"Evidence and Faith"

Then you make the argument for me. A native of the Amazon may say that ice does not exist, simply because he has never seen it. But his ignorance of such does not negate the existence. However, every man, women, and child has been bestowed this concept of good and evil embedded within them. They didn't ask for it. It just is. Where can such a deep proclivity come from?See, when you see a man get run down by a car, and that car speeds away, you are angered and sense a deep frustration that a great evil has just occurred. And you turn to us for corroboration. You ask us in attempt that we too intrinsically know and understand your frustration. You are looking for the obligatory response. Why? You say it quite nicely-- that its intuitive.And if we don't need absolutes, then by what measure is a crime committed? By what measure is it right or wrong for a spouse to stray? By what measure do we castigate that man who just butchered his wife and kids? No, I'm arguing that the question only makes sense in that existence. You've neglected to explain anything about the skeptic, or why it is self-contradictory for a Christian to assume God in light of the moral argument.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

By the measure of the culture and society.Such things are either a matter of Law (butchering the wife and kids) which is unrelated to any questions of morality, or of morality (spouse straying) where the measure is the agreement between the parties involved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That wouldn't explain how little children, who have know cultural understanding of morality, intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong the world over. Are you saying that butchering your wife and kids is not an immoral act? Its only immoral when everyone is in agreement? Suppose you are married, and your wife is not okay with you cheating. But you decide to cheat because the prostitute thinks there is nothing wrong with it. Are you engaging in an immoral act simply becaused she doesn't want you to? Does your wife have the power to determine morality?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Again, morality is not related to right and wrong. Kids learn right and wrong just as they learn everything else. Depends on the society and culture. In that case there is no agreement between the spouses. There you have a conflict of differing moral standards and evidence that morality is NOT an absolute.If the husband also believes that infidelity is immoral, he will likely feel he has done an immoral act.However, if it was in a different culture, era or society, the percetions of morality/immorality would be entirely different.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I'll say that "right and wrong" is a very dry topic. But if right and wrong hasn't a thing to do morality, then what does?

quote:

---

Are you saying that butchering your wife and kids is not an immoral act?

---

So if morality is based on culture, then why do you indict President Bush as being "evil" if he is merely a pawn to what his cultured doled out? You hold him to a very high standard. Why not hold everyone to the same standard?Would it be acceptable that Americans are culturally inclined to spread war wherever it goes, and yet, call Americans evil for doing what its culture has established for it? Wrong. We simply have one spouse trying to subvert that absolute. Everybody knows that marriage should be sacred-- that its a unit of commitment. If anything, its society that tries to undermine that which is absolute by coming up with clever ways of getting around it. So then there should be no outside influence? If a family determines for themselves that its okay to engage in incest, then why do outside agencies intervene on behalf of the children? Is it not because its immoral to subject children to that?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Because by the standards of our society he is evil. Evil is not necessarily immoral. Good and bad, right and wrong, legal and illegal and moral and immoral are four entirely different concepts.President Bush is evil for many reasons, including IMHO High Crimes and Misdemeanors. While historically we have been the most successful conquering nation so far, conquering and holding territories far more successfully than almost any other nation with the exception of the Chinese, that does not mean that it is either acceptable legally.Morally, I must admit, the US has seen conquest and domination as morally justified and has acted on that belief.Yes, by MY moral standards I can point to that and say it is immoral. Uh, bullshit! So many fallacies in so few words. Amazing.No, the outside agencies do not step in because it is immoral. They step in because it is illegal. They step in because our society has decided that children below the arbitrary age of consent cannot enter into agreements related to sex. In other situations, for example if a 22 year old brother and sister decided to have sex, no one steps in because both parties are above the age of consent.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Then you make the argument for me. A native of the Amazon may say that ice does not exist, simply because he has never seen it. But his ignorance of such does not negate the existence. However, every man, women, and child has been bestowed this concept of good and evil embedded within them. They didn't ask for it. It just is. Where can such a deep proclivity come from?

---

Well no, I don't because even if this argument was sound my objections still stand. But it isn't sound. Our sense of morality comes from deeply embedded social instincts plus a good deal of educzation starting from a quite young age.

quote:

---

See, when you see a man get run down by a car, and that car speeds away, you are angered and sense a deep frustration that a great evil has just occurred. And you turn to us for corroboration. You ask us in attempt that we too intrinsically know and understand your frustration. You are looking for the obligatory response. Why?

---

Because that's the common human response. Humans DO feel for each other. Or at least for those recognised as being 'one of us'. It's those social instincts - and again a good dollop of education.

quote:

---

And if we don't need absolutes, then by what measure is a crime committed? By what measure is it right or wrong for a spouse to stray? By what measure do we castigate that man who just butchered his wife and kids?

---

Since we don't HAVE a demonstrably objective morality the question applies no matter what your view is. You can't prove anything is wrong, all you can do is appeal to other people's subjective views and hope that they agree. Either that's good enough or you have to give up on morality.

quote:

---

No, I'm arguing that the question only makes sense in that existence.

---

Which is essentially what I said. Your only answer to the question is to deny that it makes sense - on the assumption that God does not exist.

quote:

---

You've neglected to explain anything about the skeptic, or why it is self-contradictory for a Christian to assume God in light of the moral argument

---

THe skeptic can assume that God does not exist. If your argument were correct that would render the question meaningless which solves the problem. And if you can't figure out how it is contradictory to assume that God exists and doesn't exist then your ability to understand logic is even worse than I thought.

No that is not the point jar. It is only the gospel according to jar.It is an if then statement. If you know anything about basic programming language, you'll understand one doesn't work without the other.Jesus asks him, do you love me?
If you do, then.Peter was one way before meeting Jesus, then after meeting Him, he became another way. That is what Jesus does for us. That is what the Holy Spirit does for us.I am not saying there is no quality in being a good person without God, but I am sure, all things considered, that a good person, can only become more good after meeting Jesus. More doors will open, and allow that person to be exponentially more effective at spreading goodness and love.The ultimate love in the universe, is the one that comes from God. Once knowing that love, you have a tool at your disposal, if you so choose to use it. No it's not.

Yes, Romans 8. (I think) You can prove this, or is this just an opinion? I never said we need anything. It just happens, when God chooses it to happen.And there is nothing "magical" about knowing the truth. I don't, nor should anyone else have that attitude. Religion hinders more than it helps, I agree. What if the person serving the soup, was only doing it so they could worm their way into the workings of the soup kitchen, because he wanted to steal from that place?Another scenerio, you don't see a difference in someone helping others so they can get into heaven, and someone helping others from the goodness of their own heart?
Doesn't one seem more geniune than the other? You keep equivocating faith with doing nothing.I have already expressed that having faith, and being in Christ, is much more than "just" believing. If you live by the Spirit of God, and Jesus, your actions will show it. Again, back to Romans 8.

Haven't you been paying attention at all? Jesus said that those who say, "Lord, Lord" - i.e. those who claim to believe in Him - will not necessarily be saved. He said that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, etc. will be saved. I've mentioned that in just about every post on this thread. It's very clear: faith has nothing to do with salvation. Nope. It happens when we choose to do what God wants us to do. Doesn't matter. The soup still counts.Now, if somebody is stealing from a soup kitchen, he's taking food away from the hungry - but that math is for God to do, not us. Of course not. The cook's motivation has no effect on the nutritional value of the soup. Doesn't make a @#$%ing bit of difference if the motivation is "genuine". It only matters that the soup is genuine. Not at all. I'm just saying that the faith has no value in itself.The actions have value with or without the faith.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Right, do it. Irrelevant. All that counts is what Peter does. It has nothing to do with Holy Spirit or any other woo-woo.All that counts is what Peter does. Irrelevant. Two people do good, one just because it is the right thing to do, the other after some metaphysical experience.All that counts is what they do. Yada, yada.Trot it out and put it on the table for all to examine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Right claiming to believe in Him, and believing in Him are two different things.Listen, we are basically saying the same thing, and we both put a great importanced on the visible side of our actions, but the only thing is, that you are saying that faith doesn't matter.I want to know where you can say that as a objective thing, instead of a subjective one.This is an evidence AND faith thread, so we can talk about faith, we both agree that our actions have everything to do with it, and so does the bible. Yes, and no. I was only talking about the initial start-up. Well I am talking about what is relevant to us, as individuals, not what we think of others. We are not talking about soup at that point anymore.
We are discussing intent. People kill people unintentionally, and get away with it.

For whatever it may be worth, I was for a long time a Scout leader. A significant fraction of our scouts came from religious families; some went to religious schools, some were even from evangelical families. As far as I could see, those scouts were entirely indistinguishable from the others in terms of honesty, kindness etc.One might object that the scouts were still young. That's true, but I always found that one could have deep, even complex conversations with them (typically on the trail somewhere), and that their intellects were not to be despised at all.I rather doubt that religion has much effect on morality.

If you love me. How can you pick and choose what is right from the bible like that?
Espicially the red letters?Read Acts two, and then you can see just what the power of the Holy Spirit can do to people, and how many recieved help through those actions, driven by the Holy Spirit. I am here, and it is out there.
Would you like me to curcify myself or something?

Religion and God are two different things.Religion has power to do nothing, but express the morality of the people doing it.God has the power to change lives.{ABE} (added by edit)
Welcome to the forum, in case I haven't said that already to you Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.