Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's as if Christians believe without God we would all be killers, murderers, rapists and theives - I think that's an insult to intelligence and our legacy of altruism as a species.

... and I think that is an insult to Christians, who do not uniformly believe such a statement.

Your longstanding claim that morality and values are purely subjective contradicts your claim that there is some sort of species wide altruism -- by your measure, there is no "right thing to do" (altruism), just what seems right to you at the moment. In your philosophy, that doesn't translate to anyone beyond yourself.

Apparently he's never heard of the "Relativist Fallacy". Relativism is self-refuting.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Except that it isn't. Granted, I don't expect someone who doesn't realize the Euthyphro dilemma to know much of moral philosophy.

Plato:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Sure, you can just ignore it and go for the simple-minded "Divine Command" idea, in which you simply have a system where morality is based on the power of the individual making the command, which isn't really a moral system.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I've never claimed to be a relativist. Like Sam Harris, i think morality can be science if we just accept that the essence of morality is to prevent all individual forms of human suffering.

Health is something that is aimed for in the medical profession. Why can't morality be something that is aimed for in a civilisation which promotes love and solidarity? Each person having their own individual needs - A moral landscape, just because i talk about subjectivism doesn't mean i can reason killing, or murder into my moral position.

Thanks for being a pleasant (loving thy enemy) "Christian" again, dude. 22:26pm here in the U.K - Rapture's nearly here; Harold Camping's predictions look pretty legit; he's an "expert" in the bible, afterall.

reply to post by adjensen


How is offense against an infinite being incurring of an infinite debt? I never got this one. It's really a silly concept. That infinite being is also supposedly infinitely forgiving and infinitely wise. It is a being that is supposed to have an infinitely charitable, infinitely good, infinitely compassionate nature.

Also, by the exact same logic, any good deed would accrue infinite gain, which would mean that there's really no reason to have the whole 'Jesus dies on a cross' thing happen.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


God works in mysterious ways, my friend.

Eww...i feel dirty with that cunning inference.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I agree with you and Harris as well. I loved his analogy to health. We can not necessarily have a perfect idea of health for everyone, but we can definitely tell quite a lot about health as a whole.

Not smoking a pack of cigs a day is a good thing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that relativism is self-refuting, it's merely difficult to defend (which is why I also don't defend it).

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

How is offense against an infinite being incurring of an infinite debt? I never got this one.

If you don't agree that the person against whom an offense is committed has some bearing on the nature of the offense, then I suppose you wouldn't.

Also, by the exact same logic, any good deed would accrue infinite gain

I'm not sure how you're managing to do a good deed to God, so that's kind of illogical, but even beyond that, "good deeds" are one area where I'm in congruence with the Calvinists -- they're all rather suspect for their motivation (the technical term is "Absolute Depravity") and so you'd be hard pressed to claim that your giving alms to the poor or helping an old lady across the street is of infinite value to anyone.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I agree with you and Harris as well. I loved his analogy to health. We can not necessarily have a perfect idea of health for everyone, but we can definitely tell quite a lot about health as a whole.

I thoroughly enjoyed his talks on TED and his recent discussion with Dawkins. That anology struck a chord with me too. It does seem a simple enough concept ( and i think i can see what he's getting at) yet his "theories" have recieved much criticism; perhaps he needs to refine it a bit more

Of course, that doesn't mean that relativism is self-refuting, it's merely difficult to defend (which is why I also don't defend it).

Indeed, it's fair enough to talk about subjectivism, but an "anything goes" attitude to morality doesn't do much to inspire soldarity and negotiate a common world ethic/understanding...

I wouldn't be suprised if i get accused of being a globalist, part of the "NWO" or something haha.

Peace

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

How is offense against an infinite being incurring of an infinite debt? I never got this one.

If you don't agree that the person against whom an offense is committed has some bearing on the nature of the offense, then I suppose you wouldn't.

It may have some bearing, but then again that is situational. I may offend a King who tries to punish me gravely...or I may offend a kind King who laughs it off because he's the King and there's really nothing I can do to affect him....you know, which is what your deity is supposed to be.

The doctrine of infinite/infinite also doesn't make any sense because it removes any concept of justice from the equation. It's bad enough that your final punishment or reward is infinite, which in and of itself gets rid of the concept of justice, but for even the most minor of offenses to be essentially equivalent to the most heinous crimes is to rob the system of any actual character of justice.

It's worse than pre-Hammurabic law.

Also, by the exact same logic, any good deed would accrue infinite gain

I'm not sure how you're managing to do a good deed to God, so that's kind of illogical,

Well, if your deity cares for people I definitely am. I try to be a helpful individual. Sure, it's tiny in the scheme of things, but it's an infinite being.

but even beyond that, "good deeds" are one area where I'm in congruence with the Calvinists -- they're all rather suspect for their motivation (the technical term is "Absolute Depravity") and so you'd be hard pressed to claim that your giving alms to the poor or helping an old lady across the street is of infinite value to anyone.

And the whole 'absolute depravity' thing just doesn't make sense because it's mere assertion without substance. The Calvinists do not believe in the idea of good intention. I help people because I understand what it's like to need help. We were all helpless once.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It may have some bearing, but then again that is situational. I may offend a King who tries to punish me gravely...or I may offend a kind King who laughs it off because he's the King and there's really nothing I can do to affect him....you know, which is what your deity is supposed to be.

The doctrine of infinite/infinite also doesn't make any sense because it removes any concept of justice from the equation.

Nope, because there are lots of crimes you can commit against a king (kind or otherwise,) but there's only one thing that you can do against God -- ignore his commandments and live a life contrary to the law. There is no degree of sin (unless you're Catholic) so the result of your actions is ultimately just (in God's eyes, and that's all that matters.)

And the whole 'absolute depravity' thing just doesn't make sense because it's mere assertion without substance. The Calvinists do not believe in the idea of good intention. I help people because I understand what it's like to need help. We were all helpless once.

No, it's not a simple assertion, it's just the observation that we are at the core of all our actions. You help people because you want to. I give away a lot of money because I like thinking that I'm making other people's lives easier. No one can honestly say that their own desires, expectations and motivations play no role in why they do what they do.

Total depravity doesn't mean that we're terrible people (that would be "absolute depravity", a different concept) but that human nature is such that, if everything was laid bare, even the good things we do aren't done for good reasons. It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't still do them, because even though your good deeds do YOU no good, they still result in good for others.

reply to post by adjensen

No one can honestly say that their own desires, expectations and motivations play no role role in why they do what they do.

Isn't that why Christianity attests that we are sinful?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

No one can honestly say that their own desires, expectations and motivations play no role role in why they do what they do.

Isn't that why Christianity attests that we are sinful?

No, it's why Calvinists (and most Protestants, though they probably don't know the reasoning behind it,) say that you cannot be saved by your own works.

reply to post by adjensen


They've got it wrong, right?

Like the Muslims?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

They've got it wrong, right?

Like the Muslims?

Who's got it wrong? The Protestants?

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, what makes you drawn towards your faith over others?

Why not just cherry pick from each religion?

I strongly disagree with Calvinism, but it isn't only Calvinism that believes people all inherited something like a "sin gene" or spiritual disease from Adam. But I disagree with that too and have a different view of why people sin. I've written many articles on that in my blog over the years. But I'll just give a very quick summary here:

Adam and Eve were in a pristine environment, having no parents to inherit anything from, no disease or injury, no experience with doing wrong. So what made them sin? The Calvinist tries very hard to avoid what their teachings logically lead to: that God is the ultimate author of sin, and thus responsible for it all. They argue basically that if they put some distance between God and sin that this solves the problem, but all it does is move the line in the sand. Same with free will; I see no difference between forcing people to be saved against their will, and forcefully changing their will so that they "willingly" choose to accept the gospel. I call that a philosophical shell game.

Instead, I believe we sin for the same reasons as Adam and Eve: we are sentient beings with free wills, and this is what it means to be made in the image of God. But the thought of eating from the forbidden tree never seemed to occur to them until the serpent came along and gave them a push. In confronting the three parties involved, God treated each one individually, showing that they each had personal accountability. So this was not fated or forced, but God did take into account in Eve's case that she was tricked into sinning, while Adam was not, and in fact blamed God for making Eve.

Now if people could sin in a perfect environment without inherited sinfulness, merely by this "push" from the serpent, think of how much more likely it is that people sin ever since then, after the ground was cursed and we all became mortal. It's practically guaranteed; in fact, there have been no exceptions. (Babies inherit our mortality, but they could not comprehend rebellion against God, so they go to heaven if they die.)

That's way too simplified, but as I said the rest of the details are in my blog. The "tag cloud" has Calvinism and Sin, or you can search on those terms (esp. "original sin"). Hope that helps. :-)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, what makes you drawn towards your faith over others?

Why not just cherry pick from each religion?

I'm not a Calvinist -- this is one of the few issues that I agree with them on, because even an elementary student of psychology would tell you that, as I said, no one can honestly say that their own motivations play no part (consciously or unconsciously) in their decision making process.

"Cherry picking" is a marginally insulting term, but I would be likely considered one, as regards theology. I am officially a Methodist, but I am theologically most aligned with the Anglican Church "Middle Way" that incorporates both Catholicism and Protestantism. Unfortunately, the Anglican Church is represented in the United States by the Episcopalian Church, which I have a number of insurmountable issues with, so Methodist is the closest I can get.

I look down on the term "cherry picking", because I don't see my theology as consisting solely of things that I like, rather, it consists of things that make sense to me. Some times those are Catholic, sometimes they are Protestant, and I don't have an issue with the conflict. As you may or may not recall, I'm not a traditional evangelical Christian who was raised in the church -- my faith is reasoned, not instilled, so I don't care that strict Catholics and strict Protestants would both say that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
I strongly disagree with Calvinism, but it isn't only Calvinism that believes people all inherited something like a "sin gene" or spiritual disease from Adam. But I disagree with that too and have a different view of why people sin. I've written many articles on that in my blog over the years. But I'll just give a very quick summary here:

I've bookmarked your blog after looking over a couple of articles, looks like a lot of good material, thanks for the link.

Personally, I've always viewed "original sin" as being an explanation for human nature, or perhaps human nature being the manifestation of the Fall. Either way, it points to the root of evil being self centeredness, and that is pervasive and seemingly inherently us. It doesn't cause us to sin, it just means that doing what we want, as opposed to what would be good for others, is inevitable.

reply to post by adjensen

I am officially a Methodist, but I am theologically most aligned with the Anglican Church "Middle Way" that incorporates both Catholicism and Protestantism. Unfortunately, the Anglican Church is represented in the United States by the Episcopalian Church, which I have a number of insurmountable issues with, so Methodist is the closest I can get

Religious disagreement, Not only between Islam, Christianity and Juduism but from within itself too. It's always going to happen when dogma is taken seriously.

I look down on the term "cherry picking", because I don't see my theology as consisting solely of things that I like, rather, it consists of things that make sense to me.

I do actually the same as an Atheist, even from theology, if something makes sense, i will agree, i don't disagree just because i disagree with the context. I.e. Why wouldn't i disagree with the pledge not to kill fellow human beings?

I don't consider cherry picking to be an insult. It is what it is, taking the "best bits" or agreeing with philosophy that appeals to you, or you can reason with.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Religious disagreement, Not only between Islam, Christianity and Juduism but from within itself too. It's always going to happen when dogma is taken seriously.

For the most part, apart from the Catholics, the differences in Christian doctrine need not be significant as regards salvation, given that they arose long after Christ. Of all the "Solas" that arose out of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura" ("by Scripture alone") is the one that I believe is the most significant. Logically, everything that one needs for salvation has to be found in the teachings of Christ -- when the Pope decreed that, in order to be Catholic (and thus, in order to be saved) you had to believe in the Immaculate Conception, doesn't that say that everyone who was Catholic prior to the 1800s wouldn't be saved, because they didn't know that they had to believe that?

Salvation doesn't change with the times, and it certainly doesn't change at the whim of men. Whenever I debate converting to Catholicism, because of the many things that I do agree with them, I run headlong into that wall, and no one has yet to give me a good answer to it.

I don't consider cherry picking to be an insult. It is what it is, taking the "best bits" or agreeing with philosophy that appeals to you, or you can reason with.

Cherry picking generally implies that you are picking the "good stuff", or the things you agree with, but that isn't the case with my theology. I would agree with Universal Salvation, and I'd say that it would be a good thing, but it isn't something that I can reason out, so it's not a part of my theology. I dally off and on with Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination, not because I agree with it, and most certainly not because I think it's good, but when the right arguments are applied, it makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of questions.