Re: Worldview Survey

[mbell31]

I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.

I never said anything about multiple partners, but since you brought it up, I have no problem with it.  It is between the consenting adults involved.  You have no right to say what consenting adults do behind their closed doors, period.

If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

And there is nothing wrong with purely physical unions... they can sometimes be the best unions of all, either married or unmarried.

I've already stated that I don't believe such purely physical unions exist. I guess we could do an experiment on that later.

And it doesn't matter at all what the bible says about 2 becomming 1 flesh.  The bible is not the law of this, or any other, land.  Yes, there are scars leftover when two people break up, whether there was sex involved or not.  I broke up with many boyfriends LONG before I had sex at all... and each one was extremely painful.  If sex is not fun and pleasureable for you, may you're doing it wrong.  

It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

SO you are of the belief that everyone in the entire world should be Christian.  Do you accept that there are other belief systems in the world?

Yes I think everyone in the world who wants to accept the truth, live the best life possible, and spend eternity in heaven with God should be a Christ. I acknowledge and tolerate that other belief systems exist in the world they are simply incorrect.

Then there is nothing more to discuss.  You have closed your mind to anything that doesn't pertain to Christianity and that's all there is to it, in your mind.  There is nothing I can say that will sway you even a TINY bit, no matter how rational and simple it may be.  I'm an atheist and I accept that you are Christian, that my neighbors are Mormon, that my Mom is Catholic, that a good friend of my son's is Jewish, and that my friends in Iowa are Muslim.  See, it's a big beautiful world full of a big mix of people of all colors and creeds.  If we were all the same, it would be a very VERY sad world.  

And if you think other belief systems are incorrect and you'd obviously lobby to change them, then you are not tolerant, my friend.

I'm not close minded. I've researched all the other religions and liked the promises of some Eastern religions in regards to life peace through meditation, etc. I simply found that none of them are a faith based religion that offers me salvation through grace. I would gladly switch religions if someone proved Christianity to be false.

What you are describing is the "new tolerance".

Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

The God depicted in the Old Testament is just, righteous, and loving. He is the same God who offered Himself to save us from hell. I have compassion for people, and I make mistakes all the time. The point is humanity underwent a fall (as recorded in Genesis) and because of our blatant immorality we deserve eternal punishment. God is perfect, just, and righteous. It would not be fair for Him to say, "Oh well, it's okay that all of these people kill each other, rape each other, kill babies, etc.". Would you like it if someone killed your mother, father, sister, daughter and they were just allowed to go free and live in peace with a smile on their face? Would that be okay with you? We all deserve hell, myself included. God was so gracious he offered us a way out by sending His only unique son so that anyone who believes in Him will be given eternal life. He could have just left us out to dry. Gladly toss people into hell? God wants no one to go to hell. However, out of His love, He lets us decide. He is not going to force us to believe in Him. That wouldn't make any sense. Maybe some "Christians" don't have the compassion you do but I think all true Christians have compassion for others who make mistakes. Christians want nothing more than for people to accept God and go to heaven and they still struggle with sin themselves and hope you have compassion for them too.

Read your bible again.  The God depicted in the Old Testament is a horrible and manipulative beast.  He asked a man to kill his own son in order to prove his worth.  He destroyed an entire city (more than one) because he wasn't happy with the people.  Heck, he destroyed all of humanity and animal life with a supposed flood!!  All because we were "immoral"?  Wow, whatta guy.  He so willingly destroys his creations whenever he feels like it.

Along those same lines, tell me this... we are WAY more immoral now that we EVER were back then, when he was killing everyone right and left.  Why doesn't he step in now and do it again?  Wait... he promised it wouldn't, right?  Convenient.

God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

So, are you admitting God exists?  

No, not at all... where did you get that?   I'm trying very hard to not be snide... it's hard when you ask questions like this, though.

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

An Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason, and classical argumentation in a modern (or should I say post-modern setting). We are doing this in the hope of convincing others to adopt Christianity. This is taught in college because I go to a Christian University that is interested in preparing people to spread Christianity (to save people's souls) through the accurate representation of a true faith that can be effectively defended through reason.

AAAAHhhhhhh... there it is.  You're here to preach to us via this survey in order to save our souls.  There is no way you can use logic and reason to prove that the bible and god are real.  It cannot be done.  You can defend your personal belief in god... but religion as a whole cannot.  Religion, and the process of saving people's souls, is a business... and you've been conned into becoming an unpaid salesperson for them.  Good luck with that.

No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

[mbell31]

, other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship? Where is it written that it isn't besides books written by men? I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.
.

I know, for a fact that sex can be enjoyed outside of marriage. Having had sex with several partners, both inside and outside of serious relationships, I can attest to the fact I have as much soul as I ever had.The sex was fun, and when it was over it was over, without me being reduced to a gibbering mess.  This is authortative truth, I have experience in the field (bed), and this is a first hand account.

You seem to know a lot about sex, what with the deep imaterial level, not a purley physical union and all, how many people have you had sex with? I am guessing dozens? Or have you measured these things in a quantifiable and repeatable way? It's kind of interesting, because some of the sex I have had was not even emotional, just fun had between two strangers with mutual interest. Are you going to say that my personal experience is some way wrong? Have I been tricked by the devil into beleiving i am fine, when really, deep down I have lost my soul ?

As for the breakup part, people are upset when they breakup for a number of reasons, and people can still be just as upset during a breakup even if they never had sex. The sex is not what causes the hurt of a breakup, it is losing the other person, the emtotional connections and everything else, the sex is not the only thing causing an emotional bond with each other.

Also, lol curio, and secondary lols

An Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason,

You sir, have a keen wit, I appreciate this in you, if not your close minded and biggoted views.

I can't argue with your personal experience but your personal experience is not authoritative truth.

Like I said above I am a virgin and will remain so until married. I heard an eastern pantheistic monk describe sex as the coming together of two "karmas". I havn't done the research myself but I would bet studies and data have shown that sex has more than simply a physical impact. I will look to find one and post it here.

Yes, I am going to say that what you did was wrong. I am not sure if the devil has tricked you but I wouldn't doubt it. You don't know the truth.

I agree, emotional bonds cause pain as well, but I also said they aren't the only bonds that form.

I am not close minded or a bigot, thank you.

I am open to all possibilities. I will disown Christianity if you prove it to be false.

Like I said in a previous post, I am not being intolerant (bigot:a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.). I am tolerant of everyone: that means I "tolerate". This word (look it up) means to put up with someone despite the fact that you disagree with it.

Tolerance does not mean you have to agree with everyone. That is the modern world's fantasy edition. Please don't buy into it.

Besides all of this external talk on marriage, we need to get to the root here. In my next post I will post a link to another thread where I challenge you to address the topic of God's existence a little closer.

[mbell31]

When I say holy I simply mean to be less sinful and more like the perfect God who is righteous in character.

God killed an awful lot of people in the Bible. He usually did so because he deemed the people sinful. You'd not kill a sinner. What I'm assuming you see as righteousness in the character of god would be a breach of the sixth commandment if you decided to take on that roll. As such, you shouldn't seek to emulate the character of god unless you want to face legal and moral consequences. Sorry to use god killing as an example, but it was the first that came to mind. You can be like Jesus, but not god the father.

The goal of the Christian life is to depart from the ways of the sinful world and the practices we naturally want to engage in. I want to be holy like God because he wants me to be transformed into a more holy person. I also want to reflect His image and effectively spread His message. I do not want to be exalted and worshiped. The further I progress as a Christian the more I realize how unholy I am and I will never reach any level of holiness worthy of exultation or worship. I am just a fallen human. Any holiness I ever have is just a gift from God and His image being displayed in me.

You seek to be pious by following as closely as possible the teachings in the Bible.


As for sex being immoral outside of marriage, it is for some people and not for others. Sure, a Christian might believe that morality is objective and written in stone (literally), but it's not. I have morality without religion, and my morality differs from that of religious people, but it is morality just the same. When I have sexâ€"and I really, really doâ€"so long as it's done in a honest relationship with a woman I have genuine feelings for and we both take steps in protecting ourselves, there's nothing inherently damaging about what we do. It adds to the flavor of life, and this is a flavor I really don't want to miss. I'd never suggest that Christians violate their personal morality and have sex outside of marriage, though they do and at higher rates than nonreligious people. You're welcome to your morality and as long as it doesn't hurt other people, I'm glad you're happy.

God's actions in the Old Testament are just, based on his righteous character. I can be righteous like Him, but it wouldn't be just for me to kill people because I am not their perfect creator who warned them not to turn away from Him or there would be consequences.

You can be like Jesus, but not god the father.

I'm glad we both agree in the existence of Jesus and God the Father.

It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

[curiosityandthecat]

I'm glad we both agree in the existence of Jesus and God the Father.

Don't get ahead of yourself. If he'd said "You can be like Luke Skywalker but not like Darth Vader" would you assume he actually believed they existed?

Remember: by-and-large we reference Jesus, God, et. al. as characters in mythology. On some occasions we will refer to the "historical" Jesus. If, however, an atheist says "God" or "Jesus" without qualification, they are referring to a character in a book, nothing more.

[Hitsumei]

It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

Can you give an example of a single moral absolute? You need to either be able to prove deductively that it is a moral absolute, or everyone on earth must agree to it in every situation and circumstance.

[SSY]

Just because everyone agrees with it does not make it a moral absolute either. What if there was only one person on earth?

Also, new smiley   , it looks like someone rubbing a lamp to me.

[mbell31]

It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

Can you give an example of a single moral absolute? You need to either be able to prove deductively that it is a moral absolute, or everyone on earth must agree to it in every situation and circumstance.

Sure, torturing babies for fun is wrong.

Personally, I don't know how to prove that is a moral absolute deductively but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

"Absolutists hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self-evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables"- Francis Beckwith, Relativism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 29.

Like the person above said, everyone's thoughts on morality don't determine the truth. They exist irrespective of us.

The problem with moral relativity is:

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can't improve their morality.
6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

check out this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3189

[VanReal]

I know, for a fact that sex can be enjoyed outside of marriage. Having had sex with several partners, both inside and outside of serious relationships, I can attest to the fact I have as much soul as I ever had.The sex was fun, and when it was over it was over, without me being reduced to a gibbering mess.  This is authortative truth, I have experience in the field (bed), and this is a first hand account.

[AlP]

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.

They can. It is possible. There's nothing to stop them.

2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.

They can for the same reason. Although there is no problem of evil.

3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.

Can.

4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.

Ditto.

5. Relativists can't improve their morality.

There is no morality but relativists can improve according to whatever criteria they choose.

6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.

I might agree with you on this one. I have to think about it. I couldn't hold a meaningful moral discussion. I'm a nihilist.

7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

They can promote anything they want.

[VanReal]

It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

There is no basis in objective truth or objective morality.  Morals are simply social contracts that are derived through living in society.  A recluse living in a cave would have no reason to ponder nor posess morals, objective or subjective, so it's obvious that morals are created through social interaction with one another in order to maintain some semblence of civility and realtive harmony.

[mbell31]

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.

They can. It is possible. There's nothing to stop them.

2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.

They can for the same reason. Although there is no problem of evil.

3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.

Can.

4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.

Ditto.

5. Relativists can't improve their morality.

There is no morality but relativists can improve according to whatever criteria they choose.

6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.

I might agree with you on this one. I have to think about it. I couldn't hold a meaningful moral discussion. I'm a nihilist.

7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

They can promote anything they want.

My question to all of your answers is "how"? "How" can someone who doesn't believe a distinct right and wrong exist say someone is wrong? How can someone who doesn't even define evil complain about it? etc, etc, etc.

[mbell31]

It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

There is no basis in objective truth or objective morality.  Morals are simply social contracts that are derived through living in society.  A recluse living in a cave would have no reason to ponder nor posess morals, objective or subjective, so it's obvious that morals are created through social interaction with one another in order to maintain some semblence of civility and realtive harmony.

I agree morals are related to our involvement with other people. I don't think people have ever lived in isolation. Can you give me an example? I disagree completely that moral have no basis in objective truth or objective morality. How do you explain the "conscience"? Are you telling me you never felt bed for doing anything in your life?

[Hitsumei]

Just because everyone agrees with it does not make it a moral absolute either. What if there was only one person on earth?

Also, new smiley   , it looks like someone rubbing a lamp to me.

I would take it as at least strong evidence.

[AlP]

My question to all of your answers is "how"? "How" can someone who doesn't believe a distinct right and wrong exist say someone is wrong? How can someone who doesn't even define evil complain about it? etc, etc, etc.

How is easy. There is nothing to prevent such a person from expressing that opinion. It is possible. Though I think morality, right and wrong do not exist and are bullshit and personally I wouldn't argue in those terms.

[Hitsumei]

Sure, torturing babies for fun is wrong.

This qualifies a situation, so is not an absolute. Absolutes are true in all situations and circumstances.

Personally, I don't know how to prove that is a moral absolute deductively but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

No, it doesn't mean that it isn't, it just means that you can give no reason to suppose that it is.

"Absolutists hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self-evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables"- Francis Beckwith, Relativism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 29.

Mathematical truths are hardly intuitive, and they can be proved. Argument by analogy are always quite weak, they scream that you can't make the point without changing the subject.

Like the person above said, everyone's thoughts on morality don't determine the truth. They exist irrespective of us.

I don't think he said that.

The problem with moral relativity is:

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can't improve their morality.
6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

The only other position is not moral relativity, there is also moral subjectivism, and moral objectivism. Moral relativists can't do any of those things with any kind of authority, or backing, but they can still do them. They also can argue their points from an emotional position, and appeal to people on an emotional level, as opposed to a rational one. If you cannot offer a rational justification for your views, then you're doing no different.

It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions.

I'm not a moral relativist, I'm a moral subjectivists. I think that morality is subjective, and the product of agents, but I think that it is reliant on objective factors, such as social traits, environmental factors, empathy, compassion, and often utility.

If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on?

If moral subjectivism is correct, as I suggest, then through behavioural, and evolutionary sciences it can be discovered (and is being discovered) what it evolved for, the function that it served in our species survival, and from this we can say what would be going along with this, or going against it. This still suffers from some problems, for instance the lack of a categorical imperative, and the problems with inferring oughts from how things are.

Though I dare say that it is vastly more objective and superior to just saying that you can divine absolute moral truths with your intuition, yet being unable to demonstrate them rationally, or evidentially.

How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

Evil is bad by definition. Depends on what you mean by "exists", if you mean that it is a real substantive entity that occupies reality independent of thought or action, then I don't think that it does. If you mean that it is a perception, or evaluation of things as sufficiently negative in a moral context, then I think it exists.

Let me ask you: what is the benefit of being a moral absolutist in a moral discussion if you cannot identify, or demonstrate a single moral absolute? What greater authority does your statements have than a moral relativists, beyond being astronomically less tentative?