Agreeing with morality is one thing. Being persuaded because it comes from an almighty being that will damn you to eternal punishment is another.
Why are Christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god? Because it isn’t their morality, it isn’t how moral judgments occur. It has also changed, there’s a claim that it’s objective because it comes from an all knowing being, but then when it comes down to it, the morality is tossed aside for other greater morality that the “Christian’s” perceive, such as not condoning slavery anymore, even finding it morally wrong. Which contradicts their faith, contradicts the basis of some of the moral system they agree to. Yet they in turn, may take the morality such as keeping holy the sabbath as good, simply because God says so.
Christians are devout followers, how can anybody make a morality “theirs”. That doesn’t make sense. To practice a morality, is to make it yours, is to own it. One of the big tenets of Christianity are to practice what you preach, expressed by their Lord in flesh form, Christ. Christianity, literally, is the practice of emulating their Lord’s superior, and “perfect” to them, moral behaviors.
God is meant to be the final arbiter and retribution of godliness, good and evil, and sin. In Christianity it is unjust and immoral to presume that humans can “equal” their god’s judgement.
So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps. But if they believe in values because they got them from someone else, the values themselves are not correct?
Most people, most Christians, will not simply say that it good because God says so or it is bad or evil because God says so. They also will tend to explain why, in down to earth, humans terms. They may be wrong or write, but while it may happen on occasion, most Christians will say that their values and God’s values match and this is implicit in the way they argue against abortion. They do not just say that God says so. They say because the fetus has a soul, as one example amongst many. They will call it a baby and emotionally explain why they want to protect babies. They will refer to bad feelings in almost mothers who aborted. (note, I am not anti-abortion, I am simply saying what I encounter in discussions with Christians. They almost always will explain in practical terms why something is good. IOW they will show that their values and God’s match. Yes, it does happen that Christians will say ‘Because God said so.’ Period, end of discussion. But I find this very rare.
I imagine you now saying that they say that a fetus has a soul because it is in the Bible. But this makes it seem like there is some, for the modern secular person, clear development stage for the fetus to baby, where they think, now we must consider it a person. It is possible to believe that once the life has started it is a person AND to find this coincides with the Bible. Or, in the reverse order, one is exposed to the Bible and then decide that this makes sense, about the baby. Of course in real life deciding oneself and learning morals from others are not neat packets. My point is that you are writing as if it is mutually exclusive. One can either have one’s own values or follow some version of God’s values. And that is simply not the case.
Just as you may, for example, end up with many values your parents had, conscously or not. They can be both theirs and yours.
And with your 20 years of talking to Christians I cannot understand how you did not notice that they JUSTIFY God’s moral laws all the time. They explain why they are good rules. They do this all the time. They do it here. Yet if someone who did not have contact with them read your posts it would be as if all they answer is with an appeal to authority. This is not grounded in reality.
Let me ask you, is this a belief on your part or something you know. Do you know that they do not share the values of their God or is it a belief on your part? Or is it a fairly well justified belief but not knowledge? Or is it a not so well justified but potentially correct belief?
Moreno, it depends on the moral situation and judgement. Most people have values that coincide with Christian values already, such as Killing or murder is bad, and stealing is bad, basic stuff. Of course that stuff is justified reasonably, by Christians, by not appealing to authority. Its when you get to the Bibles questionable morality, in which you’ll find these answers that apply to “because God said so”. This is not justified, and it can’t be justified because they don’t understand the morality or values of the moral situation. I’m not saying its all an appeal to authority, I don’t think that would be the case by my OP - as it specifically explains general Christian morality has become separated from this “objective Christian morality” over time. Today, people don’t kill adulterers regardless of what the Bible says. 400 years ago, that was a different story, because of what the Bible says.
By understanding and agreeing with a morale system, it becomes their moral system. You don’t necessarily need to practice a morality to make it your morality, remember, morality is a judgment of what is good or bad morally, and often we can go against even what we think is good or bad, morally. That goes for everyone, whether you’re Christian or not. While God is meant to be the final arbiter of good/evil, in Christianity morality has changed quite a bit the past 2,000 years as I’ve already pointed out. That is why this “objective” morality can be seen to not really hold water. If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the “holy spirit” as is “gifted” to us from “God” to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus’ visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of “God’s”. Of course, that really isn’t the case. We used to punish harshly, as might seem worthy for God, for any broken morality such as adultery. After all, God is going to punish much harsher in the afterlife, so its “best” to have a deterrent now, under guidance of this “holy spirit”.
Objective does not mean unchangeable. Since the world changes continuously, objective means being in synch with these changes.
That is demonstrated by evolution … changes in the environment determine which animals and plants survive, which produces changes in the characteristics of the animals.
Which means, at root, it is a complaint about how (his charactiture of) religious people act, and not an actual criticism of any value system. No surprise there. There’s not going to be any actual discussion of ethical systems in this thread, just a criticism of a stereotype of religious people, combined with an insistence that the stereotype applies enough to be relevant.
As civilization matures, judgements change because a mature mind can understand more complex reasoning. The morality adapts to the educational level and ability of the people. Jesus spoke in parables because that’s what his audience would understand.
As well, certain problems did not arise does to the limitations of the time. Therefore, Jesus said nothing about abortion or cloning. Now we have to think about new problems.
Also, Christianity =/ Evangelical Protestantism. Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church can and do change because the core of their faith is a living tradition, not a static text. If you take those two groups together, they are by far the majority of Christendom. This idea that Christians have ever and can ever believe things explicitly stated in a particular translation of the Bible comes from atheists who are only familiar with the American Midwest expression of Christianity.
It’s odd because WW3_angry said that he had a Catholic education, yet there is a distinct bitterness towards what most resembles Evangelical Protestantism.
How does “God” change his judgment? You’re saying judgments change, but yes, that’s of the people. But they already received the "word of God’ and that “doesn’t change”.
So you think that God would judge a child in the same way that He would judge an adult? Or judge a mentally ill person the same as a mentally healthy one?
The word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed.
Atheists are always complaining that the Bible is full of contradictory statements. And that’s true. A mature mind is better able to understand these contradictions and produce a better interpretation of “the word”.
I agree, the word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed. I don’t know of any theology that allows for god changing judgment for society for the 2,000 years since Jesus. You’re probably getting into some cult like religions that may try to justify some new morality. Perhaps the “God hates fags” group can rationalize their stance that way too. But what it all comes down to, is “interpretation”. But there’s not much room for interpretation difference on many things that change, nonetheless.
It’s weird. He studied Christian theology for 20 years, and yet he’s asking you to explain to him the basics of God’s speaking through Scripture and the Church. If he spent that whole 20 years ‘studying theology’ as a member of a Baptist Church I could perhaps understand it.
It does make you wonder why an alleged experienced Catholic is equating sola scriptura with basic Christianity.
), although he probably wants to be, but he is not … - … not yet. 