you can take that to the bank, baby!

[Ouroboros]

 

According to Webster >> Practical = usable, workable, useful, sensible, utilitarian.

Pragmatism = method or tendency in philosophy started by C.S. Peirce and William James, which determines the meaning and truth of all concepts by their practical consequences.

Atheist = worldview that there is no God

 

Defining atheistic pragmatism is not difficult to do, just apply the definitions of the words.

Just an FYI, there is a difference between "pragmatic" and "Pragmatism."

 

As an example, a pragmatic programmer is a practically oriented programmer, working for the purpose of getting the best end result. To be pragmatic is contrasted against theoretical.

 

A Pragmatist, is a person who follow the ideology or philosophy of Pragmatism, is something different.

 

(The main difference is also that one is an adjective which modifies the noun "Atheist," while the other is a noun in itself. But you know that, don't you?)

[Ouroboros]

I've seen recent stats from George Barna - he would maintain that about 8% of Americans are practicing Christians - the others profess Christianity, but admit that their lifestyles aren't consistent with Christian belief or religious conduct >> so yes, in that sense Christianity does not have much impact on American culture. In fact, I would say Biblical Christianity is ridiculed in our pop culture.

 

In the past, things were different. But now, the USA is similar to Western Europe >> we're in the post-modern, post Christian era. But it remains that Christianity still has significant impact in individual converts, and in some local communities. I would point to the Angola prison in Louisiana which underwent a 'revival' recently - and life in that prison has dramatically improved. I recommend you read the book Cain's Redemption for an account of what happened there.

One more note about this, the large majority of people in America claim, or consider themselves, to be Christian. To argue that they are false Christians only proves my point. Christianity, in any shape or form, does not make people good. If only "true" Christians are good, how do you know which kind of Christian is good or true, and which one is not? By their fruit? How do you judge the fruit? By the Bible they follow, as you do? Or is it done through reason? If one Christian believe that slavery is morally justified because the Bible says so, how do you refute that as a "true" Christian?