The Christianity Thread

I have no idea how you can get the second point from the first. I'm saying that some systems of morality stem from nature, in the classical sense of the word. Other systems of morality were created by cultures, or even individuals, and it can be argued that those systems are superior. (I don't believe cultures and individuals can reasonably be called unnatural, only natural in a different way, but that's a whole different can of worms.)

Edit: Maybe the problem comes from saying that there's a single "natural law" and a single "moral law." Look around this forum, and you can find people with a wide variety of different moral laws (and I'd argue that some of us were born with different natural laws, too.)

edited 6th Dec '11 11:05:06 PM by feotakahari

Oh, my apologies, I misread.

And that was the point Lewis was trying to make at that point: that Moral Relativism cannot be true. Basically, it boils down to "If you can call someone 'morally better' than another, that must mean that you're saying that they are closer to the absolute Moral Law than the other."

That does make a certain amount of sense, especially because most cultures have very similar laws and ethics.

God doesn't exist.

Discuss.

But if God doesn't exist then WHO WAS PHONE?

Phone was phone, that's pretty self-explanatory.

Prove it.

If I prove it you'll merely deny it, meaning there's no point in the conversation.

But seriously though, the burden is on Christians to assert the existence of this invisible, malevolent deity.

edited 7th Dec '11 7:54:45 AM by RagnaTheSaviour

The phone is in all of us.

I sincerely hope you will be able to find it in the future.

Hold on, hold on. Why would Christians have to prove anything with the word "belief" attached? More so, why can't you come to this topic on a neutral stance. No need to fling words like malevolent around. You can feel free to suggest that we discuss whether or not God from the Old Testament and/or New Testament was malevolent but that just reeks of assumption and forcing your views on other people.

A better way of tackling this would be to discuss the sets of ethics and beliefs about what is wrong or right in the Church rather than attempting to go into the metaphysical by saying "I don't believe you, prove it", cause it's belief about a certain variable that can not be aptly proven to be on or off either way.

It's one thing to assert that you have a belief in something. I believe that mint chocolate chip ice cream tastes better than rocky road. That's just a matter of subjective taste and preference.

On the other hand, Christians make certain claims that they purport to be factual. They claim that there is a God, that Jesus had some divine nature, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and so on.

If you make a claim of fact, then people are right to demand that you support that claim with evidence. If you can't show the evidence to prove your assertion, then you simply have an unproven belief.

In other words, you can't prove or disprove a belief. You can only prove facts.

Then I believe we're at an agreement that one shouldn't force his or her views upon other people. Yes?

I think so, but that depends on what you mean by "force". Going up to random people on the street and proselytizing at them without their permission is rude. Making assertions of fact without providing the evidence to back it up is lazy. Threatening people with violence if they don't adopt your beliefs is bullying.

On the other hand, nobody is forcing anybody to participate in this forum, and if they don't like what they read, then they can go elsewhere. And if a person oversteps the rules, they can get booted. So it's not "forcing" to discuss your beliefs or present facts and arguments here.

It's all about the means, time and place, after all.

Okay, awesome, you've criticized various subset groups of Christianity. Now we're getting somewhere instead of just vague accusations. However, I might recommend you step down from the soap box for a moment and recognize your own hypocrisy:

Forum or street, I'd much rather you not make such broad statements on a constant basis against people who don't share your view. After all, this can extent to many things beyond religion, including philosophy. As I'm sitting here, I'm guessing you're the kind of person who believes absolute and critically analyzed truth is the closest thing to an ideal. From where I sit, I could make several criticisms on such a view, including the fact that your own biases tend to color such a truth.

In other words, don't like what I'm saying, then you can leave. Not violence, but still forcing conformity never the less. Funny how many of the traits you criticize Christians for you also seem to share, therefore, I extend the same view to you, if you don't like what I say, then you too are allowed to leave.

However, I did not ever claim anyone in this topic was forcing their views on other people, I'm just saying that I agree with you that going up to someone on the street and harassing them about your beliefs is neither good in a community sense nor actually following Christian guidelines (for example, assuming you are correct and that others who don't agree with you are of lesser value or inferior is arrogance, badgering them about it instead setting an example is hypocrisy, both of which tend to be knocked quite often in both Testaments).

edited 7th Dec '11 8:41:47 AM by Ramus

This thread is not about me, so I'm not going to respond to statements about me personally. We can talk about what we want, and share our ideas, subject to the will of the mods.

So what do you want to talk about?

I'm saying, leave the hypocrisy and bigotry back at home and instead choose singular, well defined topics to discuss as opposed to make broad strokes every other sentence. You can talk about Christians and how every single group in the world has people who fail to hold up the ideals of said group or you can talk about the ideals of the group and their implications, otherwise you're just criticizing an inherent flaw in humanity just like I'm criticizing you, in a manner that's both insulting and irrelevant to the topic at hand, the actual religion of Christianity, not the fallible Bob Cook from down the street.

So what shall the topic be?

Saints? I'm curious about some of the more obscure ones, actually.

Hmm... sure. I happen to know of one saint particularly well from the World War II era. Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe (yes, he chose a female saint as his patron saint) was born in what is now known as Poland. In his early childhood, he had a vision of the Virgin Mary coming down from Heaven to offer him a red crown and a white crown, the red standing for martyrdom and the white standing for purity. He accepted both. He spent a large chunk of his life working in various countries and cities as a holy man and philosopher. He also formed the group called the Militia Immaculata (Army of Mary) and went about teaching people about Catholic values in a peaceful manner.

Interestingly enough, he got involved with the Free Masons, which at that time were a borderline terrorist group, spending lots of time making peace with that group (though he was far from the only person doing it). Pre-war, lots of his time also went towards criticizing the Nazi Regime and the atrocities occurring in Germany that were largely being ignored by the countries around it.

Finally after all of that he hit priesthood, just in time for World War II. Having his own church at that point, he spent much of his time hiding everyone, Christians, Jews, Gypsies, and many, many more from the Nazis that had now taken control of the area. As such things go, however, he got caught and shipped to Auschwitz. At Auschwitz, he continued to spend his time keeping morale up in a place that was as hopeless as it got. However, one day, a prisoner came over to him and told him that his brother was going to be killed. Kolbe then volunteered to take the place of that man's brother. The Nazis complied and the method of death for the day was tossing the people into a deep hole and watching them starve. Much to everyone's surprise, Kolbe managed to not only out last everyone else in that hole, but he outlasted them by several days, just sitting down there and apparently praying. After so many days, the SS officers finally decided to pull him out and give him a more direct means of death. I've heard this could have been anything from lethal injection to gas chamber, I don't know.

Anyway, after World War II ended, Kolbe was eventually canonized. The man who he took the place of was also alive at that point and stood in for his canonization. As of this day, Kolbe is still largely considered a figure of great courage and sacrifice, spending much his life dealing with dangerous individuals in order to make the people around him safer.

He's about the only really obscure saint that I know of, if only because his story tends to strike me as particularly, well, heroic.

Indeed. Wow. Almost like a martyr of old.

What about... Basque Saints?

Can't help you there, I'm not too versed in them.

Just a word or two about "Natural" vs "Human" vs "Spiritual" law. The phrase "Natural Law" has been used historically to mean several different things, and the particular use that the Bible is assuming has almost nothing to do with the way Feo is using it. He merely asserts (and I agree with him) that all human cognition that depends on the brain must somehow derive from our evolutionary legacy. In that sense, all morality, in whatever form, is equally "natural".

Another heroic Christian, although he was never sainted, was Miguel de Unamuno a Spanish anti-fascist during that time when the fascists were rising to power.

@Lawherdude: " On the other hand, Christians make certain claims that they purport to be factual." That depends on what you mean by "factual". Some people define "facts" as observations of material phenomena, in which case Christians are not making factual claims (what kind of material phenomena is a "savoir"?).

The big exception to that, of course, is the Resurrection. But that was a one-time-only event, an exception to the normal laws of nature, with no implications for contemporary phenomena.

Factual, as in actually true. As opposed to an opinion, which is a view or judgment of something that is not necessarily based on fact. And distinguishable from a belief, which is an acceptance that something is true or that something exists.

Christians assert that the Resurrection occurred, that Jesus was the Messiah, and that God exists are all facts, not opinions or simple matters of belief, correct?

They are all non-verifiable by independent observers, so technically they aren't facts, whatever most people call them.

On that point we both agree.

But I'm betting we disagree on the significance.

I wouldn't know. If somebody tells me that I shouldn't go swimming in a river because it is full of piranha, that is one thing. But if someone tells me that I need to believe in Jesus or else I will burn in hell after I die, then that is something else entirely.

Both are claims of fact, but one can be verified through evidence, and the other can not.

edited 8th Dec '11 7:43:40 PM by Lawyerdude