Right and Wrong

[Greta]

And again I will ask who or what put those laws in to being?

 

Why did someone have to put them there? They just ARE.

 

If we're going to say that God put them there, then why? Did God make moral laws because they have an intrinsic value, or just because he "felt like it" -- he did it on an arbitrary whim? If he did it because they have intrinsic value, then that value would be recognizable to us (independent of any belief in him). But if the moral laws he made do not have any intrinsic value of their own, and they're just his arbitrary whims, then what could make them worth following? Fear of punishment?

 

Complex laws just happened? How much faith does that take........?

 

A lot less, to my mind, than the amount of faith required to believe in God.

 

The universe is here. I can see it, observe it, measure it, quantify it, understand it (at least to some extent! :D ) Does it require more faith for me to believe that that which I see plainly before me "just happened" or to believe that a perfect loving benevolent omniscient omnipotent being, whom I have never seen, "just happened"?

 

Why did they happen and for what purpose?

 

Now that I just don't know.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So...what if there really is a God? What if He does allow such things? If He really is God, with all the wisdom and power that He claims, would it be possible that we as mere humans might have only a teeny part of the whole picture? What if He knew some things we didn't? What if death is not the worst thing that could happen? What if, in fact, it was the most merciful option in some circumstances?

 

If there were a higher authority, would you be willing to consider that you are simply a human with finite knowledge and wisdom?

 

Would it be so bad to not have it all figured out?

 

Do you think atheists or agnostics believe this way?

 

Death is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen. Not by a LONG long shot.

 

I am willing to consider I am simply a human with finite knowledge and wisdom. But that knowledge does not follow the knowledge that there is a higher authority.

 

I don't know a SINGLE atheist or agnostic that has it all figured out. Not even one. Not even close. I do know religious folks that have it all figured out, though. (And they've figured me out, too.) That is definitely a peaceful and comfortable place to be, I won't deny it.

[Guest Amy in MS]

Gotcha. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe that humans are intrinsically "good" or "bad." Since defining "good" and "bad" is the point of this whole thread, I'm not sure we can discuss that concept here, yet. According to the Christian worldview, all humans are born sinners; that is, they are incapable of obeying their own moral code (the Creator's laws) perfectly...and, despite their best efforts, they fail to treat others how they themselves want to be treated. They love themselves more than they do others. Given two options, they will choose the one that serves themselves best (including pride in being a "moral person"). Self-deception hinders many from seeing just how immoral they are.

 

I think this question fits in good here. For the past several months, I've been trying to remember how I justified Lot's "righteousness" to myself.

 

So, the story is, God's going to punish Soddom for its wickedness, but that if Abraham can find 1 (or is it 10?) righteous people, he will spare it.

 

Luckily, Abraham knows of at least one righteous man, his nephew, Lot. So, he goes to Lot in the city, and some would-be rapists (who happen to be men) surround the house and want Lot to throw Abraham to them. Lot refuses to do this, but in his righteousness, offers his daughters instead!:eek:

 

Righteousness Bible-style?

 

I'm sure I told myself things like, "well, even righteous people are wrong too sometimes," or "Lot knew God's angels would save them," but that no longer cuts it for me.

 

What have I lost? My programming? What? I honestly don't remember!

 

Amy

[Jenny in Atl]

Does "death from natural events" include all death? If it doesn't, then why separate death into categories? We all die sooner or later. What is your explanation of why people die? If it is "natural"--that is, if it is simply "the way of things," why do most humans fear it and try to avoid it? If it is "unnatural," what makes it so? I've shared my perspective; care to share yours?

 

I do separate "man made" or deaths caused by humans (murder/negligent homicide) with deaths by a natural event, like an earthquake or the bird flu. One is "fallen" man doing the killing, whether directly or indirectly, the other is totally out of our hands. Yes, I'm sure there are examples of natural events being influenced by man's behavior but most major natural events are not.

 

Yes, we all die. I'm not afraid to die, I'd rather not feel any pain when I go, but I'm guessing that's asking for a lot. I watched my youngest daughter nearly die at 13 months. As I cradled her in my arms, all I could think was she had done nothing to deserve this pain she was experiencing. So, she was and is paying for a long ago sin?

 

 

I'm sure most fear death because of the unknown. I don't think humans are all knowing and have infinite wisdom. But, the three major religions really leave me cold with their explanations of "why". I actually find the Hindu and Buddhist belief system makes more sense to me (lessons to be learned) but they too fall short in many areas. I think religions can only be taken in the contexts and cultures from which they were formed. Man has not changed much over the last ~3,000 years but our understanding of the world has, and this does give me great pause in finding any value to many of the arguments I've seen here.

 

:grouphug:

[Elaine]

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Isn't that also about the time that processed foods became all the rage? It was also the year the Mona Lisa toured the US for the first time.

 

 

I don't understand.:001_huh:

 

I was showing statistics about the downfall in our society since prayer was taken out of school and you reference the Mona Lisa and processed foods. How can the Mona Lisa and processed foods be blamed for the stats?

 

We obviously come from two completely different perspectives.:001_smile:

[Guest Amy in MS]

I don't understand.:001_huh:

 

I was showing statistics about the downfall in our society since prayer was taken out of school and you reference the Mona Lisa and processed foods. How can the Mona Lisa and processed foods be blamed for the stats?

 

We obviously come from two completely different perspectives.:001_smile:

 

 

The point was that the argument is a fallacy--taking prayer out of schools "caused" all of these bad things that happened afterward. You're putting the cause on taking prayer out. She's simply blaming it for the rise in processed foods and the Mona Lisa bit. Her statement is just as logical (or illogical, really)

 

Just because one thing happens first, doesn't mean its a cause. Host Hoc ergo Proctor Hoc fallacy.

 

That's the fallacy; that's what she was talking about.

 

Amy

[Julie Herbster]

Originally Posted by nmoira:

Ok, so Christians can be immoral OR sure they're moral, but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

 

Originally posted by genie: No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral, or, additionally, immoral but only due to their pride in being moral. Clear as mud? :cheers2:

 

I think part of my brain just disengaged in a defensive measure because I'm hearing this as a song à la Pirates of Penzance.

You two are funny! I certainly didn't mean to create any conundrums by my last few posts. Ironically, I was trying to clarify. :tongue_smilie: (And I seriously wasn't speaking of anyone in particular when I talked about self-deception. I've deceived myself countless times while justifying certain of my behaviors.)

 

Let's deconstruct and untangle what has been said here (and then I'm going to retreat, since I have a million other things to do today).

 

<<deep breath>>According to the Bible, all people are self-deceived. Direct quote: "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it?" It is true that we all like to think of ourselves as good, morally upright people. In the NT (Matthew 5, to be exact), Jesus makes these statements:

 

You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of judgment." But I say unto you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire...You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

There are more statements like these, but I'll stop here. The point is that Jesus equates murder with being angry with someone, and adultery with lusting after someone. We tend to think of muder and adultery as "big" sins, and our pet vices as "little" sins. We think we are "better" than murderers and adulterers because "we would never do that." But Jesus strips away that self-righteousness by exposing the reality that it is not just "what we do," but "how we think" that condemns us on moral grounds.

 

I'm very sorry if I have offended you or anyone else with my statements (here or earlier). In short, I believe we are all (myself included) self-deceived into thinking we're really pretty good people, when in reality, given the correct circumstances, we are capable of any kind of depravity...and, indeed, have already demonstrated this by the kinds of thoughts we think.

 

So, to deconstruct...

 

Ok, so Christians can be immoral

Yep...OK so far.

OR sure they're moral

Yes, but they can also be as self-deceived as the next person into thinking they're moral when they are not. The difference is that, since they have a personal relationship with the Creator, and are further informed of moral particulars in His word, they can escape self-deception.

but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

This is where the misunderstanding lies, I think. Non-Christians, like Christians, can be immoral. But they can be moral "on purpose" as well, because they have the same built-in moral sense that Christians do. However, when ethical dilemmas arise, or duties/interests conflict, which they often seem to do, non-Christians are left to choose between two seemingly equally good moral options, while Christians can consult the Bible (and pray) for further direction.

No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral

Yes...

or, additionally, immoral

Yes...

but only due to their pride in being moral.

Again, here is misunderstanding. Christians, like non-Christians, behave immorally because they choose to do so; like everyone else, they have been born incapable of being perfectly moral. They desire to serve themselves. They, like anyone else, can deceive themselves into thinking they're pretty good people. The difference is that Christians have seen themselves in a new light. They know that they are sinners in need of a savior, not "pretty good people" who are doing just fine. And they tend to seek God's forgiveness for that pride and selfishness, instead of tending to justify it. (Here I'm not speaking for everyone who claims to be a Christian.)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I would have replied pretty much along the same lines as Julie's reply, especially the distinction of the word "better."

 

Why is there a better? It implies a choice. Why do we have words like murder, robbery, and pillage? Why do we have abstract concepts like deceit or unfaithfulness?

 

I would like to repeat:The question still has not been answered: Why do we even need a moral code, why can't we just live by instinct as the animals do? They do perfectly fine without one, in fact better than we do much of the time. If a moral code is an such an evolutionary advantage, why are we the only species that appears to have developed one? Why are we the only species that feels a need to believe in something outside the realm of our experience?

 

no, I don't believe that Christianity is the only thing keeping most people from doing wrong, but I believe that in the absence of the traditional moral code of Christianity a society based on that code would fall into chaos until some other restraints were substituted.

[RebeccaC]

Don't need to. I don't make amazing claims every day about what my love for my kids is responsible for.

 

Well I think it is more that you do not have to prove it because you chose to believe in that love and you are in relationship with your dc. However if someone in legal authority who viewed hsing as abuse decided to make you prove your love you might have a hard time meeting their measure of proof. Does their not believing in your love for your dc negate that love? No you love your kids.

 

The fact that we get to chose if we will obey absolutes gives to some the illusion that they are mailable, our own creation, or do not exist. Our choice is no more defining of an absolute than our belief or lack of belief define whether there are or are not absolutes. If I chose to run a red light because it is convenient that does not prove nor disprove that a law, that at that moment I can neither see nor read exists. If a policeman is near I will immediately taste the consequences of choosing to break that law. Lack of knowledge of the law, or lack of belief in the law can not be used as a defense when it is my time to go before the traffic court judge. The law is on the books and it must be obeyed or the fine must be paid. I can chose to break it and pay the fine and in time if I continue to break the law lose my license or do time but my choice or knowledge has nothing to do with the existence of the law or the consequences set in place if I chose to break the law.

[genie]

I would have replied pretty much along the same lines as Julie's reply, especially the distinction of the word "better."

 

Why is there a better?

 

 

 

Really? You really don't understand exactly what I meant by what I said? I can't even begin to fathom the mindset you must be coming from if you don't. :confused:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Really? You really don't understand exactly what I meant by what I said? I can't even begin to fathom the mindset you must be coming from if you don't. :confused:

 

I could say exactly the same thing. So it is obvious that we do not understand each other. Let us leave it at that.

[genie]

 

There are more statements like these, but I'll stop here. The point is that Jesus equates murder with being angry with someone, and adultery with lusting after someone. We tend to think of muder and adultery as "big" sins, and our pet vices as "little" sins. We think we are "better" than murderers and adulterers because "we would never do that." But Jesus strips away that self-righteousness by exposing the reality that it is not just "what we do," but "how we think" that condemns us on moral grounds.

 

And now you have made my ultimate point. Thank you. One sin is NO WORSE than another, according to your scripture. So then tell me why it is that that the Christians in this nation get their panties in such a wad over homosexuality in particular, yet turn a blind eye to so many of the other "lesser" sins.

 

Why do we have Christians on this board gagging and reeling at the fact that there were two homosexual kisses on Grey's Anatomy? They are obviously fans of the show, so apparently they take delight in all the other less-than-moral behavior, but as soon as there is a homosexual kiss, they're freaking out. I mean, seriously?? Is there one single redeeming character quality in that show? Why would a Christian find it perfectly fine to watch a show full of extra- and pre-marital sex, deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies, yet get upset because of homosexuality...if they understood what your scriptures say as well as this atheist does?

 

It is this double-standard hypocrisy that makes it nearly impossible to take Christians seriously when they start railing against things like homosexuality. Seriously!

[Greta]

I would like to repeat:The question still has not been answered: Why do we even need a moral code, why can't we just live by instinct as the animals do?

 

Because developing a moral code was an intrinsic part of developing the kind of intelligence required to consider choices, weigh consequences, and make conscious decisions. (Acting on instinct doesn't require understanding one's actions or the consequences of it.) But if you're question is why did humans evolve this level of intelligence, that answer is so involved that I can't begin to tackle it here. But I can find you some resources about human evolution if you're interested. It's a very fascinating topic. One of my personal favorites. But I don't have the time to do it justice (nor would this format of conversation be well suited to meeting that goal).

 

If a moral code is an such an evolutionary advantage, why are we the only species that appears to have developed one?

 

This question is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. 'If x is an advantage in Species A, then why doesn't Species B have it?' Because that isn't the way evolution works. Those features which enabled Species A's survivals might have proven less advantageous or actually disadvantageous to Species B, or the genes to produce them might simply have never appeared in Species B's lineage.

 

Why are we the only species that feels a need to believe in something outside the realm of our experience?

 

I don't know for sure that we are the only species that feels that need. But I suspect that any species which evolves enough intelligence to contemplate it's own mortality would quite possibly start to believe in things outside their realm of experience.

[Erica in PA]

Well, I can answer that question fairly easily-- while homosexuality is no worse a sin before God than the other sins you mentioned, those others are not currently being heavily pushed for acceptance in today's society, and presented as good and right and honorable. The entertainment industry is very much part of a political agenda for full acceptance of homosexuality. People are free to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish in this country, but that is not enough for many in America today. People want to do whatever they wish, and also have everyone else's blessing upon it as well. It's part of the push toward relativism, where the only thing that is truly wrong, is believing that anything is wrong. Everything else is fine.

 

The vast majority of Christians do nothing to stop homosexuality, or persecute homosexuals in any way-- what they are reacting against is the cultural pressure for them to accept and approve what the Bible teaches to be a sinful practice. The reaction is not because they think it is worse than other sins, but because this one is currently being pushed aggressively for the approval of all, and because of what God's Word states, they cannot give the approval that is being sought.

 

Erica

[genie]

Well, I can answer that question fairly easily-- while homosexuality is no worse a sin before God than the other sins you mentioned, those others are not currently being heavily pushed for acceptance in today's society, and presented as good and right and honorable.

 

Asking for acceptance isn't necessarily the same thing as trying to make one believe something is good, right, or honorable.

 

People are free to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish in this country, but that is not enough for many in America today.

 

Unless the lifestyle that they wish to pursue is a loving, committed, legally-recognized marriage to a member of the same sex.

 

People want to do whatever they wish, and also have everyone else's blessing upon it as well. It's part of the push toward relativism, where the only thing that is truly wrong, is believing that anything is wrong. Everything else is fine.

 

I can't speak for homosexuals in this regard, but it's not my impression that they want a blessing upon their lifestyle choice. Some may. I think that what the majority want is to not be treated unkindly.... to be treated no differently than the rest of the "sinners" of this world are... to be given the same rights that all the other "sinners" of this country are.

 

The vast majority of Christians do nothing to stop homosexuality, or persecute homosexuals in any way-- what they are reacting against is the cultural pressure for them to accept and approve what the Bible teaches to be a sinful practice.

 

Acceptance and approval are very different things. There are many things I accept as realities but in no way approve of.

[Greta]

Well, I can answer that question fairly easily-- while homosexuality is no worse a sin before God than the other sins you mentioned, those others are not currently being heavily pushed for acceptance in today's society, and presented as good and right and honorable.

 

 

Wait, I'm confused. In the Christian sect I was raised in, I was taught that pre-marital sex was a sin. Pre-marital sex is widely accepted in modern society and is certainly portrayed on tv a LOT. Is pre-marital sex less sinful than homosexual sex? Or was that teaching I was raised with not Biblical?

[Karen sn]

Well.

I question the whole "Thou shalt not kill"

and then everywhere in the same book they are instructed to kill every man, woman, and child when they pick another people to war against.

 

I need a god as much as I need a government telling me what to do.

I don't need laws that tell me not to steal, murder, abuse, etc....because I have amazing respect for my fellow people and I do undo others as I would have done unto me.

 

I am intelligent and caring. I do not need laws or the blood thirsty male god on money in order to make a "moral" decision.

 

I guess other people need a male diety in order to behave.

If that's what it takes - I am glad they have that.

 

Trouble is.....Caine killed Abel and he had already found favor in the eyes of that god with his blood sacrifice of a cow. Any connection to the blood sacrifice of his brother? I don't know. I do know that there are still people who kill in the name of god. And in the past wiped out almost entirely the pagans and midwives and "witches."

 

I heal in the name of the goddess - She Whose Name Can Not Be Spoken.

I do not need any laws to tell me to be good or nice.

[Michelle T]

 

 

However, when ethical dilemmas arise, or duties/interests conflict, which they often seem to do, non-Christians are left to choose between two seemingly equally good moral options, while Christians can consult the Bible (and pray) for further direction.

 

 

Why are you assuming that all non-Christians are atheists, or have no religious books/standards of their own? I'm not Christian, but I could certainly consult the bible or pray for guidance. I just happen to be a different religion. Why do Christians so often assume that theirs is the only religion on earth?

Michelle T

[Storm Bay]

Why are you assuming that all non-Christians are atheists, or have no religious books/standards of their own? I'm not Christian, but I could certainly consult the bible or pray for guidance. I just happen to be a different religion. Why do Christians so often assume that theirs is the only religion on earth?

Michelle T

 

Beats me. I'm a Christian who is well aware that people of other religions follow their books/teachings. Islam, for example, has a strict moral code (among other things.)

[Erica in PA]

Wait, I'm confused. In the Christian sect I was raised in, I was taught that pre-marital sex was a sin. Pre-marital sex is widely accepted in modern society and is certainly portrayed on tv a LOT. Is pre-marital sex less sinful than homosexual sex? Or was that teaching I was raised with not Biblical?

 

No, lol, I'm not sure why that question keeps coming up, about one sin being worse than another. I think that may be a misunderstanding that people find hard to shake. Several people including myself have reiterated the fact that no sin is more or less sinful than any other. That means lying is not more sinful than adultery. Adultery is not more sinful than stealing. Etc. That goes for any sin, in any combination. I can't say it more clearly than that.

 

I don't appreciate seeing pre-marital sex in entertainment. I think it's wrong. Just as homosexuality is wrong. However, what I tried to communicate in my previous post is that there is more buzz right now, at this point in American culture, over homosexuality, because for the first time, it is being promoted for *approval* (yes, approval, and not mere acceptance) through entertainment and other arenas. Probably 50 years ago, there was a similar battle over the promotion of pre-marital sex as right and good. Those who sought to promote pre-marital sex in entertainment seem to have won that battle, because now it is routinely accepted as beautiful, loving, and good in our society, and portrayed as such in the media. I don't think that's a good thing.

 

Now the same discussion is taking place over homosexuality. That is why I think you get more of a reaction from Christians regarding that topic right now.

 

Erica

[KidsHappen]

You've NEVER felt like slapping someone before, ever? Even as a child? :)

*I* find *that* amazing.

BUT, we all have different temperaments.

 

Well I can't swear that is the case but I honestly don't ever recall feeling or thinking that. I am a conflict avoider. My natural response is to escape so maybe that has something to do with it. I was surprised by the thought and wasn't sure if others felt the same way. I was hoping more would chime in on this but since they haven't I will ask people I know IRL.

[KidsHappen]

You're not misunderstanding my meaning. Yes, I've occasionally desired to harm someone--the desire just rose up out of momentary anger, not out of a general desire to hurt people, and certainly I have had no desire to inflict permanent harm on anyone. I have not acted upon these desires, but I don't mind admitting that I have sinful impulses. Thanks to God, I am not ruled by them.

 

You're probably a much more generous person than I am. I wish I could be more like that. Truly.:)

 

 

I don't know that I am really so generous and I certainly have my "sinful" impulses. I just think that my areas of weakness may lie in other areas. I think that we all have our own specific battles. See post to J.Giff above for more info. :)

[Erica in PA]

Asking for acceptance isn't necessarily the same thing as trying to make one believe something is good, right, or honorable.

 

I agree that there is a difference... and I think that the current pervading philosophy in this country is that homosexuality should not just be accepted, but actually approved of. What does it mean to accept it? To me, I accept that there are people with different religious beliefs, different morals, and I am not seeking to take their right to choose those things away from them. I would not speak negatively to such a person, or harm them in any way. I have friends and family members I love who pursue lifestyles I believe to be in violation of God's plan for us. I still love them, still accept them as people. I consider that to be acceptance, and not approval.

 

But what is criticized openly and freely, is the Christian belief that such activities are sinful. It is becoming extremely taboo to express anything but full and total support of homosexuality, for example-- that to me suggests that what is wanted is approval, not just freedom to pursue their own lives. And let me make it clear, this is not necessarily coming from people in the lifestyle, themselves. It's part of a larger, more political and philosophical agenda to move away from Christianity and the Bible, and toward humanism and more progressive thinking.

 

Erica

[Peek a Boo]

Wait, I'm confused. In the Christian sect I was raised in, I was taught that pre-marital sex was a sin. Pre-marital sex is widely accepted in modern society and is certainly portrayed on tv a LOT. Is pre-marital sex less sinful than homosexual sex? Or was that teaching I was raised with not Biblical?

 

 

nope --you are absolutely correct.

 

We also know that even tho in God's eyes there is no real difference in "levels" of sin, flawed people see it much differently.

 

It has been my experience that many will see pre-marital sex as "fixable" w/ a bona fide marriage or "commitment from then on to abstinence till marriage" , while there is no "fix" for homosexuality other than to flee the idea completely.

Pre marital sex is still what some would consider "natural" sex.

 

But again, as far as God's concerned, there really are no "levels." We are all simply fallen people w/ different strengths and weaknesses [and tolerances] for various sins.

[Mekanamom]

Granted, that does not prove that God exists or that he gives us our moral code, but it does show the need for humans to have a moral code in order to function as a group. The question still has not been answered: Why do we even need a moral code, why can't we just live by instinct as the animals do? They do perfectly fine without one, in fact better than we do much of the time. If a moral code is an such an evolutionary advantage, why are we the only species that appears to have developed one? Why are we the only species that feels a need to believe in something outside the realm of our experience?

 

Well... not all animals are born knowing how to behave in groups. Mothers of all different species have to teach their young how to behave properly. They use both rewards and punishments.

 

I think our morality is most likely just more of the same. Possibly more highly developed because our brains are more complicated. Morality, empathy, guilt and the desire to get along in groups is very adaptive... and can be developed in our species with or without a deity.

 

Why do we need to believe in something outside the realm or our experience? We're amazingly curious! How could we have evolved to this point without such an intense curiosity? We're also very intelligent. If we don't have the answer to something, we simply make one up until we find the real answer. LOL. We know *something* has to be making X,Y, and Z happen in the natural world- so we speculate and come up with an answer that seems plausible at the time. But we keep questioning, and we keep learning & growing through new experiences.

[j.griff]

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Isn't that also about the time that processed foods became all the rage? It was also the year the Mona Lisa toured the US for the first time.

 

:)

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Phred]

:)

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I have got to get me some of those T-shirts.

[genie]

 

I agree that there is a difference... and I think that the current pervading philosophy in this country is that homosexuality should not just be accepted, but actually approved of. What does it mean to accept it? To me, I accept that there are people with different religious beliefs, different morals, and I am not seeking to take their right to choose those things away from them. I would not speak negatively to such a person, or harm them in any way. I have friends and family members I love who pursue lifestyles I believe to be in violation of God's plan for us. I still love them, still accept them as people. I consider that to be acceptance, and not approval.

 

But what is criticized openly and freely, is the Christian belief that such activities are sinful. It is becoming extremely taboo to express anything but full and total support of homosexuality, for example-- that to me suggests that what is wanted is approval, not just freedom to pursue their own lives. And let me make it clear, this is not necessarily coming from people in the lifestyle, themselves. It's part of a larger, more political and philosophical agenda to move away from Christianity and the Bible, and toward humanism and more progressive thinking.

 

Erica

 

Oh come on now, both sides are being criticized openly and freely on a very regular basis. There are two sides to every story, and each side is going to interpret their share of persecution. But what it boils down to, even from a Christian standpoint, is providing the same legal options to every person, no matter what their "sin du jour" may be.

[Erica in PA]

Oh come on now, both sides are being criticized openly and freely on a very regular basis. There are two sides to every story, and each side is going to interpret their share of persecution. But what it boils down to, even from a Christian standpoint, is providing the same legal options to every person, no matter what their "sin du jour" may be.

 

 

But we weren't discussing gay marriage in this thread, were we? You asked why Christians were more vocal about homosexuality in the media than about other sins, and I explained my perspective on why that might be-- because there is currently a cultural debate on that topic, with those in the media actively pushing for one side of the debate, which obviously draws a reaction from the other side. I wasn't addressing the topic of gay marriage.

 

Erica

Erica

[Greta]

No, lol, I'm not sure why that question keeps coming up, about one sin being worse than another. I think that may be a misunderstanding that people find hard to shake. Several people including myself have reiterated the fact that no sin is more or less sinful than any other. That means lying is not more sinful than adultery. Adultery is not more sinful than stealing. Etc. That goes for any sin, in any combination. I can't say it more clearly than that.

 

Gotcha. Thanks Erica. I think I do have a better sense of where you're coming from and the point you were trying to make.

 

Now perhaps I can give you a better sense of why this question keeps coming up. I'm not sure that I can, but I will try. Actually, now that I think about it, I can't answer why the question comes up for anyone else, only why it does for ME. So let me take you through my thought process.

 

One of the ways in which Buddhism differs from Christianity is, as you said, Christians don't designate one sin as being worse than another. Buddhists don't use the word "sin", but something more like negative actions. And we do believe that some actions are more powerfully or strongly negative than others. The most negative actions are those which generate the most suffering. A "less negative" action would be one that generates less suffering. (Positive actions being, of course, those which generate happiness, and I mean happiness in the deep and meaningful sense, NOT as a synonym for "fun".) For example, in one Buddhist tradition that I am familiar with, there are three negative sexual actions which we are urged to refrain from. The worst, the most powerfully negative, the one that generates the most suffering, is sex which involves physical force (rape). The second, which also generates a tremendous amount of suffering, is sex which involves manipulation or coercion. The third is sex which breaks of a vow of monogamy or chastity (considered negative whether the vow was your own, or was made by the person you are having sex with, or of course both).

 

For me, it is very straightforward and plain to see that actions which generate tremendous suffering are even more immoral than actions which generate less suffering. In fact it just seems to obvious that I never thought about the need to explain it until now! Using the example above, I would be hurt if my husband broke his vow of monogamy to me. But I would be far more deeply hurt by being raped. So, rape is worse than adultery. Both are "crimes" or "sins" or "negative actions" or whatever label you prefer, but they are not equal.

 

So, when I take a look at the things happening around me in this world, I see many positive actions. Some are simple (cheering up a friend by giving them a bouquet of their favorite flowers), some are tremendous (like the relief work done for victims of natural disasters). Sadly, there are also many negative actions all around us. Some are smaller (taking credit for someone else's work in order to get the biggest raise) and some are horrifying beyond imagination (the Holocaust).

 

So when I see all the horrors out there that are causing so much suffering, suffering beyond my ability to comprehend, and I see people getting upset about two people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, and calling that immoral, I just shake my head in disbelief. To me, that's a very serious case of not having priorities straight. I have Christian friends who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. 1.3 million people are DEAD because of this invasion, 2 million are refugees, countless others are maimed, grieving for lost loved ones, and so on. And yet some of my friends are not the least bit concerned about this. But they sure get irate about two consenting adults having sex.

 

I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

 

Shouldn't the immoral actions which generate the most harm and suffering be our primary concern?

[Phred]

I agree that there is a difference... and I think that the current pervading philosophy in this country is that homosexuality should not just be accepted, but actually approved of. What does it mean to accept it? To me, I accept that there are people with different religious beliefs, different morals, and I am not seeking to take their right to choose those things away from them. I would not speak negatively to such a person, or harm them in any way. I have friends and family members I love who pursue lifestyles I believe to be in violation of God's plan for us. I still love them, still accept them as people. I consider that to be acceptance, and not approval.

 

But what is criticized openly and freely, is the Christian belief that such activities are sinful. It is becoming extremely taboo to express anything but full and total support of homosexuality, for example-- that to me suggests that what is wanted is approval, not just freedom to pursue their own lives. And let me make it clear, this is not necessarily coming from people in the lifestyle, themselves. It's part of a larger, more political and philosophical agenda to move away from Christianity and the Bible, and toward humanism and more progressive thinking.

 

Erica

Here's how I look at it. You believe in a god, you believe that homosexual activities are sinful. That's your belief.

 

A belief is not a fact, it is you being convinced something is true regardless of a lack of hard evidence. When you try to show me the "evidence" that convinced you... it doesn't convince me. So there we are. I don't believe in the god you believe in. I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, you do. In the end however, your belief hurts others, mine doesn't. You cause others pain. I don't. So... who's more "Christian" on this topic?

 

In fact, when "you" condemn how others express their love by gerrymandering through all sorts of random silliness from scattered Biblical sayings to manufactured reasons for why gay s*whoops*x is harmful why... I have to wonder... what is it "you're" really trying to do here?

 

In the 1950s folks were forced to "accept" that black folks were equal. In the seventies they were forced to "accept" women were equal. Now you'll have to "accept" that homosexuals are equal. I guess it's up to you to figure out how to believe it. But you should because in the long run it's the "right" thing to do.

[Julie Herbster]

And now you have made my ultimate point. Thank you. One sin is NO WORSE than another, according to your scripture. So then tell me why it is that that the Christians in this nation get their panties in such a wad over homosexuality in particular, yet turn a blind eye to so many of the other "lesser" sins.

I can only speak for myself, but my "panties aren't in a wad" at all over homosexuality. I am grieved at the practice, because I know it is immoral. I am also grieved at other practices: sexual promiscuity, pornography, greed, etc.

 

Why do we have Christians on this board gagging and reeling at the fact that there were two homosexual kisses on Grey's Anatomy? They are obviously fans of the show, so apparently they take delight in all the other less-than-moral behavior, but as soon as there is a homosexual kiss, they're freaking out. I mean, seriously?? Is there one single redeeming character quality in that show? Why would a Christian find it perfectly fine to watch a show full of extra- and pre-marital sex, deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies, yet get upset because of homosexuality...if they understood what your scriptures say as well as this atheist does?

I have never watched Grey's Anatomy, so I can't comment on the content of that show. What makes you think that these people are "taking delight" in other immoral behavior? Certainly, if they are doing that, it would be inconsistent for them to single out the homosexual behavior as "less moral" than whatever other immoral practice is going on. I personally do not watch shows that glorify premarital/extramarital sex, or any vice, really. So, what do I watch? Not much.

 

It is this double-standard hypocrisy that makes it nearly impossible to take Christians seriously when they start railing against things like homosexuality. Seriously!

I can totally understand where you're coming from on this. If your portrayal of Christian behavior here is accurate, you have a valid point. (And I hope Christians who find themselves feeding off of, and enjoying, certain kinds of immorality see the glaring inconsistency here. As a Christian, you have no right to make a big deal out of homosexuality if you yourself participate in immorality, even if it is vicariously via visual media). Great point, genie.

 

Am I saying that one must be perfect before judging whether or not a behavior is wrong? Certainly not...but it is hypocritical to get "up in arms" about homosexuality if we ourselves are repeatedly indulging in other things we *know* are immoral.

 

(How did we get to talkin' about homosexuality? I thought that was the other thread. Sorry if I helped hijack.)

[muffinmom]

Do you think atheists or agnostics believe this way?

 

Death is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen. Not by a LONG long shot.

 

I am willing to consider I am simply a human with finite knowledge and wisdom. But that knowledge does not follow the knowledge that there is a higher authority.

 

I don't know a SINGLE atheist or agnostic that has it all figured out. Not even one. Not even close. I do know religious folks that have it all figured out, though. (And they've figured me out, too.) That is definitely a peaceful and comfortable place to be, I won't deny it.

 

I'm just responding to the question of suffering that has been posted more than once--the idea of, How do you explain suffering in light of the existence of God? I'm just saying what if there really was a God and the reasons for all these things were not explained? Do you have to have the answers for it to be acceptable?

 

As for having it all figured out, the tone I've been hearing on this thread--I don't need a god to tell me what to do; I can figure it out by myself--maybe doesn't say they have everything figured out. But there is a strong overtone of pride and arrogance in anyone who believes that they themselves, with their limited experience (after all, none of us is here very long, and most of us only live in one culture) and wisdom, are enough to determine moral issues accurately on their own.

 

I don't know a SINGLE atheist or agnostic that has it all figured out. Not even one. Not even close. I do know religious folks that have it all figured out, though. (And they've figured me out, too.) That is definitely a peaceful and comfortable place to be, I won't deny it

 

Interesting the part about how religious folks have figured you out--I completely understand how you feel because my experience and this thread has confirmed that nonreligious folks have Christians pegged, and what a tight hole it is.

 

I'm sorry about your experience with religious folk. I've had that experience too. I don't identify with them. The Christians I fellowhip with are a different breed--much more generous and humble than the ones you describe. Please allow for the fact that all not all people of faith are the same. Just because people call themselves Christian doesn't mean they understand what God really wants.

 

And pride goes both ways--Christians are among the worst offenders. Because they are Christian? No. Because they are HUMAN. And pride is what's at the root of this moral issue we are discussing. It is the idea that we know better than someone else, or better than God--either we don't need a god to tell us what to do or we think we have God figured out. (Either way, a very faulty supposition.) We know better than anyone else to determine our own way. In my opinion pride is the most insidious of sins, because the person who has it doesn't see it in himself. None of us can escape falling prey to it. That includes all of us on this thread, Christian or non.

 

Final thoughts: I would beg anyone not to judge God on the basis of what they see in "religious folk." It's a shame I have to say that, but true. If you really want to know, seek God for yourself and see what He has to say about it. He's just as grieved as you are about what people have done in His name. But then that just goes back to the universal problem--people just want to do what they want to do with no boundaries. Period.

[Alenee]

Do I believe that only theists make good moral choices? No, of course not!

 

But the way your questions are constructed seems to imply that people who appeal to their deities for their ethics are doing so because they can't think up a better excuse. It really doesn't work that way for people of faith. I don't "need a god to tell [me] what is right and wrong." I don't subscribe to a god because that god is a philosophical necessity. I've met God. I've experienced God. God is as real as the sun. Do you "appeal" to the existence of the sun to justify your choice to rise in the morning and go to bed at night? Or do you just look at it and know it's there, and live according to its rhythms?

 

Through Holy Scripture, through other people, through creation, through the traditions that form me even without my knowing it, through my experiences of suffering and loss, and through experiences of joy and contentment, I've met God. It is not that I run across random ethical dilemmas, during which I call upon an otherwise abstract or absent deity. It's that knowing God allows me to see the world in such a way that moral decisions are possible. It's not that I go on about my daily life, and when I run across a moral dilemma I run to consult the Bible. It's that the Bible gives light such that I can see my daily life in a new way, in a way that corresponds to reality. And because of that light, I make certain moral commitments.

 

So, yes, my "ethics" are completely and ineluctably tied to my relationship with God. I can't do ethics any other way than by relating it to God, because there is nothing that is not related to God, who is the creator of all.

 

And, though this may be offensive to atheists, I don't, actually, believe that they can be moral without God. I just don't mean that the same way that you do. They can make moral decisions without philosophically relating them to a god, but I believe that their ability to do what is good comes from God, whether or not they can name God as the author of their goodness.

 

I really don't know how to fit that into your poll. How do you think I should answer?

 

I couldn't have worded it better myself!

[Parabola]

So before people came up with the idea of a single god, were they unable to live together peacefully in a group? Were they unable to live with morals, or unable to distinguish between right and wrong, whatever those rights and wrongs might have been?

When did humans begin to make moral choices, which require I would think some degree of empathy?

[TXMomof4]

A belief is not a fact, it is you being convinced something is true regardless of a lack of hard evidence. When you try to show me the "evidence" that convinced you... it doesn't convince me. So there we are. I don't believe in the god you believe in. I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, you do. In the end however, your belief hurts others, mine doesn't. You cause others pain. I don't. So... who's more "Christian" on this topic?

 

In fact, when "you" condemn how others express their love by gerrymandering through all sorts of random silliness from scattered Biblical sayings to manufactured reasons for why gay s*whoops*x is harmful why... I have to wonder... what is it "you're" really trying to do here?

 

In the 1950s folks were forced to "accept" that black folks were equal. In the seventies they were forced to "accept" women were equal. Now you'll have to "accept" that homosexuals are equal. I guess it's up to you to figure out how to believe it. But you should because in the long run it's the "right" thing to do.

 

Don't you see that your condemnation of MY beliefs are hurtful? Christians are told all of the time they are intolerant, backwards, uneducated because they have faith in something you(the general you) do not. It doesn't harm you for me to believe in God and salvation through Jesus. I don't tell you you have to believe it.

 

I know there are people who do get in others faces about their Christian beliefs, but there are people out there who condemn me for driving an SUV and are convinced I am responsible for all the damage to the environent. Does that make everyone who believes in caring for the environent a hateful judgemental person? I read the thread on the Duggars having their 18th child, and was amazed at the hostility against her about breastfeeding. Does she get on television and say everyone different from her is going to hell? Not that I've ever witnessed, but there was no hesitation to condemn her choices. How many of us have been criticized and condemned for our homeschooling choices? If I allow my experiences with several ps teachers to influence my opinion of all of them, I would be convinced that they are all intolerant, arrogant people. But I KNOW that isn't true. There are teachers who are convinced I'm harming my children, but I know others who are willing to help me in spite of our differences of opinion of hsing.

 

 

I am allowed to have beliefs that differ from another person or group of people. I am allowed to disagree with someones actions. I am allowed to think that something is wrong. I would never condone harming someone because I believe they are wrong, but I don't have to give up my beliefs because it may cause them discomfort or hurt feelings. I don't think a human being who is homosexual is less of a person than I am, I wouldn't hesitate to invite them over to dinner. But I do not have to say I agree with all of their choices.

[genie]

I have never watched Grey's Anatomy, so I can't comment on the content of that show. What makes you think that these people are "taking delight" in other immoral behavior?

 

They were obviously fans of the show, and since there is really nothing of any positive moral value in the show (or very very little if any) they had to be okay with (accepting of) the immoral content, until the homosexual kisses, that is.

 

I personally do not watch shows that glorify premarital/extramarital sex, or any vice, really. So, what do I watch? Not much.

 

Nor did I when I was a Christian. :o

 

Am I saying that one must be perfect before judging whether or not a behavior is wrong? Certainly not...but it is hypocritical to get "up in arms" about homosexuality if we ourselves are repeatedly indulging in other things we *know* are immoral.

 

Woohoo! Common ground! ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

If you really want to know, seek God for yourself and see what He has to say about it. He's just as grieved as you are about what people have done in His name. But then that just goes back to the universal problem--people just want to do what they want to do with no boundaries. Period.

 

I don't know anybody IRL that has sought God as earnestly, sincerely, and fervently for as many years as I have. No one. (Though I'm sure there are some out there -- I just don't know any.) But thanks for the tip. I'm quite done with the quest at this point, however.

 

I'm afraid you have the "universal" problem wrong, at least as concerns me. I'm not remotely interested in doing what I want to do with no boundaries. Do you really know people like this? I know some psychopaths, maybe. Borderline personalities. Not actual normal people. Again, it blows my mind that there are those that think because I'm not bound up into believing in or about a deity that this is my goal or my vision for mankind.

 

Thanks for clarifying in your first paragraph. I did read that wrong, and I do apologize if my misunderstanding was too vehemently stated.

[Julie Herbster]

Nor did I when I was a Christian. :o

O.K....So why do you now? Are you "as moral" as you were as a Christian? Why or why not? Or, was there something different about "being a Christian" that informed your views about what is moral and what is not? OR, are you now simply engaging in what you still see as immorality? Which is it?

 

I ask these questions because they seem to address the heart of what this whole discussion is about.

[Erica in PA]

Phred, I have to admit that I don't understand how what you've said here relates to what I said. The question was asked, "Why do Christians react differently to homosexuality than to other types of sin, while claiming that all sin is equally wrong?" That is the context in which I made my post. I was explaining that it's not that Christians believe homosexuality is worse, it's just that that is the issue that is currently being actively promoted in the media, which distresses people. As I alluded to before, if I'd be alive 50 or so years ago, and it was becoming acceptable to promote premarital marriage, I'd have opposed that too. There's nothing special about homosexuality, other than the fact that it is the current day issue that is currently being debated.

 

Here's how I look at it. You believe in a god, you believe that homosexual activities are sinful. That's your belief.

 

A belief is not a fact, it is you being convinced something is true regardless of a lack of hard evidence. When you try to show me the "evidence" that convinced you... it doesn't convince me. So there we are. I don't believe in the god you believe in. I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, you do. In the end however, your belief hurts others, mine doesn't. You cause others pain. I don't. So... who's more "Christian" on this topic?

 

Right, I understand that we have different underlying philosophies. According to your philosophy (do no harm), mine is needlessly hurtful. According to mine (God is the authority and decides right/wrong, and seeks to draw people back to Himself), yours misses the point entirely.

 

In fact, when "you" condemn how others express their love by gerrymandering through all sorts of random silliness from scattered Biblical sayings to manufactured reasons for why gay s*whoops*x is harmful why... I have to wonder... what is it "you're" really trying to do here?

 

Well, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting here, but I can say that if one believes the Bible to be the truth, and cares even a whit about other people, then you are going to want them to experience the same forgiveness and blessing that you have. From my framework, it is not loving/kind/good to approve people on a path that is going to lead to real trouble for them in the long run. I'm not just aiming for doing no harm-- I want to do good in this world.

 

In the 1950s folks were forced to "accept" that black folks were equal. In the seventies they were forced to "accept" women were equal. Now you'll have to "accept" that homosexuals are equal. I guess it's up to you to figure out how to believe it. But you should because in the long run it's the "right" thing to do.

 

I don't agree that homosexuality constitutes a legitimate minority in the same way that women and african americans are. Theirs is a practice/lifestyle, the others were their actual genetic identity. Despite the hopes of many, there has been no evidence at all that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Framing it that way (as a minority) has been an effective tool, though, to force acceptance. As far as being "equal" under the law, I am not overly concerned with whether gay marriage is approved legally. However, I cannot and will not recant on the teachings of the Bible, simply because our culture of shifting values might like me to do so.

 

(Sorry, some of my quotes are mixed in with yours. I haven't fully caught on to this new board yet.)

 

Erica

[nancypants]

(I should say that I suppose this is directed mostly towards Phred since he posed the original question but it may as well be to anyone else who agrees with his position.)

 

First of all, I do not believe you are dumb. I do not believe you are anymore "evil" than I am. I do not label you as something worse than I label myself. So my thoughts here are not to suggest that I am in any way morally superior to anyone else.

 

The fact is that no mere human can prove beyond any and all shadow of a doubt that there is a God. Anyone who thinks they can is not being reasonable. However, the fact that it cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt does not make it an unreasonable assertion. But, I encourage the skeptics to use their own poison on themselves for a moment. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God. Try and try but you simply cannot do it, just as I cannot prove to you beyond all doubt that there is. Both sides can give *reasons* -- often strong and compelling reasons (though how compelling they are may depend on the sagacity of the listener) but if there is a God, only He can prove Himself.

 

I know you will hate to have this thought thrust at you again and again but you must ultimately come down the the fact that your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one because, like it or not, there are compelling reasons for both arguments, though obvioiusly I believe my reasons are more plausible than yours and you believe yours are more plausible than mine. Don't ask for 100% physical proof for the existence of God though unless you are prepared to give 100% infallible evidence that there is in fact no God.

 

Ultimately, if this world is all there is then nothing you or I or anyone does or doesn't do ultimately matters in the slightest and if the skeptics are right and the believers are wrong about the existence of God then we are all in the exact same predicament... here on earth basically by cosmic accident, for who knows how long and who knows why and whether we believed something or not while here doesn't matter, neither in fact does whether we do "right" or "wrong" since #1 those terms are so subject to change with time and cultures and #2 there is no ultimate purpose and therefore no ultimate "right" or "wrong" beyond our own subjective feelings/ cultures (and while on that subject who are we to say that one cultural understanding of right and wrong is better than another? Why is our time, for example, superior to the time of the Roman Empire?) /upbringings... so in essence the skeptic should be thrilled to let other people believe there is a God if that's what makes them happy (presuming that it does make them happy though many Christians will readily admit that their belief doesn't mean they feel smiley and cheerful all of the time) because ultimately happiness and "niceness" are all that matters as essentially nothing that happens on this godforsaken planet has any ultimate value at all, neither does human life have any real value since it's just an evolutionary offshoot. Though deep down even the most hardened skeptic will feel at his or her core that something about his or her own life matters... just not how or why.

 

So really, in a world where there is no ultimate truth, we are every bit as right as you because there is no such thing as right or true. And you are every bit as wrong as us because there is no wrong. If you are comfortable with that arrangement, my hat's off to ya because it seems rather like sand under the waves to me and it doesn't square with reality (ie. that even you who believes in no ultimate right or wrong still deeply feels that some things truly are wrong).

[muffinmom]

I don't know anybody IRL that has sought God as earnestly, sincerely, and fervently for as many years as I have. No one. (Though I'm sure there are some out there -- I just don't know any.) But thanks for the tip. I'm quite done with the quest at this point, however.

 

I'm afraid you have the "universal" problem wrong, at least as concerns me. I'm not remotely interested in doing what I want to do with no boundaries. Do you really know people like this? I know some psychopaths, maybe. Borderline personalities. Not actual normal people. Again, it blows my mind that there are those that think because I'm not bound up into believing in or about a deity that this is my goal or my vision for mankind.

 

I think you may have taken my statement too harshly--sure, it would include psychopaths, etc. :) I'm talking about everyday things like this: no one wants anyone to tell them what to do sexually (abstain from sex outside of marriage--unheard of!), relationally (why should I forgive him/her after what he/she did to me?), overindulging (I'm going to eat what I want to eat/smoke if I want to, etc.), materialism (why can't I get what I want?).

 

No one (including myself) really wants anyone else telling them what to do. We want to do what we want to do. We bristle if anyone suggests otherwise (such as God or laws). For some, this means I'll blow you up if I want to. For others, it's simply--hands off, this is my life and I'll live it how I see fit.

 

What I'm talking about applies to both Christian and non--to HUMANS.

[muffinmom]

(

The fact is that no mere human can prove beyond any and all shadow of a doubt that there is a God. Anyone who thinks they can is not being reasonable. However, the fact that it cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt does not make it an unreasonable assertion. But, I encourage the skeptics to use their own poison on themselves for a moment. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God. Try and try but you simply cannot do it, just as I cannot prove to you beyond all doubt that there is. Both sides can give *reasons* -- often strong and compelling reasons (though how compelling they are may depend on the sagacity of the listener) but if there is a God, only He can prove Himself.

 

I know you will hate to have this thought thrust at you again and again but you must ultimately come down the the fact that your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one because, like it or not, there are compelling reasons for both arguments, though obvioiusly I believe my reasons are more plausible than yours and you believe yours are more plausible than mine. Don't ask for 100% physical proof for the existence of God though unless you are prepared to give 100% infallible evidence that there is in fact no God.

 

.....

 

So really, in a world where there is no ultimate truth, we are every bit as right as you because there is no such thing as right or true. And you are every bit as wrong as us because there is no wrong. If you are comfortable with that arrangement, my hat's off to ya because it seems rather like sand under the waves to me and it doesn't square with reality (ie. that even you who believes in no ultimate right or wrong still deeply feels that some things truly are wrong).

 

:iagree:

[genie]

O.K....So why do you now? Are you "as moral" as you were as a Christian? Why or why not? Or, was there something different about "being a Christian" that informed your views about what is moral and what is not? OR, are you now simply engaging in what you still see as immorality? Which is it?

 

I ask these questions because they seem to address the heart of what this whole discussion is about.

 

I have to head out for the afternoon, but will answer this when I get back later today.

[Julie Herbster]

Nancypants, great post. I think these things bear repeating. (Have you been reading Mere Christianity or Surprised by Joy lately? :))

The fact is that no mere human can prove beyond any and all shadow of a doubt that there is a God....But, I encourage the skeptics to use their own poison on themselves for a moment. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God. Try and try but you simply cannot do it, just as I cannot prove to you beyond all doubt that there is. Both sides can give *reasons* -- often strong and compelling reasons (though how compelling they are may depend on the sagacity of the listener) but if there is a God, only He can prove Himself.

I would add, from the Christian perspective, that God has never had any obligation to humankind to reveal Himself. That He did (and does) is something for which I am literally eternally grateful.

 

Your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one

This is as true as can be. Of course, there are among us some honest agnostics, who are likely to remain so if they are unwilling to place their faith in anything, or base their ultimate beliefs on faith. If an agnostic is looking for rational proof either way, he/she won't find it. History and common sense bear this out.

 

Ultimately, if this world is all there is then nothing you or I or anyone does or doesn't do ultimately matters in the slightest

This is quite true. We can speak warmly and fuzzily of "affirming others" and "giving meaning," but why is that way any better than "getting everything I want at all cost?" Why do we feel obligated to "be nice" or "treat others the way we want to be treated?" Some have posited that it is an evolutionary development. If it is, how does it jive with "survival of the fittest" and the "struggle to survive?" If it is merely a way to survive, then it's not "moral" at all--it is, ironically, self-serving.

 

So really, in a world where there is no ultimate truth, we are every bit as right as you because there is no such thing as right or true. And you are every bit as wrong as us because there is no wrong.

Well said...yet both sides (including, incongruously, the ones who don't believe in absolute "right" and "wrong") argue that they are "right."

 

One side: I am right that human thoughts and actions have absolute moral value.

The other side: I am right that human thoughts and actions have no absolute moral value.

 

Hmmmm....The fact that we're even discussing this indicates that all of us believe "rightness" is inherently different than "wrongness," which is a logical impossibility in a world where thoughts and actions have no inherent "rightness" or "wrongness." Even the terms we use to argue reveal our true beliefs about this topic.

[Greta]

Not Phred, but may I attempt my own answers?

 

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God.

 

Can't be done. It's not falsifiable.

 

I know you will hate to have this thought thrust at you again and again but you must ultimately come down the the fact that your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one . . .

Now that's where you lost me. Faith means "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So with a lack of proof one way or the other, if I chose to believe in God that is an act of faith. If I chose not to, that is an absence of faith.

 

If what you're getting at is that both sides are just as passionate about their viewpoint, just as convinced that they're right, then obviously I agree. But it is a misuse of the word "faith" to say that people who have no faith have just as much faith as people who have faith! :D

 

Don't ask for 100% physical proof for the existence of God though unless you are prepared to give 100% infallible evidence that there is in fact no God.

These are not the same thing. How can I prove a negative? We just said above that the idea that God exists can never be falsified, but now you're saying the fact that it can't be falsified means it's true? That's a logical fallacy.

[Mekanamom]

Ultimately, if this world is all there is then nothing you or I or anyone does or doesn't do ultimately matters in the slightest and if the skeptics are right and the believers are wrong about the existence of God then we are all in the exact same predicament...

 

Gosh, I see it so oppositely... if this world is all there is, then every moment means so much more! If This Is It... Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. For ourselves and for those whose lives we touch. Everything we do matters. It ties in so intricately with right and wrong and how we treat each other.

 

Personally... I certainly don't feel like I've got it all figured out- I'm agnostic specifically because I don't believe I have all the answers. I don't think anyone else does either. ;)

 

But I wanted to share my thoughts on that one perspective... thank you for sharing yours too!!

[Jenny in Atl]

Gosh, I see it so oppositely... if this world is all there is, then every moment means so much more! If This Is It... Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. For ourselves and for those whose lives we touch. Everything we do matters. It ties in so intricately with right and wrong and how we treat each other.

 

Personally... I certainly don't feel like I've got it all figured out- I'm agnostic specifically because I don't believe I have all the answers. I don't think anyone else does either. ;)

 

But I wanted to share my thoughts on that one perspective... thank you for sharing yours too!!

 

I've passed out too much rep for the day... so I will say it here, nicely said!

[Greta]

Gosh, I see it so oppositely... if this world is all there is, then every moment means so much more! If This Is It... Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. For ourselves and for those whose lives we touch. Everything we do matters. It ties in so intricately with right and wrong and how we treat each other.

 

:iagree: I could write volumes on this, but I have spent too much time on this website today!!!

 

Personally... I certainly don't feel like I've got it all figured out- I'm agnostic specifically because I don't believe I have all the answers. I don't think anyone else does either. ;)

 

I saw a bumper sticker that said:

 

MILITANT AGNOSTIC

I don't know and you don't either!

 

:lol:

[Erica in PA]

For me, it is very straightforward and plain to see that actions which generate tremendous suffering are even more immoral than actions which generate less suffering.

 

 

 

So when I see all the horrors out there that are causing so much suffering, suffering beyond my ability to comprehend, and I see people getting upset about two people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, and calling that immoral, I just shake my head in disbelief. To me, that's a very serious case of not having priorities straight.

 

I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

 

Shouldn't the immoral actions which generate the most harm and suffering be our primary concern?

 

Okay, yes, I understand much better now where you are coming from as well! And I actually agree with you much more than I thought I might. I agree with you, that here on earth some actions are much worse than others. A earthquake which kills thousands of people is worse than a car accident which kills a few. Both are terrible tragedies which affect people's lives, but one has much more serious repercussions. Same with someone who kills someone, versus slapping someone's face: both are negative, but the one is much more vicious, and has a much more tragic outcome.

 

In the same way, yes, we could agree that (politics aside) the deaths of thousands in Iraq is more of a concern than the relationship of two gay men. It has more of an impact on the world, and a much more dire outcome. That is true. And Christians, like everyone else, should be more concerned with the really damaging things, I agree with you. Many of us probably are guilty of having out of whack priorities at times, I agree.

 

However, I think I should mention that this is not what Christians mean when they say that one sin is no worse than another. They are talking about a person's standing before God. Without getting into too much theology, this is actually a more theological question than a practical one. God is perfect and holy, and the Bible says that the person who breaks even one tiny part of His law is guilty of all. So in that way, we are all sinners before God, whether we lied, or murdered, or committed adultery, or any of the things that are contrary to God's character. Jesus said that if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, it's as though you've committed adultery. That doesn't mean that it has the same consequences or is as damaging to others, but it is enough to condemn you before God as a sinner. And that is why the Bible teaches that there is no one who can stand perfect before God, because every one of us has violated His law, whether it's in relatively big or in small ways. And that is why we all need Christ's death on our behalf, to pay for those sins, which is the basis of Christianity.

 

Maybe one reason why Christians tend to emphasize that all sins are equal in God's view, is that they want to counteract the popular notion that Christians actually use their religion as an excuse to condemn activities or people that they just personally find objectionable. For example, people often accuse Christians of being homophobic, and using their faith as an excuse to condemn homosexuals. So Christians want to point out that, no, they really don't see homosexuality as being worse than any others, that every sin is enough to condemn us before God. They are trying to say that they view themselves as just as sinful as a homosexual, or a murderer, or someone having premarital sex, as far as their standing before God goes. But maybe that approach isn't the best way, since from what you've said, it can be taken to mean that telling a little white lie is just as bad as killing a room full of people, which clearly doesn't ring true here on earth.

 

Thanks for the discussion!

 

Erica