Understanding a Christian World View Pt One.

a reply to: Rex282

Nice general statement. Why don't you point out specifics?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Rex282

Nice general statement. Why don't you point out specifics?

Many of the specifics have been pointed out to you over and over yet you can't hear and don't listen that should be sufficient evidence what you are attempting to prove is futile yet.. it isn't.You use the same tactic to espouse your religious rhetoric however I guarantee you NONE are interested in that except those that enjoy engaging in futile arguments.The only purpose your post are serving is the motto of this site..deny ignorance...yours.Surely you have more useful things to do that are much more beneficial(and not detrimental) to you and your neighbor.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is what you said:

The supreme ethical standard in this world is love. The moral argument argues that God is the essence of love...........

This is an example of your blind bias. There is absolutely no observable evidence for this, in fact, the world is cruel and eventually, the world will kill every living thing existing in it!

please explain how morals can be derived from this standard

Morals are a product of evolution and assist survival where communities and groups are necessary. They are derived from empathy.

If the sole ethical standard is propagation and survival then so long as your choice increases your genes in the competition gene pool and have offspring.

Ethics and morals are two separate things. Morals are personal and come from an individual's experience; one's inner moral compass. Ethics are socially accepted ways of behaving in an evolving society.

There are to many of us to compete with not everyone can be happy........

What does happiness got to do with anything? What is happiness?

We know how propagation works so we are morally obligated to keep the gene pool as clean as possible.....

Clean as possible? What does that mean, and who says so?

I don't know how your using the word agency there. Doesn't make sense in that sentence.

It makes just as much sense as when you used it........I don't see the difference in agency of god or agency of life.

As for your video, who says God is good? Where is the evidence?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Really? Then can you explain how you have repeatedly dismissed the points of view of pagans, Scientists, and athiests (to name three different groups) on here?

a reply to: Noinden

I am not just going to accept their positions as rational without a reason. That's not being dismissive that's called being skeptical. I don't accept the Bible on merit alone why would I do that for other peoples positions if I don't do it for my own. Everything I have said is in line with the Science of today. No pagans have said anything . So seems like your being a bit dishonest in your assessment of me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is fair enough, just as no one would accept the Christian world view as rational "with out reason" either. Oh and yes a pagan did say something. I am one. I'm also a scientist.

a reply to: Noinden

Yet you brought nothing of your world view up. So one may have replied but one hasn't made their self known until now That is great, but please don't take this post as me as presenting God as some kind of explanatory hypothesis. My evidence for God lies in deductive logical arguments. I agree no one should accept a Christian world view without a reason to do so. So part ones purpose was to show how a generic God concept is needed for certain things we observe in nature and in our moral experiences. I feel as though when I have a conversation on the topic with say someone of an atheist persuasion they often want to immediately discuss my particular God. This to me seems to be an incorrect approach when analyzing the idea of a God. I feel first you would need to make a case for the need of any God before you made a case for any particular God. Once that agreement is met then a case can be made for a particular God. If the first agreement can't be made then the second discussion is quite worthless imo.