Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 414 of 652 (867679)
12-01-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by GDR
11-29-2019 7:16 PM


Re: Mainstream Christian Belief
This post was only a little behind the discussion when I started writing it, but it's a lot behind now because American has WiFi, not Internet which is extra. Back down on the ground, posting it anyway.
Tangle originally asked why a loving God would deny "access" to his "still small voice" to "a percentage of his flock." I'm interested in the answer to that question, too.
I just did as I've done before even in this thread. Just because you reject the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer it.
Instead of seeing it as Tangle rejecting the answer, see it as describing why the answer makes no sense to him - or me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by GDR, posted 11-29-2019 7:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Phat, posted 12-01-2019 11:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 425 by GDR, posted 12-01-2019 6:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 470 of 652 (867837)
12-03-2019 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by GDR
12-01-2019 6:30 PM


Re: Mainstream Christian Belief
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Instead of seeing it as Tangle rejecting the answer, see it as describing why the answer makes no sense to him - or me.
I think the problem is that you want an answer that is absolute.
I think Tangle and I are being honest and forthright with you. We aren't hiding our reasons for rejecting your answer so that you have to guess why. We're telling you our honest reaction to your answer: it makes no sense to us.
I am simply suggesting that in a world that is subject to entropy and decay, and an evolutionary process that requires mutations to progress, we have a world where mental illness, cancer and natural disasters can evolve. I am someone who is convinced that God is a god of love for all of His creatures and that God resurrected Jesus vindicating His life, message and death,
I wasn't able to make sense out of this. The two sentences seem unrelated to each other, and the second sentence ends with a comma. Was there supposed to be more?
With that in mind I then can only believe that God has limitations in His relation to this world. But I also believe that this life is a prelude to the life that you and Tangle complain that we don't have now.
Can't make sense out of this either, still feels like some part of the explanation is missing.
And again, this is belief it isn't an absolute.
And again, the issue is that we can't make sense out of your beliefs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by GDR, posted 12-01-2019 6:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by GDR, posted 12-04-2019 8:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 495 of 652 (867983)
12-05-2019 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by GDR
12-04-2019 8:03 PM


Re: Mainstream Christian Belief
GDR writes:
It is not surprising that my answers don't make sense to you. At least to Tangle nothing about theism makes any sense to him. To be honest, nothing about atheism makes any sense to me. Just as I can't seem to provide any answers to you guys that makes sense, atheists can't provide and answers that make sense to me.
I'm not an atheist. I may not be a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist and so forth), but I am definitely not an atheist.
You continue on to say a great deal about evolution, but if there's some connection between Tangle's question and evolution then I don't see it.
Tangle seems to be asking a different question now, but I'm still interested in the answer to the question he was asking when I joined the discussion. Why doesn't a loving God make his "voice" available to all?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by GDR, posted 12-04-2019 8:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2019 3:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 499 by Phat, posted 12-05-2019 3:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 501 by GDR, posted 12-06-2019 2:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 504 of 652 (868013)
12-06-2019 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by GDR
12-06-2019 2:22 AM


Re: Our conscience
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
I'm not an atheist. I may not be a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist and so forth), but I am definitely not an atheist.
I apologize for implying that you were.
No need to apologize, I get mistaken for an atheist all the time. I only mentioned it because your argument seemed specific to atheists.
However within the evolutionary process the mutations that bring about positive changes also have glitches. As a result we have mental illness, cancer and tsunamis etc.
Tsunamis are caused by mutations?
IMHO it only makes sense that the fact that we are capable of feeling empathy and acting on it implies that there is an empathetic intelligence behind it all.
Ah, now I see the connection to evolution, since empathy has an evolutionary explanation. Why do you choose "an empathetic intelligence" over evolution?
This being the case then I have to conclude that suffering is an unfortunate necessity.
But your conclusion of "an empathetic intelligence" is highly questionable, and this further conclusion about suffering being necessary with a God of infinite power even more so.
Percy writes:
Tangle seems to be asking a different question now, but I'm still interested in the answer to the question he was asking when I joined the discussion. Why doesn't a loving God make his "voice" available to all?
I don't agree that He doesn't.
You said mental illness could prevent people from hearing it, which is millions of people, and which is why I think Tangle asked the question, and why you're answering in a psychological context:
Psychopathy definition:
quote:
Psychopathy is traditionally a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits. It is sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy.
Certainly the ability in those with this disorder have their ability to react positively to their conscience, (God's still small voice), but it doesn't mean that it isn't there, or they aren't aware of it.
This additional detail seems to contradict what you said earlier. First you said the voice might not be heard by the mentally ill, but now you say they could be aware of what they cannot hear. You seem to be working out the answers as you go along, which is fine, but I'm not interested in being a participant in the process. I'd rather wait until you've worked it all out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by GDR, posted 12-06-2019 2:22 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by GDR, posted 12-07-2019 11:42 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 555 of 652 (868163)
12-07-2019 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by GDR
12-07-2019 11:42 AM


Re: Our conscience
GDR writes:
Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Life gets in the way.
No hurry.
Percy writes:
Tsunamis are caused by mutations?
Of course not. I had made the point earlier that mutations result in things like cancer and tsunamis are the result of living in a world subject to entropy and decay.
Oops, sorry, I parsed it differently than you intended.
Percy writes:
Ah, now I see the connection to evolution, since empathy has an evolutionary explanation. Why do you choose "an empathetic intelligence" over evolution?
But I don't. I am saying that an empathetic intelligence is responsible for evolution.
Uh, okay.
Percy writes:
But your conclusion of "an empathetic intelligence" is highly questionable, and this further conclusion about suffering being necessary with a God of infinite power even more so.
Do you really think that intelligence, let alone empathy, is more easily evolved from mindless particles and then chemicals by chance than from intelligence?
What studying nature tells us, that's what I think.
I can't muster up the faith to believe that.
Me either.
Also what is infinite power mean anyway.
Got me, but many religions assign various powers without limit to God.
Sure the intelligence required to bring about life as we know would seem somewhat infinite to us but that doesn't mean that there aren't limitations.
Have you ever asked yourself how this God is any different from an alien race far more advanced than ours?
We can really only speculate why God caused life to be the way that it is,...
Isn't everything about God speculative?
...but it does seem likely IMHO, that the goal was to create empathetic beings who live lives characterized by sacrificial love of others. Somehow this characteristic will be the norm in a renewed creation.
I'm speechless.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by GDR, posted 12-07-2019 11:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by GDR, posted 12-07-2019 7:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 571 of 652 (868215)
12-08-2019 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by GDR
12-07-2019 7:44 PM


Re: Our conscience
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
What studying nature tells us, that's what I think.
Surely you can see beyond that.
How would you suggest I, or anyone, see beyond what we can see, which is limited to what exists in nature.
That would be like studying an automobile assembly line and claiming that as the only cause for a car coming out the other end. An automobile assembly line has all the hallmarks of existing because of a pre-existing intelligence as does evolution IMHO.
This is just the old Paley analogy where you've substituted an automobile assembly line for the watch.
GDR writes:
Also what is infinite power mean anyway.
Percy writes:
Got me, but many religions assign various powers without limit to God.
There are many cases in Scripture where God is limited in power as He has to cajole people, including the whole Israelite nation to do as He requests. The idea of God having infinite power is simply a human way of saying that God has wisdom and power beyond what we can really put into words.
I didn't refer to Christianity but to "many religions," but responding to what you say anyway, doesn't this only consider those parts of Scripture that support your position and ignore those that don't? Isn't this inconsistent with your belief that God is a human construction (below you say, "All religion is conceived by humans"), who have been known to be wrong, to make things up, to be inconsistent?
However, with all that He can't make 2+2 make 5.
It's good to know there's someone out there who knows the limits of God's power.
If God had the capability as Tangle seems to think He should have, (even though he doesn't believe He exists),...
I don't keep track of who's an atheist and who's not, but if Tangle's an atheist then I assume that like me he's just looking for consistency in your position. You have a hypothetical that runs somewhat along the lines of, "God exists and has such and so qualities based on my reasoning." You go on to describe your reasoning, and Tangle is critiquing it.
...then yes, we have to question why there is suffering. However, suffering does exist therefore, either there is an overriding purpose for it or it is because of the limitation of what God could do. I'm inclined to think that it is both. It is my speculative contention that the overriding factor is that it is a necessary prelude to the time of the renewal of all things, when suffering is done away with. I think it is God's limitation that this step does involve suffering, and considerable joy as well I should add, and was necessary in order to get to the final goal.
Whatever you want to believe is fine by me.
Percy writes:
Have you ever asked yourself how this God is any different from an alien race far more advanced than ours?
Yes and no. I suppose if this alien race is responsible for life as we know it and has a continuing invisible interest in our affairs then that would be God. However, I would contend that if God does interact with us through our consciousness then it is more likely from another dimension than from within our physical universe.
I'm speechless again.
All religion is conceived by humans...What I believe isn't static and it too has evolved.
I think that says it all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by GDR, posted 12-07-2019 7:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by GDR, posted 12-09-2019 3:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 585 of 652 (868286)
12-10-2019 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by GDR
12-09-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Our conscience
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
How would you suggest I, or anyone, see beyond what we can see, which is limited to what exists in nature.
We can’t. It’s belief. No matter what it is that we believe about the roots of our existence, it remains a belief.
Of what use is belief? To be useful an idea must be supported by evidence, and it's even better if the evidence is consistent with the rest of the fabric of evidence, fitting into an accepted framework of understanding.
To address the specifics of your comment, if there is no evidence related to the roots of our existence, then anything we think about it is mere belief. But there *is* evidence. Nothing conclusive at this point, but evidence nonetheless.
Percy writes:
This is just the old Paley analogy where you've substituted an automobile assembly line for the watch.
No it isn’t. Paley was making an argument against the evolutionary process, claiming that the eye needed all of its component parts to function and therefore couldn’t have evolved one piece at a time.
Paley's place in history is due to his Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia. He did go on to draw an analogy with the eye, but your automobile assembly plant example is just Paley's watch analogy.
Science has countered with a theory, backed up with some evidence, how it could have evolved. I am talking about life itself, and I am not saying that it couldn’t have evolved. I am simply claiming that an intelligent root cause for all of the processes required, including evolution, are far more suggestive of an intelligent root cause rather than the belief in the mindless combination of particles, chemical processes etc by chance..
I can't tell if you're talking about evolution or the origin of life.
I recently read an interesting book called Freedom All the Way Up’...
We already know it's turtles all the way down.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by GDR, posted 12-09-2019 3:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by GDR, posted 12-10-2019 8:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 595 of 652 (868373)
12-11-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 588 by GDR
12-10-2019 8:28 PM


Re: Our conscience
What evidence are you referring to? It is easy to say that there is evidence without naming it.
You doubt there's any scientific evidence for how life might have originated? That's way off the topic of this thread (Christianity is Morally Bankrupt), and even of this sub-discussion, but if you'd like to get into it we can pick it up in one the Origin of Life threads, say On the origin of life or The great basic question of science on origin of life or any other one you like. Or you can start a new thread.
Just because we can discern natural processes at work does not mean that we can discern the underlying intelligence, or lack of intelligence, behind those processes.
As Wittgenstein said, "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."
As I said here multiple times, I contend that the belief that there exist multiple complex natural processes, driven by chance, resulting in even a single cell stretches credibility beyond its limits.
Again, not the thread to argue this.
Percy writes:
I can't tell if you're talking about evolution or the origin of life.
Both
They're not the same thing. An appropriate argument against one is not automatically appropriate against the other.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by GDR, posted 12-10-2019 8:28 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024