Distinguishing the Christian Morality from the Anti-Christian Morality (traditions, scrutiny, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A better term would have been non-religious. Bad word usage on my part.
I am curious what it is about non-religious (as opposed to non-Christian) concepts of morality that draws your attention? Do you feel that there is something fundamentally different about non-religious moral ideas than religious ones? Is this only related to theistic religions? What about religions with no gods, or who view their gods as symbolic? Just trying to understand why, with all the different ideas about morality in the world, you would focus so narrowly on "Christian" morality vs non-religious morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
The first paragraph - nonsense. Think about it - does it take more faith to invest yourself into the testimony of others... or does it take more faith to say that you will rely on your own understanding rather than the testimony that was given?
Not that I am trying to correct you here, I don't think he is any more right than you, but I see what he is saying. His stance is that you are relying on a visible and tangible writing, whereas he is relying solely on the Holy Spirit to speak to his heart. Since he is relying on nothing visible, or tangible, but solely on something which must be taken on faith, his belief requires more faith.
Now, I think that is not entirely correct, since even with the Bible, one must still rely entirely on the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible. And quite frankly, people have been able to make the Bible say almost anything, so clearly it isn't much of a reduction in faith... You still have to believe that your interpretation is correct. Playing, "My faith is faith-ier than your faith!" doesn't strike me as terribly productive anyway.
[quote=NoCapo;40874635]I am curious what it is about non-religious (as opposed to non-Christian) concepts of morality that draws your attention? Do you feel that there is something fundamentally different about non-religious moral ideas than religious ones? Is this only related to theistic religions? What about religions with no gods, or who view their gods as symbolic? Just trying to understand why, with all the different ideas about morality in the world, you would focus so narrowly on "Christian" morality vs non-religious morality.
Well I am a Christian. That's my frame of reference. That's why there is the narrow focus.
It is interesting to me because some morals are agreed upon by both sides and others are not. I just wanted to get the views of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Not that I am trying to correct you here, I don't think he is any more right than you, but I see what he is saying. His stance is that you are relying on a visible and tangible writing, whereas he is relying solely on the Holy Spirit to speak to his heart. Since he is relying on nothing visible, or tangible, but solely on something which must be taken on faith, his belief requires more faith.
Now, I think that is not entirely correct, since even with the Bible, one must still rely entirely on the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible. And quite frankly, people have been able to make the Bible say almost anything, so clearly it isn't much of a reduction in faith... You still have to believe that your interpretation is correct. Playing, "My faith is faith-ier than your faith!" doesn't strike me as terribly productive anyway.
-NoCapo
Don't know if you will get this or not - the Holy Spirit is responsible for the content that the writers wrote.
So when a person says the Holy Spirit is telling them that the main content of Bible is in error - it is like the Holy Spirit is in conflict with Himself.
What you are saying is that I should not trust what God provided in the Bible... I should trust the Spirit. What if the Spirit is telling me to trust the whole Bible? Maybe we don't have the same spirit. If your spirit is telling you to reject parts of the Bible - you don't have the same spirit I do. I can promise you that.
What does the bold mean... "endangers the fate of your Spirit"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Wrong. I am not telling you not to trust what God provided in the Bible. I am telling you that you must TEST what has been provided by God and what is man's doing. The Spirit of agape love (Who IS God) is not telling you to trust the whole Bible because the whole Bible is NOT compatible with the Spirit of agape love. I can promise you that. It must be another Spirit telling you that. I would be concerned about that if I were you.Every day you do NOT produce agape love, you waste because it will be considered as dross and refined out. You will be diminished by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Don't know if you will get this or not - the Holy Spirit is responsible for the content that the writers wrote.
So when a person says the Holy Spirit is telling them that the main content of Bible is in error - it is like the Holy Spirit is in conflict with Himself.
Wrong. SOME of what is in the Bible was inspired by God . . . NOT everything in it. That is why we are to TEST the Spirit of what is in there using the Spirit of agape love as clearly delineated in 1 Cor 13, the Sermon on the Mount, and Galatians 5, etc. You test nothing and that is your tragic mistake. You seem not to believe the New Covenant and do not trust what God has "written in our hearts" if it contradicts or is incompatible with words "written in ink" in your Bible. You think the Comforter must agree with the words "written in ink" in your Bible (which make the Spirit superfluous and unnecessary) even though you are told that the "letter kills" and the Spirit gives life . . . and that is also your tragic mistake.
Well I am a Christian. That's my frame of reference. That's why there is the narrow focus.
It is interesting to me because some morals are agreed upon by both sides and others are not. I just wanted to get the views of others.
Sorry, I guess i wasn't clear. I get why you are comparing things to a Christian viewpoint. What I found odd was the apparent dismissal of all other religious moral outlooks. You seemed to only want to talk about Christian vs non-religious. I was curious why the specific focus on non-religious, as opposed to non-Christian...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Don't know if you will get this or not - the Holy Spirit is responsible for the content that the writers wrote.
So when a person says the Holy Spirit is telling them that the main content of Bible is in error - it is like the Holy Spirit is in conflict with Himself.
I totally understand where you are coming from, but that is only true if you believe that the Bible is inerrant. If you believe that the Bible contains God's truth, but is not exactly equivalent to God's truth, then there is no conflict with looking toward the Spirit as the final authority, not scripture.
To bring this back to the topic, ultimately the fundamentalist and the liberal believer often are both claiming the same foundation for morality, good and bad are what God says they are. They are just arguing about who has the correct interpretation of what God says. Ultimately, I think this view has some problems, because it is very difficult to justify why good and bad are what God says they are.The answer to that question is the true foundation of such a morality.
Sorry, I guess i wasn't clear. I get why you are comparing things to a Christian viewpoint. What I found odd was the apparent dismissal of all other religious moral outlooks. You seemed to only want to talk about Christian vs non-religious. I was curious why the specific focus on non-religious, as opposed to non-Christian...
One - Jesus is very narrow when it comes to the to God - it is through Him. So that sets all other religions as false if Jesus is not the focal point.
Two - I don't want to speak for other groups. I don't know their beliefs well enough to spell out what they believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I totally understand where you are coming from, but that is only true if you believe that the Bible is inerrant. If you believe that the Bible contains God's truth, but is not exactly equivalent to God's truth, then there is no conflict with looking toward the Spirit as the final authority, not scripture.
To bring this back to the topic, ultimately the fundamentalist and the liberal believer often are both claiming the same foundation for morality, good and bad are what God says they are. They are just arguing about who has the correct interpretation of what God says. Ultimately, I think this view has some problems, because it is very difficult to justify why good and bad are what God says they are.The answer to that question is the true foundation of such a morality.
-NoCapo
P.S. I see Mystic beat me to the punch!
The blue above - for me, there is no need to justify why good is good and bad is bad for God. We simply need to believe Him. It is impossible to please God without faith. Now, you are reading this in a vacuum, without all of the past history of having a relationship with God - so I can understand why it wouldn't totally make sense to you.
Wrong. SOME of what is in the Bible was inspired by God . . . NOT everything in it. That is why we are to TEST the Spirit of what is in there using the Spirit of agape love as clearly delineated in 1 Cor 13, the Sermon on the Mount, and Galatians 5, etc. You test nothing and that is your tragic mistake. You seem not to believe the New Covenant and do not trust what God has "written in our hearts" if it contradicts or is incompatible with words "written in ink" in your Bible. You think the Comforter must agree with the words "written in ink" in your Bible (which make the Spirit superfluous and unnecessary) even though you are told that the "letter kills" and the Spirit gives life . . . and that is also your tragic mistake.
One - Jesus is very narrow when it comes to the to God - it is through Him. So that sets all other religions as false if Jesus is not the focal point.
Two - I don't want to speak for other groups. I don't know their beliefs well enough to spell out what they believe.
Still not sure if I am just not communicating well, or if you are being deliberately obtuse... I wasn't asking you to speak for other religions, I was asking why you only want to hear about non-religious views. Why are you only interested in non-religious moral ideas, and not those of other faiths? That is the focus I don't understand, it is almost as if the thousands of other religions which have distinct moral ideas don't exists for you, only your version of Christianity and non-religious morality. That is what puzzles me. If you want to understand non-Christian ideas about morality, why the focus on only non-religious ideas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
The blue above - for me, there is no need to justify why good is good and bad is bad for God. We simply need to believe Him. It is impossible to please God without faith. Now, you are reading this in a vacuum, without all of the past history of having a relationship with God - so I can understand why it wouldn't totally make sense to you.
You know what they say about assumptions...
I do understand your perspective pretty well (believe it or not), which is why I try to point these things out. It took me a long time to realize that there were a lot of assumptions that I based my beliefs on, that I never examined critically. If you can't answer the question of why God is a valid moral authority, then I hope you will never ever criticize someone for having a relative or subjective view of morality. You have chosen to base your moral ideas on the foundation of, "well, Because! That's why!" which is no more objective than saying "Society", or "Culture" is responsible for defining morality...
Still not sure if I am just not communicating well, or if you are being deliberately obtuse... I wasn't asking you to speak for other religions, I was asking why you only want to hear about non-religious views. Why are you only interested in non-religious moral ideas, and not those of other faiths? That is the focus I don't understand, it is almost as if the thousands of other religions which have distinct moral ideas don't exists for you, only your version of Christianity and non-religious morality. That is what puzzles me. If you want to understand non-Christian ideas about morality, why the focus on only non-religious ideas?
I said anti-Christian at first - people scoffed at that. I thought non-religious was better. Whatever - I don't care. You have a viewpoint from a different religion - go for it. This is not rocket science we are dealing with...
Not answering any further inquiries on this. Anyone is free to comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
You know what they say about assumptions...
I do understand your perspective pretty well (believe it or not), which is why I try to point these things out. It took me a long time to realize that there were a lot of assumptions that I based my beliefs on, that I never examined critically. If you can't answer the question of why God is a valid moral authority, then I hope you will never ever criticize someone for having a relative or subjective view of morality. You have chosen to base your moral ideas on the foundation of, "well, Because! That's why!" which is no more objective than saying "Society", or "Culture" is responsible for defining morality...
-NoCapo
Why? He is the designer of everything. And a good designer understands how His creation works. That's what I believe.
My answer regarding "why" is going to be subjective in the light of what others believe. I have no authority. Who cares what I say. Who cares what you say. In the end, God is the ultimate authority, and I believe that will be clearly seen. For those who don't believe in God - they won't believe what I believe. OK. Nothing I can do about it.
Do you think my point with this thread is to criticize people?
[quote=DRob4JC;40875935]I said anti-Christian at first - people scoffed at that. I thought non-religious was better. Whatever - I don't care. You have a viewpoint from a different religion - go for it. This is not rocket science we are dealing with...
Not answering any further inquiries on this. Anyone is free to comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Why? He is the designer of everything. And a good designer understands how His creation works. That's what I believe.
But a designer doesn't imply morality. Designers are not inherently moral, nor is there a good justification for the act of design giving one moral authority... Not trying to change your mind here, just pointing out that there are no good answers for this, you have to choose to believe with no real basis that God is a moral authority. It is just part of Faith...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
My answer regarding "why" is going to be subjective in the light of what others believe. I have no authority. Who cares what I say. Who cares what you say. In the end, God is the ultimate authority, and I believe that will be clearly seen. For those who don't believe in God - they won't believe what I believe. OK. Nothing I can do about it.
Fair enough. My point is that these leaps, these points at which you have to rely on "just becasue" are a big part of why religiously based morality is fairly unhelpful for those of us who can no longer justify or gloss over those leaps. Ultimately assumptions and leaps of faith are unavoidable, but trying to make them as small as possible is part of why we study and discuss morality and ethics at all. It is two fold, to examine what kinds of moral frameworks might produce a desirable society or world, and to examine morality as it really happens, not as we might want it to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Do you think my point with this thread is to criticize people?
I sincerely hope not, but honestly, that is usually where these things end up. Usually something about Godless atheists having no objective moral standards, and some argument about killing babies for fun... I was hoping to head that off at the pass, I'm really tired of having that same discussion over and over.
Not really. It is a consequence of my belief system, not a belief system in and of itself. The difference is subtle but important. My ENTIRE belief system is quite a simple one to explain. It is simply this: If a proposition comes before me devoid of any substantiation of any kind, then I simply do not subscribe to that proposition.
Simple huh?
So the piece of text you replied to is not my belief system, but a consequence of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
