Religous Debate: Does anyone know what the first commandment is?

[El_Machinae]

To determine what's "Absolute Right or Wrong" will eventually require trusting a person to tell you, or to decide yourself through reasoning.

I'm implying that any decision you make of your own accord is only ever based on your own wants and needs, not what is right or wrong.

True. However, there are many moral atheists, who can give sound reasons for their actions. Some of these actions are 'moral', but derived from non-theistic sources. So clearly, God cannot be the only way.

 

[ironduck]

No, no - you're making a mistake trying to pigeon-hole me there. It would be similar if I were to accuse you of telling me "what Christians think". Neither of us are guilty on these points.

If I were to "realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it." then I would not believe in Lord Jesus Christ as the True Way, hence I would not be a Christian. The way you have worded your sttement makes it look as though a Christian can agree with your statement, which they clearly cannot.

And yet there are christians who think this way. Which means you judge them as not being christians even though they say they are.

No it's not the same thing - you are making a decision on morals which have no absolute basis, ultimately any act can be considered okay on these grounds.

How do you know what I base my morals on? I can assure you that they are not relativistic the way you imply them to be.

A Christian basis such moral decisions on the Word of God, which whether you believe or not, is an absolute.
When I said your own desires, I'm implying that any decision you make of your own accord is only ever based on your own wants and needs, not what is right or wrong. This may turn out to be the same thing in most situtions if you are a nice person, but on principle I don't believe it holds water.

A christian interprets the word of god and tries their best to live up to it the way that makes sense to them.

As history would have it, most christians do not live up to the only two laws of god when it comes down to it.

The first says: love your god. The second says: love your neighbour. Not many christians or any other humans can live up to the second. One can try, but that is again only doing the best one can do by one self.

 

[JoeM]

OOC: This is the most long-lived thread in Off-Topic I know. It just rolls on and on and on..

I see you haven't been here long then! Check out Perfections threads...!

 

[JoeM]

And yet there are christians who think this way. Which means you judge them as not being christians even though they say they are.

If you want to see it that way, fine, however I am simply saying that a person who rejects God is not a Christian. You have worded you're statement in such a way to imply Christians can concede you point - clearly they cannot.

If you feel this is judgemental, so be it but I think you are mistaken.

A christian interprets the word of god and tries their best to live up to it the way that makes sense to them.

Of course. The point is that they base it on the Word of God.

 

[ironduck]

And what is the word of god? The bible? Which is wide open for interpretation.

 

[ironduck]

Btw, JoeM seems to imply that only religious people can have moral absolutes (through god). But a little knowledge of the history of philosophy would easily cast such objections aside. I suggest Kant's categorical imperative for starters.

 

[JoeM]

Well, if we can get back to point I was making I'd appreciate it - you stated your in your discussions that Christians "realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it.""

(The bit on morality is an aside, you are right in your summation of my opinion but I must point out that I am aware that others disagree.)

 

[ironduck]

The reasons christians must do what is right to them is that if they go against their own morals they ultimately go against their free will. Free will is more than just choosing 'yes' or 'no' to following a leader. Free will is analysing a situation and forming your own opinion and acting upon that. If people go against their free will they are no longer humans, they are robots.

A christian can try to understand what god considers moral and learn from that, but if a christian is told that god wants him to murder someone, that christian will have to weigh what is morally right the way they understand it, even if they are told god disagrees. One can only do what is right in one's own conscience if one is to act morally. If one is told that this is against the will of god one is no longer acting morally if one goes against one's own conscience.

The will of god is an interpretation by each individual christian. Each interpretation is different and surely rests on the mind and soul of that individual. One christian feels certain that homosexuality is a sin and therefore must not perform homosexual acts. Another feels certain that it is not a sin and therefore has no problem with homosexuality. Where do they find that answer? Ultimately in themselves. That's all they can do, isn't it? If every fiber in your being tells you that homosexuality is not a sin, it is love, how can a good and loving god be angry with you for being homosexual? All they can do on this earth is act in accordance with their conscience. If god wants people to act against their conscience then what do we have a conscience for?

Christians have faith that god is good. If he is, he won't disagree with them for following their conscience. If he does disagree, then so be it, perhaps he is not good. They have faith that he is good!

Do you see it now?

 

[JoeM]

The reasons christians must do what is right to them is that if they go against their own morals they ultimately go against their free will. Free will is more than just choosing 'yes' or 'no' to following a leader. Free will is analysing a situation and forming your own opinion and acting upon that. If people go against their free will they are no longer humans, they are robots.

This is neither in doubt or relavent.

A christian can try to understand what god considers moral and learn from that, but if a christian is told that god wants him to murder someone,

Strawman.

...that christian will have to weigh what is morally right the way they understand it, even if they are told god disagrees. One can only do what is right in one's own conscience if one is to act morally. If one is told that this is against the will of god one is no longer acting morally if one goes against one's own conscience.

Incorrect. You clearly only understand the issue from an atheists point of view.

The will of god is an interpretation by each individual christian. Each interpretation is different and surely rests on the mind and soul of that individual. One christian feels certain that homosexuality is a sin and therefore must not perform homosexual acts. Another feels certain that it is not a sin and therefore has no problem with homosexuality. Where do they find that answer?

Their feelings on the matter are irrelevant - God will judge them according to his will. That's the whole point of absolute morality.

If god wants people to act against their conscience then what do we have a conscience for?

Another strawman.

Christians have faith that god is good. If he is, he won't disagree with them for following their conscience. If he does disagree, then so be it, perhaps he is not good. They have faith that he is good!

Honestly, this just displays no understanding of Christianity or God.

Do you see it now?

Yet again I reiterate:

Your statement is "Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it."

This is a logical fallacy because it requires a Christian to reject God. A Christian is someone who accepts God.

It is not my opinion that matters, or any attempt at explanation that can help - your statement is plainly wrong.

Until you understand a Christians relationship with God , I fear that this fourth iteration will still not bring clarity to you.

 

[ironduck]

Sorry Joe, I don't have time for your games. I was not putting out strawmen or anything else, if you don't agree with me so be it; but you're just being arrogant now. Have fun playing your games with someone else.

 

[JoeM]

You have made a number of other perfectly valid statements which though I disagree with are indeed valid.

However, I'm afraid it has been frustrating - you have consistently avoided addressing my point that your statement is incorrect.

In any case I apologise for the sentiment conveyed.

 

[ironduck]

I have not avoided anything. It's very possible that we are talking past each other, that happens all the time. But I don't play dishonest games like some other people on these forums, I've never seen the point in that.

If I'm not addressing your points it's safe to assume I've simply not understood them.

Anyway, one thing is clear, christians differ a great deal and have very different concepts of what christianity is. I know of people who consider themselves christians, yet they do not believe in the miracles described in the NT. It's not for me to decide who is a christian, I just note that it spans a wide array of convictions.

 

[bigfatron]

Their feelings on the matter are irrelevant - God will judge them according to his will. That's the whole point of absolute morality.

Yet again I reiterate:

Your statement is "Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it."

This is a logical fallacy because it requires a Christian to reject God. A Christian is someone who accepts God.

It is not my opinion that matters, or any attempt at explanation that can help - your statement is plainly wrong.

Until you understand a Christians relationship with God , I fear that this fourth iteration will still not bring clarity to you.

But you interpret God's Word all the time, assuming the Bible represents God's Word - God requires you to kill every man in any town that does not surrender to your armies, commands you to take the women and children as slaves, to refuse admission to church of every descendant of an illegitimate child to the ninth generation, etc, etc - I could go on....


I assume that you don't do these things (hope not anyway!), but by applying your morality and conscience to these 'words of God' you interpret them as no longer legitimate.

The fact is you rationalise these 'commands' as being, in some way, not God's - either superceded, misinterpreted or you plain ignore them. Yet to rationalise away other 'commands' of God that you, personally, agree with is deemed by you to be rejecting God.

Essentially the Word of God is interpreted and selectively accepted and rejected all the time, by the original authors of the good book, the editors and translators of your Bible, your pastors and yourself. Claiming otherwise is simply self-deceiving, IMHO.

 

[JoeM]

I have not avoided anything. It's very possible that we are talking past each other, that happens all the time. But I don't play dishonest games like some other people on these forums, I've never seen the point in that.

If I'm not addressing your points it's safe to assume I've simply not understood them.

Anyway, one thing is clear, christians differ a great deal and have very different concepts of what christianity is. I know of people who consider themselves christians, yet they do not believe in the miracles described in the NT. It's not for me to decide who is a christian, I just note that it spans a wide array of convictions.

Well bft seems to have missed it as well - really it's a small point, but it has important ramifications.

Any given person may consider God to be wrong, however a Christian cannot - it is a contradiction in terms. Your statement can only make sense if you reword it as I suggest - a Christian can of course sin, but the principle is the same - God is right, God is always right, I may have chosen to do my own thing against God and sin, but God is right.

(Another point - The concept of God commanding you to do something immoral is not possible for a Christian. Belief in God is not simply accepting a god exists, but everything that comes with it)

 

[JoeM]

But you interpret God's Word all the time, assuming the Bible represents God's Word - God requires you to kill every man in any town that does not surrender to your armies, commands you to take the women and children as slaves, to refuse admission to church of every descendant of an illegitimate child to the ninth generation, etc, etc - I could go on....

I assume that you don't do these things (hope not anyway!), but by applying your morality and conscience to these 'words of God' you interpret them as no longer legitimate.

The fact is you rationalise these 'commands' as being, in some way, not God's - either superceded, misinterpreted or you plain ignore them. Yet to rationalise away other 'commands' of God that you, personally,

Yes.

...agree with is deemed by you to be rejecting God.

No, Ironduck has put forward that a Christian might consider their actions to be right and God's command to be wrong. This cannot be.

Essentially the Word of God is interpreted and selectively accepted and rejected all the time, by the original authors of the good book, the editors and translators of your Bible, your pastors and yourself. Claiming otherwise is simply self-deceiving, IMHO.

Yes.

 

[ironduck]

No, Ironduck has put forward that a Christian might consider their actions to be right and God's command to be wrong. This cannot be.

No, that wasn't what I said. I said you have faith that god is good. You may end up being wrong about whether god is good (or you have to massively decrease his knowledge and power). That's the problem.