Other What's your religion?

[Tedronai]

Well, this appears to be winding down but if I can flog a dying horse for a few more furlongs I'd like to discuss the concept of evil.


the conversation moved on quite a bit since I last posted but someone mentioned how people who commit evil acts aren't good Christians. I believe paedophilia was the example and the phrase used was "they're full of shut if they claim to be Christian". However as grey said they may well disagree. Their actions might well fall in line with their faith however reprehensible it appears to us.


I personally don't believe evil or indeed good exists as absolutes, which is another reason I don't believe in deities, especially those who sit as an embodiment of one of those states at one end or another of the spectrum.


Rather I believe that goodness and evilness are entirely context driven and change with time as humanity's attitude changes. To return once more to the previously raised example of paedophilia. Today it is perverse but at one time in human history it was perfectly acceptable by the society of the day, ancient Greece I believe.


the same could be said (for different reasons) of the inquisition, the crusaders and many more. These groups tortured or slaughtered heathens and were applauded, held up as the models of Christianity but if either act was carried out today it would be condemned. How could this be if an immutable, unchanging entity was the one decreeing what was good or evil?


This is quite aside from the idea that the same act can be seen differently from people of a different perspective. To take a recent example, we in the west see the actions of Isis, the taliban, etc as acts of terrorism, but some see them as freedom fighters. Good and evil can be the difference of which side of the coin you're seeing.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Well, this appears to be winding down but if I can flog a dying horse for a few more furlongs I'd like to discuss the concept of evil.


the conversation moved on quite a bit since I last posted but someone mentioned how people who commit evil acts aren't good Christians. I believe paedophilia was the example and the phrase used was "they're full of shut if they claim to be Christian". However as grey said they may well disagree. Their actions might well fall in line with their faith however reprehensible it appears to us.


I personally don't believe evil or indeed good exists as absolutes, which is another reason I don't believe in deities, especially those who sit as an embodiment of one of those states at one end or another of the spectrum.


Rather I believe that goodness and evilness are entirely context driven and change with time as humanity's attitude changes. To return once more to the previously raised example of paedophilia. Today it is perverse but at one time in human history it was perfectly acceptable by the society of the day, ancient Greece I believe.


the same could be said (for different reasons) of the inquisition, the crusaders and many more. These groups tortured or slaughtered heathens and were applauded, held up as the models of Christianity but if either act was carried out today it would be condemned. How could this be if an immutable, unchanging entity was the one decreeing what was good or evil?


This is quite aside from the idea that the same act can be seen differently from people of a different perspective. To take a recent example, we in the west see the actions of Isis, the taliban, etc as acts of terrorism, but some see them as freedom fighters. Good and evil can be the difference of which side of the coin you're seeing.

Moral relativism is a joke. It has the ability to justify the most bizarre and diabolical acts.


I believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

 

[Tedronai]

Absolute truth, yes. This would be unimpassioned, clinical fact. Whether a human could ever comprehend it being an emotional creature is doubtful.


Though to bring it back to my original point truth by its very nature can be neither good nor evil since it is coloured by the changing spectrum of human emotion and therefore not absolute nor capable of being so in my opinion.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Absolute truth, yes. This would be unimpassioned, clinical fact. Whether a human could ever comprehend it being an emotional creature is doubtful. Truth by its very nature can therefore neither good nor evil though.

I think it can be comprehended. The Ten Commandments would be a perfect example. Perfect message, perfect understandring. Clear as water.


There is no such thing as Beyond Good and Evil or God is Dead. Nietsche was a lunatic.


Just my opinion though.

 

[Adorable Monster]

I am a Christian as well. Happy to call myself a part of God's Team.

 

[Zombocalypse]

I am a Christian as well. Happy to call myself a part of God's Team.

Awesome. I encourage you to spread the Gospel of Christ.

 

[Tedronai]

I respectfully disagree, I don't see the commandments as a universal truth but even if i were to concede they were for the sake of the argument, they are certainly not without interpretation and have been the subject of discussion if not argument over the years.


To pick just a few: Thou shall not kill. How does this reconcile with self defence? The thousands of people the inquisitors and crusaders as previously mentioned killed in His name? The commandments of God himself to slay heathens as described many times in the old testament? Either thou shall not kill or thou shall, which is it?


Thou shalt honour thy mother and father? Should you still honour them even if they are physically, emotionally or psychologically abusive?


Even if God exists, which I don't believe but but recognise it is as unfounded a stance as faith is, he/she/it might be perfect, but the commandments were scribed, translated and taught my flawed humans making them just as flawed and therefore not absolute.

 

[yaint]

it would be nice to have a proper religion


but alas, i'm just one of those good old indecisive fucks. atheist? pffff.  theist? pffffffff. one or the other, never stays the same for long. and all the time i don't spend pondering if there is a higher entity, i'm just your everyday solipsist. fantastic for deep conversation, not so much fun at parties.

 

[Zombocalypse]

I respectfully disagree, I don't see the commandments as a universal truth but even if i were to concede they were for the sake of the argument, they are certainly not without interpretation and have been the subject of discussion if not argument over the years.


To pick just a few: Thou shall not kill. How does this reconcile with self defence? The thousands of people the inquisitors and crusaders as previously mentioned killed in His name? The commandments of God himself to slay heathens as described many times in the old testament? Either thou shall not kill or thou shall, which is it?


Thou shalt honour thy mother and father? Should you still honour them even if they are physically, emotionally or psychologically abusive?


Even if God exists, which I don't believe but but recognise it is as unfounded a stance as faith is, he/she/it might be perfect, but the commandments were scribed, translated and taught my flawed humans making them just as flawed and therefore not absolute.

Good point. I liked your response.


Thanks.

 

[Zombocalypse]

it would be nice to have a proper religion


but alas, i'm just one of those good old indecisive fucks. atheist? pffff.  theist? pffffffff. one or the other, never stays the same for long. and all the time i don't spend pondering if there is a higher entity, i'm just your everyday solipsist. fantastic for deep conversation, not so much fun at parties.

Things would be easier and everything would make perfect sense if you put your faith in Christ.


Search for the truth and you will find it.

 

[Tedronai]

Good point. I liked your response.


Thanks.

Any thoughts? You welcomed debate and I asked a question, not to be awkward but because I'm curious how someone with faith reconciles such inconsistencies.

 

[Wixard]

To pick just a few: Thou shall not kill. How does this reconcile with self defence? The thousands of people the inquisitors and crusaders as previously mentioned killed in His name? The commandments of God himself to slay heathens as described many times in the old testament? Either thou shall not kill or thou shall, which is it?


Thou shalt honour thy mother and father? Should you still honour them even if they are physically, emotionally or psychologically abusive?

Thou shalt not murder is a more accurate interpretation of that command


Probably yes to the second one. 'Honor' doesn't mean to just go along with whatever evils they do, although you could make the argument that such behavior is forfeiture of parental rights anyway.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Any thoughts? You welcomed debate and I asked a question, not to be awkward but because I'm curious how someone with faith reconciles such inconsistencies.

I'm a conservative Christian. I believe a lot of things literally in the Bible, like the creation of the earth in 6 days and the giants that existed in Abraham's time (It's in the Bible and I can prove it.). My stance with the whole thing is that the 10 commandments are absolute. Which means murder due to self-defense is a legitimate sin or crime. Jesus said turn the other cheek.


To me, the Bible is straightforward, simple, and truthful.

 

[Wixard]

I'm a conservative Christian. I believe a lot of things literally in the Bible, like the creation of the earth in 6 days and the giants that existed in Abraham's time (It's in the Bible and I can prove it.). My stance with the whole thing is that the 10 commandments are absolute. Which means murder due to self-defense is a legitimate sin or crime. Jesus said turn the other cheek.


To me, the Bible is straightforward, simple, and truthful.

You can't actually murder in self defense. You can kill, but you can't murder. Murder is unjustified killing. The Bible clearly indicates that there are times when killing is justified.

 

[Tedronai]

Thou shalt not murder is a more accurate interpretation of that command

...which kind of proves my point, though I know it wasn't yourself who claimed it, about the commandments not being a perfect message or absolute truth since they require interpretation.


I realise I'm veering dangerously close to arguing so I'm not going to press the point any further unless others are willing to continue. Ultimately I'm a writer and part of that is trying to understand the minds of people other than myself so I can write believable characters who aren't facsimile of myself. I am genuinely interested to know how people with faith reconcile these inconsistencies rather than looking to convert people to my way of thinking.

 

[Zombocalypse]

You can't actually murder in self defense. You can kill, but you can't murder. Murder is unjustified killing. The Bible clearly indicates that there are times when killing is justified.

Huh?????


Killing and murdering are NOT the same thing??? Since when did this fact come to fruition???

 

[Idea]

I'm a conservative Christian. I believe a lot of things literally in the Bible, like the creation of the earth in 6 days and the giants that existed in Abraham's time (It's in the Bible and I can prove it.). My stance with the whole thing is that the 10 commandments are absolute. Which means murder due to self-defense is a legitimate sin or crime. Jesus said turn the other cheek.


To me, the Bible is straightforward, simple, and truthful.

You do know the Pope literally said that those things shouldn't be interpreted literally right?

 

[Zombocalypse]

You do know the Pope literally said that those things shouldn't be interpreted literally right?

I don't consider the pope to be a legitimate authority in all things holy.

 

[Wixard]

Huh?????


Killing and murdering are NOT the same??? Since when did this fact come to fruition???

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder?s=t


Every definition related to killing specifies that it's a certain type of killing

 

[Idea]

I don't consider the pope to be a legitimate authority in all things holy.

....You a Roman catholic (forgive íf I´m mistaken)... that doesn´t consider the Pope a legitimate authority in all things holy...

 

[Zombocalypse]

....You a Roman catholic (forgive íf I´m mistaken)... that doesn´t consider the Pope a legitimate authority in all things holy...

I'm a Christian. I never said I was Catholic. But it's okay.


I don't classify myself as anything more than a generic, boring Christian. lol

 

[High Moon]

I'm a Christian. I never said I was Catholic. But it's okay.


I don't classify myself as anything more than a generic, boring Christian. lol

That is my way of look to Religion too!


Only with Islam replacing Christianity,All the divisions are...well plain uneeded.

 

[Idea]

Well, this appears to be winding down but if I can flog a dying horse for a few more furlongs I'd like to discuss the concept of evil.


the conversation moved on quite a bit since I last posted but someone mentioned how people who commit evil acts aren't good Christians. I believe paedophilia was the example and the phrase used was "they're full of shut if they claim to be Christian". However as grey said they may well disagree. Their actions might well fall in line with their faith however reprehensible it appears to us.


I personally don't believe evil or indeed good exists as absolutes, which is another reason I don't believe in deities, especially those who sit as an embodiment of one of those states at one end or another of the spectrum.


Rather I believe that goodness and evilness are entirely context driven and change with time as humanity's attitude changes. To return once more to the previously raised example of paedophilia. Today it is perverse but at one time in human history it was perfectly acceptable by the society of the day, ancient Greece I believe.


the same could be said (for different reasons) of the inquisition, the crusaders and many more. These groups tortured or slaughtered heathens and were applauded, held up as the models of Christianity but if either act was carried out today it would be condemned. How could this be if an immutable, unchanging entity was the one decreeing what was good or evil?


This is quite aside from the idea that the same act can be seen differently from people of a different perspective. To take a recent example, we in the west see the actions of Isis, the taliban, etc as acts of terrorism, but some see them as freedom fighters. Good and evil can be the difference of which side of the coin you're seeing.

Morality is an issue that can truly get tricky. Pretty much like everything else where saying "it´s your opinion" has gained a legitimate position in an argument. However, the idea of subjective values is self-defeating. One, because it´s logically inconsistent as it breaks a fundamental rule ("nothing can be two things at the same time under the same aspect") and two, because if values are subjective, then so are the values of subjectivism itself- in other words, whether things depend on opinion would depend on opinion, which is absurd.


But leaving aside the self-defeating and the fact that any evidence that supports it is circunstancial (you have to assume the conclusion before those premises support it in any way), another reason why I reject the notion that reality and it´s values are anything other than objective, is the fact that we can classify them using an unbiased form of connection: dependence.


The prime example of this, is considering the value "life" against the value "freedom". If you ask people directly about this, you will get divided opinions about which is more important, depending on, as you said, the emotions of a person (and more of course, like experiences etc...). However , if you look at it more closely, you will realize you cannot isolate freedom from life. Nomatter how you put it- to have choice, you must have life. Without life there is no choice which means there is no freedom.


This is hardly the only relation of dependence, and I doubt that spending a lifetime searching for these dependencies would be enough to find them all consistently- however, it comes to show there IS an objective way to classify things as good or bad: violate a more important value for a less important one and that is bad. Undeniably so, if a person is giving it a second´s thought.


Sometimes, things will NOT be directly correlated. For that reason alone, there are few absolutes. In many circumstances, the circumstances themselves should dictate what is good or bad- but that is ONLY in case the value(s) at hand are not, in that specific case, subordinated , dependent upon the other(s).

I'm a Christian. I never said I was Catholic. But it's okay.


I don't classify myself as anything more than a generic, boring Christian. lol

Oh I see. Ok then.

 

[Tedronai]

Ok, a lot in there and i won't pretend to understand it all but on the points I do:


Your opinion is just that, I don't think that's ever a valid argument. Everyone is entitled to theirs but something being mine or your opinion is not a winning argument.


You say that nothing can be two things simultaneously but quantum physics is challenging this notion. Similarly, stating a hypothesis and setting out to prove it is a valid scientific method so long as you don't ignore any evidence that disproves that theory. That said humans are prone to do just that, it's called confirmation bias.


forgive my ignorance, but there have been so many people here that I've lost track. However if you are pro faith, doesn't claiming life has no freedom run counter to god allegedly giving us free will?

 

[Idea]

Ok, a lot in there and i won't pretend to understand it all but on the points I do:


Your opinion is just that, I don't think that's ever a valid argument. Everyone is entitled to theirs but something being mine or your opinion is not a winning argument.


You say that nothing can be two things simultaneously but quantum physics is challenging this notion. Similarly, stating a hypothesis and setting out to prove it is a valid scientific method so long as you don't ignore any evidence that disproves that theory. That said humans are prone to do just that, it's called confirmation bias.


forgive my ignorance, but there have been so many people here that I've lost track. However if you are pro faith, doesn't claiming life has no freedom run counter to god allegedly giving us free will?

I will go over this in points to perhaps help clarify some things:


1. Yes, that specific system is my opinion- however, what I mentioned about it is that it relies on no factors which can be reasonably questioned. Like question that 1+1=2, it´s possible to question that type of connection but as far as at least I have found so far, one cannot conceptually refute that that system is anything other than objective. And being objective, even if perchance it wasn´t the absolute defining system over there being a slightly better one, even then a single case of objectivity is enough to dismiss the idea that these things are subjective at all.


2.Quantum physics does not challenge this notion. At best, it says something that can classified as the same thing, can be in two different places. Not only is this not really confirmed (though I admit maths are a perfectly valid argument, and that this doesn´t need to be observed to be a valid conclusion), but the depth of the issue was covered by the shock value: With all the notions with have about gravity, magnetism and other forces that relate matter and energy even if apart, there is 0 confirmation that "thing in two places" isn´t two or even more different things just acting according to a pattern of behavior. In other words, the remote possibility that something may maybe challenge a basic notion inherent to the immutable rules of the thought process does not make it reasonable to put it to question  or if does, the rule comes out on top- by quite the margin.


3.Setting out to prove a hypothesis is a valid way of going about things indeed- what isn´t is assuming the hypothesis is true BEFORE examining the evidence. All forms of subjectivism derive from one basic notion (and then expand)- that we have different opinions on certain matters. This is a fact. However, unless you assume subjectivism nothing about this indicates in any way shape or form that your opinion has any effect on the way things are. Subjectivism is unjustifiable.


4.I don´t claim life has no freedom- I claim does not require freedom to continue, whereas freedom requires life. I can be alive and not free, but I cannot be free and dead.


Do keep in mind- the after life is a form of life- more important even than our current one, given it is eternal. However, nobody is obliged to believe in eternal life to understand that in the absence of life, there is no choice, and there being no choice, there is no freedom. Simple as that.


When God gave us freedom, according to my beliefs, he didn´t do it without giving us life, and for that reason, it is not incompatible with my claims or system.