Lost faith

ChrisJ84

Fourier wrote: »

their cultural understanding of the Law was that it was possible for humans to alter it.

Just a thought on this, but it sounds a lot like the attitude that Jesus frequently criticised in his interactions with the religious leaders of his day.

Fourier

I'm not having a go, and you're free to interpret the scriptures in whatever way you like.

It's not my interpretation. I'm saying it's an alternate interpretation as consistent with the Tanakh as your own as there are statements supporting both and statements that appear to contradict either can be reinterpreted. I'm presenting the argument abstractly, it's not what I actually think. Regardless...

I'm simply saying that I disagree with you on this point

The issue here is that it is clearly what some Biblical authors thought as well, such as Jeremiah. Now that's fine, perhaps you believe Jeremiah's interpretation is incorrect, but one has to state this.

Also remember the school that authored the Babylonian Talmud are also the continuation of the school that redacted the Torah, the Priestly Codes, the Deuteronomic laws and histories and the books of the Prophets into the earliest forms of the Old Testament. Thus you would be contradicting the people who initially compiled the Old Testament together and authored certain sections of it. If you consider them incorrect, again fair enough. One could say what Jesus said shows the early compilers of the Old Testament to be wrong, but I just want to be clear that that is what you are saying.

You might disagree with this interpretation, but it cannot be cleanly detached from the Bible's composition in the manner you seem to be doing.

The static unchanging God enters the Jewish world from the Hellenic world and is most clearly expressed in the Neo-Platonist influenced views of the gospel of John. Again perhaps John's Neo-Platonist views on God are more correct and God intervened to ensure they were in the final revelations to mankind, i.e. the Gospels.

I'm just saying "God as dynamic" is the view of some of the biblical authors. You have to acknowledge that you're saying they're incorrect.

The tripartite division of the law is certainly extra-biblical

That's fine, as long as one acknowledges that you are not clearly told by God exactly what parts of the law to ignore.

Just a thought on this, but it sounds a lot like the attitude that Jesus frequently criticised in his interactions with the religious leaders of his day.

Jesus's problems with the Rabbis were along other aspects, but that's a separate thread.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

What are you talking about. What rules? I have indeed been asking questions about religion for a number of years, and have yet to be provided with any real answers. The mere fact that the usual response to any claim is that "you can't know what Christians think, we all are different" is a pretty damning statement of the reality of what religion is. It is a pick and mix. Pick out the bits that make sense to you, disregard the rest.

You have a stated belief, I (I cannot speak for others) want to try to understand the reasoning behind that since God has not seen the merit in letting me know directly. I assume that you have had the experience and should be able to provide some clear evidence of same.

I have asked a number of questions on this thread that have never been dealt with.

The OP says they are losing faith and worried abut that changing them as a person. There is no evidence that faith, or the absence of it, makes any difference on the personality or actions of a person. SO I asked what would be the differences expected between the OP pre and post faith? No answer

I asked how come certain rules of Jesus can be obeyed and others can't (rich man cannot pass into heaven). As usual these are ignored as it is uncomfortable to people to accept that they are not living the true way of Jesus yet profess to believe.

I have asked numerous times how one can square the circle of evil being allowed to exist because God gives free will, and at the same time accept that miracles happen, that your loved ones are cured.

Just to pick out one. Jesus never said a rich man couldn't enter heaven. I suggest if you want to know what I believe that you read the new testament.
That's exactly what I believe.
He has let us know. You just don't want to accept the answers.

As for a change in a person's life. You've not met a real Christian as opposed to someone who said he was one.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ changes a person. If a person isn't changed I question what gospel they believed.
If the life of God in a person doesn't change them then they don't have that Life. I don't care what Church they go to or what they say they believe.
Does it make me perfect. Ask my wife or kids But I'm being changed.
As for changing the actions of a person...the gospel of Jesus Christ says our behaviour must change. Just read Paul's letters and you'll see the changes expected.

ChrisJ84

Fourier wrote: »

It's not my interpretation. I'm saying it's an alternate interpretation as consistent with the Tanakh as your own as there are statements supporting both and statements that appear to contradict either can be reinterpreted. I'm presenting the argument abstractly, it's not what I actually think. Regardless....

What do you actually think? That's a genuine question.

Fourier wrote: »

The issue here is that it is clearly what some Biblical authors thought as well, such as Jeremiah. Now that's fine, perhaps you believe Jeremiah's interpretation is incorrect, but one has to state this.

Also remember the school that authored the Babylonian Talmud are also the school that redacted the Torah, the Priestly Codes, the Deuteronomic laws and histories and the books of the Prophets into the earliest forms of the Old Testament. Thus you would be contradicting the people who initially compiled the Old Testament together and authored certain sections of it. If you consider them incorrect, again fair enough. One could say what Jesus said shows the early compilers of the Old Testament to be wrong, but I just want to be clear that that is what you are saying.

You might disagree with this interpretation, but it cannot be cleanly detached from the Bible's composition in the manner you seem to be doing.

What makes you think that Jeremiah thought God was mutable?

Fourier wrote: »

The static unchanging God enters the Jewish world from the Hellenic world and is most clearly expressed in the Neo-Platonist influenced views of the gospel of John. Again perhaps John's Neo-Platonist views on God are more correct and God intervened to ensure they were in the final revelations to mankind, i.e. the Gospels.

I'm just saying "God as dynamic" is the view of some of the biblical authors. You have to acknowledge that you're saying they're incorrect.

God doesn't change in the NT; revelation is progressively more complete to be sure, but there isn't any fundamental difference in the God of the OT and the God of the NT. But it's hardly surprising that a Christian would disagree with some of the interpretations of those who reject Jesus' divinity. You also need to account for the clear OT references to God as unchanging.

Another important question is what exactly you mean by static and dynamic. God is presented as having emotions and as reacting to situations, but that needs to be understood in light of other passages that clearly teach immutability. Scripture should be interpreted in light of other parts of scripture.

Fourier wrote: »

That's fine, as long as one acknowledges that you are not clearly told by God exactly what parts of the law to ignore.

Not to be pedantic, but Christians don't ignore the law; we simply hold that much of it has now been fulfilled and so doesn't apply to us in the same way as it did to OT Israel. Again, it's hardly surprising that Christians and Jews would disagree on that point.

Fourier wrote: »

Jesus's problems with the Rabbis were along other aspects, but that's a separate thread.

I don't think it's so dissimilar, but can agree to disagree on that.

Fourier

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

What do you actually think? That's a genuine question.

About how to interpret the Bible or which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct?

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

What makes you think that Jeremiah thought God was mutable?

Jeremiah was part of the Deuteronomic school. Their sections of the Torah and other sections of the Tanakh authored by the school contain references to him being changeable. Commentary derived from this school has God as changeable. Jeremiah quotes God as saying he changes his mind more than most authors in the Tanakh.

God doesn't change in the NT; revelation is progressively more complete to be sure, but there isn't any fundamental difference in the God of the OT and the God of the NT. But it's hardly surprising that a Christian would disagree with some of the interpretations of those who reject Jesus' divinity. You also need to account for the clear OT references to God as unchanging.

There aren't that many in the Old Testament. Even the ones you gave only some said he was and they were all third person accounts, not his own words. The ones in his words out number them and he directly says "change" with a verb form in Hebrew that can't be read in some sort of timeless way.

Another important question is what exactly you mean by static and dynamic.

Dynamic meaning changed by his creation. Such a view was normal in the ancient Semitic world. The static view you take is clearly influenced by Neo-Platonist ideas of the Natural Law and the Prime Mover. Again it might be the truth, but that's it's origin "in history". It wouldn't have been a view in historical Israel.

Not to be pedantic, but Christians don't ignore the law; we simply hold that much of it has now been fulfilled and so doesn't apply to us in the same way as it did to OT Israel. Again, it's hardly surprising that Christians and Jews would disagree on that point.

Well it just changes the verb. The Bible does not clearly tell what parts are fulfilled, clear views on that are extra-bibilical.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I don't think it's so dissimilar, but can agree to disagree on that.

Well I don't know what you class as similar to it, but Jesus doesn't seem to talk about this issue in his criticisms of the Temple Orthodoxy. What passage did you have in mind?

Leroy42

"Christians don't ignore the law; we simply hold that much of it has now been fulfilled and so doesn't apply to us in the same way as it did to OT Israel"

That is brilliant. Gods laws don't apply because you think they are no longer necessary.

So there are parts of the bible that you can ignore because they simply are no longer necessary. Why would God write the eternal book and include pointless parts?

ChrisJ84

Fourier wrote: »

About how to interpret the Bible or which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct?

Either or both, whichever you are comfortable answering. It would be helpful to know where you are coming from is discussing this.

Fourier wrote: »

Jeremiah was part of the Deuteronomic school. Their sections of the Torah and other sections of the Tanakh authored by the school contain references to him being changeable. Commentary derived from this school has God as changeable. Jeremiah quotes God as saying he changes his mind more than most authors in the Tanakh....Dynamic meaning changed by his creation. Such a view was normal in the ancient Semitic world. The static view you take is clearly influenced by Neo-Platonist ideas of the Natural Law and the Prime Mover. Again it might be the truth, but that's it's origin "in history". It wouldn't have been a view in historical Israel.

No one is denying that Jeremiah, John and all the biblical authors are influenced by their cultures - the bible is a human document and bears the different personalities of its human authors. But Christians believe that the bible is also God's word, and that ultimately God is the author.

That is why we need to approach scripture in its totality, and not interpret one passage in a way that does violence to another. From a Christian perspective, however we understand verses that talk about God changing his mind need to do justice to all the other things the bible tells us about God. This isn't a new idea, but reflects Christian biblical interpretation back to patristic times.

Similarly, we are encouraged to pray on the basis that God hears and acts. But again, how we understand that needs to be informed by the rest of scripture and what it teaches about God's immutability, wisdom, power etc.

When you talk about "dynamic" above, it sounds quite like the modern idea of open theism, which I don't think is a helpful or correct way to think about God and his interaction with his creation, in the light of all the biblical evidence.

Fourier wrote: »

There aren't that many in the Old Testament. Even the ones you gave only some said he was and they were all third person accounts, not his own words. The ones in his words out number them and he directly says "change" with a verb form in Hebrew that can't be read in some sort of timeless way.

Christians don't draw a distinction between parts of the bible that are in quotation marks from God, and parts that aren't. The whole of scripture is God's word and carries equal weight.

Fourier wrote: »

Well it just changes the verb. The Bible does not clearly tell what parts are fulfilled, clear views on that are extra-bibilical.

Jesus Christ is the basis of the Christian interpretation of the bible. He clearly claims that all the law and the prophets speak about and point towards him.

That claim is either true or it isn't, so the most fundamental question is who we think Jesus is. If he is God, then we are right to believe what he says and to take him as our starting point in understanding what the bible says. If he isn't, then it really doesn't matter what Christians say about the bible and how to understand it.

Fourier wrote: »

Well I don't know what you class as similar to it, but Jesus doesn't seem to talk about this issue in his criticisms of the Temple Orthodoxy. What passage did you have in mind?

I'm thinking of your statement that rabbinic teaching was that the law could be changed by us. That is something that Jesus clearly speaks to as a problem when he criticises the scribes and pharisees for adding to the law.

Fourier

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

No one is denying that Jeremiah, John and all the biblical authors are influenced by their cultures - the bible is a human document

That's fine and easily explains how your position is viable. I just wanted to point out that some Biblical authors held to a form of "open theism".

When you talk about "dynamic" above, it sounds quite like the modern idea of open theism, which I don't think is a helpful or correct way to think about God and his interaction with his creation, in the light of all the biblical evidence.

That is possibly true. My contention is that more so that something like "open theism" was the standard view in historical Israel and the more "eternal" view didn't come in until Hellenic influence later.

Christians don't draw a distinction between parts of the bible that are in quotation marks from God, and parts that aren't. The whole of scripture is God's word and carries equal weight.

I think it would be more accurate to say certain Christians. There have been and are groups that draw a distinction.

I'm thinking of your statement that rabbinic teaching was that the law could be changed by us. That is something that Jesus clearly speaks to as a problem when he criticises the scribes and pharisees for adding to the law.

I thought it was their practice of the law more so.

ChrisJ84

Fourier wrote: »

That's fine and easily explains how your position is viable. I just wanted to point out that some Biblical authors held to a form of "open theism".


That is possibly true. My contention is that more so that something like "open theism" was the standard view in historical Israel and the more "eternal" view didn't come in until Hellenic influence later.

An important principle for me as a Christian in thinking about these things is to balance systematic and biblical theology. You can think of systematic theology as the "end product" Christian doctrines, that take account of and synthesise all the biblical data. Biblical theology looks more at how individual books fit into the history of redemption, when they were written, what the authors particular context and interest were etc. The two need to be mutually informing, and if we over emphasise one at the expense of the other we will run into problems.

Fourier wrote: »

I think it would be more accurate to say certain Christians. There have been and are groups that draw a distinction.

I've seen enough red letter bibles to agree with you on that . I think the best response is to ask whether that is how the bible presents itself and the words that are contained within it.

Fourier wrote: »

I thought it was their practice of the law more so.

I think it's fair to say both; Jesus drew attention to the extra burden that the scribes and pharisees have laid on the people in terms of rules and regulations, while simultaneously de-emphasising "more weighty matters." The root of this out of kilter practice is a wrong view of the law, and of the authority of God's word.

We often see the same error raise its head today, and it's something Christians need to be careful to guard against. At root it's hypocritical and should be called out as such.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

"Christians don't ignore the law; we simply hold that much of it has now been fulfilled and so doesn't apply to us in the same way as it did to OT Israel"

That is brilliant. Gods laws don't apply because you think they are no longer necessary.

So there are parts of the bible that you can ignore because they simply are no longer necessary. Why would God write the eternal book and include pointless parts?

Here's a law which went further in the new testament than the old
The old said don't commit adultery, the new said if you even list after a woman you've committed adultery in your heart.
Lots of laws in the new testament .

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Here's a law which went further in the new testament than the old
The old said don't commit adultery, the new said if you even list after a woman you've committed adultery in your heart.
Lots of laws in the new testament .

So what, what has that got to do with he point that you have decided that since something has happened you can now ignore Gods laws!

Jesus never said he was there to reduce or reverse any of the OT.

And in reference to the law you stated, that means that God will hold you responsible not only for the sins of others (original sin) but even thinking about sin counts against you. So even if you don't actually follow through, just the mere thought of it.

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Just to pick out one. Jesus never said a rich man couldn't enter heaven. I suggest if you want to know what I believe that you read the new testament.

What makes makes you think I haven't read the new testament?

Mark 10:25

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Now I am not sure how much you understand camels and needles but that sounds pretty difficult to me.

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

That's exactly what I believe.

He has let us know. You just don't want to accept the answers.

It is not about accepting answers, it is about being shown the truth. You are merely making your interpretations of other peoples interpretations of things that may or may not have happened as some sort of proof. I accept that it is your answer, that though doesn't make it right.

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

As for a change in a person's life. You've not met a real Christian as opposed to someone who said he was one.

There you go again, making assumptions about me. You are the first to decry people claiming to understand Christianity. I know plenty of very devout Christians. Priests, Bishops, plenty of lay people very committed to the church. And how will I tell a real Christian when I meet them? IS it that they believe a particular version of the story? Is believing in Exodus required, or maybe the Noah flood story? Is there a test for a true Christian?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ changes a person. If a person isn't changed I question what gospel they believed.
If the life of God in a person doesn't change them then they don't have that Life. I don't care what Church they go to or what they say they believe.
Does it make me perfect. Ask my wife or kids But I'm being changed.
As for changing the actions of a person...the gospel of Jesus Christ says our behaviour must change. Just read Paul's letters and you'll see the changes expected.

Great you are changed, how. What about the gospel has made you different from those that don't believe. I fully appreciate that reading the gospel changed you, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the gospel is required.

Could you have been the person you are now without it? You will say no, but there are plenty of people across the world, and throughout history, who would show otherwise.

Were you a particularly pad person before you read the gospels? Did you have no ability to right from wrong? Did you have no care for others around you?

UB Dude

Hi,
I haven't read all the posts on this thread and maybe someone has already said this. Personally speaking, I "feel ya bro". I've had pretty much unshakeable faith since I was 20, or so I thought. I have never, since my awakening, once doubted the reality of God, the efficacy of His wisdom, or the surety of his love but, as the scripture teaches: the fining pot for silver, the furnace for gold but the Lord tries the heart of men. Experience has taught me that when the Father tests you, he'll bring you to breaking point. But if you can suffer it, out of the destruction comes resurrection and renewal.


I remember breaking down one night, after years of struggling with a personal issue, bawling my eyes out and, for the first time in my life, I really questioned the Father's love. I was shocked at myself and more than a little disgusted with my childishness and weakness.
Eventually, I realised that walking in this veil of tears is no easy task. Walking by faith, faith in the inevitable victory of truth, beauty and goodness, of faith in righteousness, mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness in a world that seems so terminally afflicted with corruption, is no mean feat.

I found it hard to believe that one could know God and life could still be so hard! For me, the contemplation of the Father and divine realities had always been a font of strength. However, years of bitter experience had made me weak; I guess. Or maybe I was just a naive "fair weather faith-er", it's 'easy' believe when things are going your way but it is challenging when everything you touch turns to ****.

I have learned to charge up most of my pain and heartache to my twisted vision of life and my limited understanding of reality and abandoned the blasphemous notion that the God of Love was indulging in His masochistic inclinations. As Paul said, "we perceive as through a glass, darkly". As a woman in the pain of childbirth reaches out for comfort, so when the soul is tried do we reach for the consolation of the Almighty. Indeed, how easy are our prayers when they are not carrying the weight of the world?

As I pondered the seeming injustices of life, my mind turned to the Son of Man and I realised that even Jesus wept. That, to me, is one of his unnoticed miracles - he wept: "he was in all points afflicted like as we are" but nothing, no suffering, no injustice, no cruelty could cause him to surrender his faith in the goodness and wisdom of the Father's way.

He was kind to the unkind, even with the unworthy. He was gentle, tolerant and forgiving even with the cruel, intolerant, and vengeful. His faith in righteousness and goodness was invincible and in this absolute faith he had the "peace that surpasses all understanding". The world laughed at him and called him a fool but he commended his soul to His Father's judgment. They heaped scorn on his ideals but his response was to pray for them.


Following Jesus is not a path of ease, it's a sure pathway to struggle but in these he walks with us; indeed, he leads the way.

Bruce Lee once taught, "don't pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one." Scripture teaches that the worst affliction is never to have been afflicted. While the world puts no meas on a person that has never experienced difficulties. The only people we admire are those that have overcome great trials and yet still remain sweet.

Please, I call you to faith! Don't allow momentary weakness to dupe you into parting with all the dignity and respect you have acquired over the years, which you have successfully forged out of the firey struggles with the perplexing delusions born of our material existence.

Victory is yours by faith and grace, and not by any great effort on your part. The Father and your unseen angelic brethren fight for you with a passion and means that are beyond your imagining. God is good to heal the broken hearted. Doubt not, believe only. Have faith. You will overcome.

My apologies if this is too preachy.
Life is hard. The guy on the Cross knows that, but even that injustice could not dull the Master's love of mercy or his willingness to reach out to those in need. He would never allowed the injustices he suffered to serve as an excuse to visit injustice upon others. He was a breaker of chains!

Leroy42

Why would any god want his subjects to suffer pain?

What kind of Stockholm syndrome is that? Basically you accept anything no matter how crappy and unfair because a god that never helps you is promising you that when it's all over he may, or may not, take you to heaven depending on his mood.

You've proved your love for him by following his path, you've shown your devotion and yet still he tests you? But babies go straight to heaven?

Does the extra suffering bring Heaven+. A VIP heaven, or will you have to share it horrible people that repented at the end, or people that lived a happy troublesome life?

Take a moment and reread your excellent post from the POV of a non Christian believer. A hindu for example. Why is their post wrong but yours is right? Why is Anne Frank in hell for being a Jew yet plenty of Nazi's probably live in heaven?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I don't think there is a past golden age that we should look back to or try to recreate now. And you're right, it's easy to look at the past with rose tinted spectacles. And while we treat each other better today in the West in some ways than we have done in the past, in other ways we're just as bad as ever (or worse). It's easy to confuse material progress with moral progress. Another way to ask the question is, are we any more content, satisfied or happy than they were in the past? I don't think we are.

I don't think that by comparing the misogyny and open homophobia in this countries recent past I am in any sense confusing material progress with moral progress. That we are a considerably more egalitarian society that is orders of magnitude less accepting of all sorts of discrimination is unquestionably moral progress.

Another consideration, from a Christian perspective, is that our thoughts, motivations, attitudes and desires matter just as much as our outward actions. In fact, they reflect what we are really like. On that basis, I don't think we are any better than humans have been at any point in our history.

Even as an atheist, I'd agree that morality has to do with intent as well as external behaviour. That said, we're social animals and we learn from a young age what is good and bad behaviour from our family and peers. Thus the external behaviour of others, such as outward and visible displays of kindness and tolerance, serves as a lesson to others, as does intolerance of discrimination and cruelty.

It is a balancing act for sure, where fear of severe punishment also plays less of a role than it did in the past. e.g. some of the anti-social behaviour we see today would have resulted in a beating in the past with no questions asked. Removing the threat removes the inhibition to misbehave, so we need to find other effective ways to handle it. Not sure that Christianity has any answers here as I rather doubt those involved would fit your definition of Christian. For religion to play a role, it needs mass participation (if you'll excuse the pun) which no longer seems to be the case.

I don't think you can say whether we're better people now or not until you define more precisely what you mean by the word better in this context. I would question would the outward appearance of better behaviour in the past be more influenced by fear of repercussion that being 'better people'?

smacl

UB Dude wrote: »

The guy on the Cross knows that, but even that injustice could not dull the Master's love of mercy or his willingness to reach out to those in need. He would never allowed the injustices he suffered to serve as an excuse to visit injustice upon others. He was a breaker of chains!

Think that might have been someone else from a popular TV show with dragons and what not....

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I don't think that by comparing the misogyny and open homophobia in this countries recent past I am in any sense confusing material progress with moral progress. That we are a considerably more egalitarian society that is orders of magnitude less accepting of all sorts of discrimination is unquestionably moral progress.

I don't think you are, just saying that we need to be careful to confuse the two. In the modern West we are, on the whole, wealthier, better educated and have access to greater opportunities than at any other point in human history. It would be odd if that didn't lead to a certain level of hubris.

I also totally accept your point that in some ways we treat each other much better now than we have done at other points in the past. That's great in so far as it goes, but doesn't necessarily indicate universal progress.

smacl wrote: »

Even as an atheist, I'd agree that morality has to do with intent as well as external behaviour. That said, we're social animals and we learn from a young age what is good and bad behaviour from our family and peers. Thus the external behaviour of others, such as outward and visible displays of kindness and tolerance, serves as a lesson to others, as does intolerance of discrimination and cruelty.

It is a balancing act for sure, where fear of severe punishment also plays less of a role than it did in the past. e.g. some of the anti-social behaviour we see today would have resulted in a beating in the past with no questions asked. Removing the threat removes the inhibition to misbehave, so we need to find other effective ways to handle it. Not sure that Christianity has any answers here as I rather doubt those involved would fit your definition of Christian. For religion to play a role, it needs mass participation (if you'll excuse the pun) which no longer seems to be the case.

I think this is an important point. Christianity isn't primarily about social reform. It's an evangelical religion, and if Christianity is going to impact on society then it does so one human heart at a time.

smacl wrote: »

I don't think you can say whether we're better people now or not until you define more precisely what you mean by the word better in this context.

This is the nub of the issue - clearly a Christian is going to give a very different answer to an atheist secularist. What we mean by words like "fair" "justice" "good" "bad" etc. is key, and is defined by what we believe about morality and where it comes from. As a Christian, I see every person's greatest need as salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That reflects the depth of our sin problem, which is never going to be solved by any amount of societal progress.

I would also still question whether your view really gives you grounds to critique other times or societies, unless you smuggle an objective morality in by the back door. But maybe I just need to recognise the might of the UN

smacl wrote: »

I would question would the outward appearance of better behaviour in the past be more influenced by fear of repercussion that being 'better people'?

Same is true now though, isn't it?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I also totally accept your point that in some ways we treat each other much better now than we have done at other points in the past. That's great in so far as it goes, but doesn't necessarily indicate universal progress.

I'd tend to use the term widespread progress rather than universal progress, in that on balance there is progress but that is not to say somethings haven't progressed or others got worse. Nor does it imply that there isn't still much more progress required.

I would also still question whether your view really gives you grounds to critique other times or societies, unless you smuggle an objective morality in by the back door. But maybe I just need to recognise the might of the UN

I don't think we need trouble the UN for this one. You introduced murder into the conversation as a broad moral touchstone of something that is considered very wrong, largely independent of belief system or societal context. I've already illustrated that the rate of murder globally per head of population has decreased massively over the course of history. If we use rate of murder per thousand people per year as a rather coarse moral yardstick, we can see we've improved over time, more so in Europe than elsewhere.

Once you go for personal moral values, e.g. those surrounding sex and sexuality within different religious frameworks, things get very different as there is no consensus as to what is right or wrong. A puritanical Christian might consider someone with pro-choice views deeply immoral, whereas a that pro-choice person might consider the puritan deeply immoral for their stance on the same issue. Where those two people are to get on as part of the same society, secularism becomes important as it recognises the diversity of beliefs within a society.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I don't think we need trouble the UN for this one. You introduced murder into the conversation as a broad moral touchstone of something that is considered very wrong, largely independent of belief system or societal context. I've already illustrated that the rate of murder globally per head of population has decreased massively over the course of history. If we use rate of murder per thousand people per year as a rather coarse moral yardstick, we can see we've improved over time, more so in Europe than elsewhere.

Once you go for personal moral values, e.g. those surrounding sex and sexuality within different religious frameworks, things get very different as there is no consensus as to what is right or wrong. A puritanical Christian might consider someone with pro-choice views deeply immoral, whereas a that pro-choice person might consider the puritan deeply immoral for their stance on the same issue. Where those two people are to get on as part of the same society, secularism becomes important as it recognises the diversity of beliefs within a society.

I think this begs the question again. Why is something like murder objectively, but something like sexuality put in the "personal moral values" bucket?

I agree that we need to try to get on in a secular society, and the new testament is clear that Christianity is not about establishing a theocracy. Christians are to be salt and light in society, and to submit to the ruling authorities as far as possible. I find it striking that this was written in reference to Imperial Rome!

But Christian beliefs (or any religious beliefs really) have an inevitable public aspect, and we should all be able to advocate for what we think is best for society at large. Tolerance demands it.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think this begs the question again. Why is something like murder objectively, but something like sexuality put in the "personal moral values" bucket?

Again, consensus. Most people would agree that murder is immoral under most circumstances, with possible rare exceptions as raised earlier. Not so with various sexual behaviour.

I think the issue here is that you're treating objective and subjective as exclusive discrete values, whereas I'm also considering interim values such as 'broad consensus', and 'to the best of our collective understanding'. If we look at our respective trusted sources for moral guidance we see there are subjective elements in both. e.g. your discussion with fourier clear shows that biblical texts are open to interpretation and different groups of Christians draw different conclusions as a result.

Basically, any values that aren't in either held by the majority of people or legislated for in society I'd consider personal moral values.

I agree that we need to try to get on in a secular society, and the new testament is clear that Christianity is not about establishing a theocracy. Christians are to be salt and light in society, and to submit to the ruling authorities as far as possible. I find it striking that this was written in reference to Imperial Rome!

But Christian beliefs (or any religious beliefs really) have an inevitable public aspect, and we should all be able to advocate for what we think is best for society at large. Tolerance demands it.

No argument there, but then this goes for every other group in society as well, including all those people that consider themselves Christian who you and others here would seem not to consider Christian. Everyone is clearly free to state their views in the public square but in doing so exposes those views to fair criticism.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Basically, any values that aren't in either held by the majority of people or legislated for in society I'd consider personal moral values.

Consensus is a pretty poor standard for morality. So is legislation.

Horrible things have been done to others where the majority agreed with it. Horrible things have been legislated for.

I'm quite thankful that what God has objectively spoken is my basis for right or wrong. Otherwise anything could be justified to be right or wrong just because a majority determine so, or a legislature decreed so.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Consensus is a pretty poor standard for morality. So is legislation.

Horrible things have been done to others where the majority agreed with it. Horrible things have been legislated for.

I'm quite thankful that what God has objectively spoken is my basis for right or wrong. Otherwise anything could be justified to be right or wrong just because a majority determine so, or a legislature decreed so.

No shortage of barbarity carried out in the name of your God and other people's gods either. Given that Christians are regularly in conflict with one another, and have been throughout their history, the word of their supposed God seems to vary considerably depending on who you talk to. Hardly objective now is it?

Leroy42

Morality is a strange issue in terms of God. Christian's continually claim that God defined their morality but even God seems to vary widely in his standards of morality.

Killing Lots wife for the crime of turning around to look at his distruction?

Wiping out the entire world population for not abiding by his standards.

Sending all humanity out of Garden of Eden for the curiosity of Adam & Eve.

Killing all the Egyptian soldiers by drowning for merely following the orders of their leaders.

So where do Christians get there moral code?

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

No shortage of barbarity carried out in the name of your God and other people's gods either. Given that Christians are regularly in conflict with one another, and have been throughout their history, the word of their supposed God seems to vary considerably depending on who you talk to. Hardly objective now is it?

There we go back to the definition of a Christian.
It appears you refer to Christendom rather than Christianity.

But do carry on

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

Morality is a strange issue in terms of God. Christian's continually claim that God defined their morality but even God seems to vary widely in his standards of morality.

Killing Lots wife for the crime of turning around to look at his distruction?

Wiping out the entire world population for not abiding by his standards.

Sending all humanity out of Garden of Eden for the curiosity of Adam & Eve.

Killing all the Egyptian soldiers by drowning for merely following the orders of their leaders.

So where do Christians get there moral code?

And funnily enough they were all warned of the consequences of disobedience and given a way to live which they rejected.

Would you like a world without consequence?

We lock people up for breaking the laws even in a secular society.
We used to kill them too.

Leroy42

So its OK, morally, to kill someone once you tell them before hand that you will kill them if they don't do as you demand?

Is that really your moral compass? So a serial killer should be let free if he can prove that he only killed his victims if they tried to escape after he told them not to?

That is not a moral position, it's a bully charter.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

So its OK, morally, to kill someone once you tell them before hand that you will kill them if they don't do as you demand?

Is that really your moral compass? So a serial killer should be let free if he can prove that he only killed his victims if they tried to escape after he told them not to?

That is not a moral position, it's a bully charter.

I never said that and how about answering my question?


Would you want a world without consequences because thats what we're discussing?

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

And funnily enough they were all warned of the consequences of disobedience and given a way to live which they rejected.

Would you like a world without consequence?

We lock people up for breaking the laws even in a secular society.
We used to kill them too.

So its OK, morally, to kill someone once you tell them before hand that you will kill them if they don't do as you demand?

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

I never said that and how about answering my question?

You said that they knew o the consequences and given a way of life which they rejected? What else do you mean other than its their own fault? Did you mean something else?

Which would be odd given that you finished your post by stating that we used to kill people for breaking the law.

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Would you want a world without consequences because thats what we're discussing?

No we are not, no one has even asking or put that forward as a position. We are talking about morals coming God yet God is totally immoral and that you seem to ascribe to that morality.

But of course I don't want a world without consequence, and we don't live in such a world. We, without God, has created a more moral world that the one your god wants. We believe in fairness, the rule of law, giving those that break the law punishment in line with the crime.

So where do you get your morals from? Maybe try answering my question? So its OK, morally, to kill someone once you tell them before hand that you will kill them if they don't do as you demand?

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

You said that they knew o the consequences and given a way of life which they rejected? What else do you mean other than its their own fault? Did you mean something else?

Which would be odd given that you finished your post by stating that we used to kill people for breaking the law.



No we are not, no one has even asking or put that forward as a position. We are talking about morals coming God yet God is totally immoral and that you seem to ascribe to that morality.

But of course I don't want a world without consequence, and we don't live in such a world. We, without God, has created a more moral world that the one your god wants. We believe in fairness, the rule of law, giving those that break the law punishment in line with the crime.

So where do you get your morals from? Maybe try answering my question? So its OK, morally, to kill someone once you tell them before hand that you will kill them if they don't do as you demand?

It's not so long ago that we had the death penalty.

You murdered someone, the penalty was death. It wasn't a secret yet people still murdered other people and society deemed it acceptable to kill those who broke societies moral code

How is that any different to the creator setting the standards and the consequences for breaking those standards?

Would you prefer another punishment..let's say 10 years imprisonment for rape. It doesn't stop people committing rape despite knowing the consequences of raping someone.

Cabaal

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Would you prefer another punishment..let's say 10 years imprisonment for rape. It doesn't stop people committing rape despite knowing the consequences of raping someone.

10 years for rape by default actually might be no harm, because right now rape and sexual abuse sentences are a joke. For example Br. Francis Patrick Mallon who was sentenced to only three months for abusing three girls, I think we can agree this is a joke of a sentence.

How is that any different to the creator setting the standards and the consequences for breaking those standards?

Because it isn't a creator writing those standards, it is man.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Again, consensus. Most people would agree that murder is immoral under most circumstances, with possible rare exceptions as raised earlier. Not so with various sexual behaviour...Basically, any values that aren't in either held by the majority of people or legislated for in society I'd consider personal moral values.

smacl wrote: »

No shortage of barbarity carried out in the name of your God and other people's gods either. Given that Christians are regularly in conflict with one another, and have been throughout their history, the word of their supposed God seems to vary considerably depending on who you talk to. Hardly objective now is it?

Christians, like everyone else, are fallible and can do terrible things in the name of what they believe. I don't think that's disputed. The question is whether an objective standard exists that allows us to criticise such behaviour, and where such a standard comes from.

That brings us back to the same issue that's been highlighted already; consensus doesn't get you as far as being able to say that things are right and wrong. It's a fine way to organise ourselves as a nation, but all it means is that some behaviours can be punished and others permitted or encouraged. You see some things that Christians have done in the past as barbarous, and I'd be inclined to agree. But if the consensus 500 years ago was that it was ok to burn people at the stake, who are we to criticise? Why does our consensus trump theirs?

Unless you assume that we have made progress towards some higher standard. Maybe you do have faith after all, the question is in what?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

But if the consensus 500 years ago was that it was ok to burn people at the stake, who are we to criticise? Why does our consensus trump theirs?

Unless you assume that we have made progress towards some higher standard. Maybe you do have faith after all, the question is in what?

A couple of things here. When the likes of the crusaders were burning heretics at the stake it was at the behest of the papacy and had little to do with consensus. Most countries that have a form of democracy today would not have in the past and people had little say in formation or application of justice.

Even then, unless you're actually asserting that a society that was ok with burning people at the stake was better than the one we have now, then progress has clearly been made and there is no demand for faith in this matter. Humankind has progressed, and continues to progress, in many ways, socially, technologically and morally.

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

It's not so long ago that we had the death penalty.

You murdered someone, the penalty was death. It wasn't a secret yet people still murdered other people and society deemed it acceptable to kill those who broke societies moral code

How is that any different to the creator setting the standards and the consequences for breaking those standards?

Would you prefer another punishment..let's say 10 years imprisonment for rape. It doesn't stop people committing rape despite knowing the consequences of raping someone.

I see you completely failed to answer the question I asked! No surprise there, you always try to turn to something else.

Now you have gone off back into history as if that has anything to do with it. This is about whether your god is moral. You seem to think he is based on the fact that someone has to make a decision and sure people knew the consequences so its fine.

I cannot believe that in defence of you immoral god you have reverted to telling me that humans did some awful stuff too!

Surely a god, a one true creator that you have such faith in has given you a strong moral code. I am simply asking you what it is, and do you believe that god is moral and why since god has undertaken many immoral acts.

Should be easy enough to answer that. If you claim that your god is the basis of morality how do you explain the very immoral things that he did?

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

I cannot believe that in defence of you immoral god you have reverted to telling me that humans did some awful stuff too!

Surely a god, a one true creator that you have such faith in has given you a strong moral code. I am simply asking you what it is, and do you believe that god is moral and why since god has undertaken many immoral acts.

Should be easy enough to answer that. If you claim that your god is the basis of morality how do you explain the very immoral things that he did?

How could you ask if God has committed imoral acts since you don't believe he exists.

That's like me asking you to explain the tooth fairy stealing teeth all the while knowing he doesn't exist. A bit warped don't you think:)

Leroy42

I'm asking you because you believe he exists. Have you really no answer?

This question on whether your god is moral or not seems to be very difficult for you.

Let's agree then that whatever else god is, a basis for morality is not it.

That of course doesn't effect whether he exists or not, he doesn't need to be moral to exist.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

A couple of things here. When the likes of the crusaders were burning heretics at the stake it was at the behest of the papacy and had little to do with consensus. Most countries that have a form of democracy today would not have in the past and people had little say in formation or application of justice.

Nice dodge, it's all those pesky Christians fault! You've still not explained how consensus sets objective standards for right and wrong.

smacl wrote: »

Even then, unless you're actually asserting that a society that was ok with burning people at the stake was better than the one we have now, then progress has clearly been made and there is no demand for faith in this matter. Humankind has progressed, and continues to progress, in many ways, socially, technologically and morally.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. We rightly look back on some things from the past with horror, but they would be equally horrified by many aspects of our society. The assertion that we've progressed morally sounds like a faith position to me.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Nice dodge, it's all those pesky Christians fault! You've still not explained how consensus sets objective standards for right and wrong.

No dodge at all, no point talking about consensus from a point in history when democracy simply wasn't in play for the most part but rather rule of military might. While we can trace specific instances of implementing basic human rights all the way back the 539BCE, broad acceptance of human rights arrived at through a process of global consensus is relatively recent phenomenon. As for objectivity, you can take one of two positions based on whether or not you believe in an omnipotent god. If you do there is an objective morality that emanates from outside our physical universe it is passed down from your god to humankind, where humans are eminently and demonstrably corruptible, hence the objectivity is lost. This can be illustrated by two Christians coming into conflict who have a difference of opinion with respect to morality but both sincerely believe their position is one governed by the absolute objective truth handed down by their god. The other position is where you don't believe in such a god and the objective truth is one arrived at by many people and much discourse over and extended period of time. This truth is not absolute but dynamic and subject to change as our understanding evolves.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. We rightly look back on some things from the past with horror, but they would be equally horrified by many aspects of our society. The assertion that we've progressed morally sounds like a faith position to me.

Ok, let's look at that in a bit more detail so. Listing a few things from the past that we might find horrific we could add rates of murder, slavery, torturing and execution of people because they didn't share your religious belief, war, rape and pillage as a means of expanding one's empire, endemic racism, misogyny and homophobia to name but a few. Perhaps you'd care to make a complimentary list of aspects of our society that those from the past would find horrific and we can draw up a comparison?

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm asking you because you believe he exists. Have you really no answer?

This question on whether your god is moral or not seems to be very difficult for you.

Let's agree then that whatever else god is, a basis for morality is not it.

That of course doesn't effect whether he exists or not, he doesn't need to be moral to exist.

If I thought it a genuine question I'd answer it but one thing I won't agree with is your question or answer on His morality.

And since you won't answer a basic question as to whether there should be consequences for our actions and whether those consequences are an effective deterrent , I think we're done.

Leroy42

I did answer your question. We live in a world of consequences.

We are done because you cannot accept that you have no justification for claiming your god is moral, and thus no justification for basing your moral beliefs on his position on morality.

I laid out a number of instances which cannot be considered moral, your response was that the people knew the consequences and thus deserved being murdered and more.

I happen to believe that that is an amoral position, luckily the human race, or the majority of it anyway, have ditched your gods moral position and opted for a better one.

The very fact that Jesus is seen as being a message for peace and love simply shows how different that was from the previous message from god. But alas, Jesus himself being god apparently, never apologised for the slaughter. We are supposed to just brush it off, except for all the bits that are absolutely true and cannot be changed.

I hope that rather than simply ignore this you take some time to review the bible and see for yourself what an evil an immoral god you claim to worship.

Alas, I fear that you will simply ignore the issue, probably on the basis that you think I don't understand the 'real' god without doing anything to understand it yourself.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

No dodge at all, no point talking about consensus from a point in history when democracy simply wasn't in play for the most part but rather rule of military might. While we can trace specific instances of implementing basic human rights all the way back the 539BCE, broad acceptance of human rights arrived at through a process of global consensus is relatively recent phenomenon. As for objectivity, you can take one of two positions based on whether or not you believe in an omnipotent god. If you do there is an objective morality that emanates from outside our physical universe it is passed down from your god to humankind, where humans are eminently and demonstrably corruptible, hence the objectivity is lost. This can be illustrated by two Christians coming into conflict who have a difference of opinion with respect to morality but both sincerely believe their position is one governed by the absolute objective truth handed down by their god. The other position is where you don't believe in such a god and the objective truth is one arrived at by many people and much discourse over and extended period of time. This truth is not absolute but dynamic and subject to change as our understanding evolves.

One problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming that those in the past weren't basically satisfied with their society as it was, regardless of whether they got to vote or not. In any case it doesn't matter, as there are plenty of things done by democratic societies that are clearly wrong. Take racial segregation in the US as an example, or the many injustices you referenced in Ireland since the foundation of the state. Is their consensus just as valid as ours, even though we find it distasteful? If not, why not?

As regards objective morality, I think we just fundamentally disagree and that's ok. As a Christian I see it as something completely outside of us that we need to be conformed to, and not as something that we create and shape for ourselves.

smacl wrote: »

Ok, let's look at that in a bit more detail so. Listing a few things from the past that we might find horrific we could add rates of murder, slavery, torturing and execution of people because they didn't share your religious belief, war, rape and pillage as a means of expanding one's empire, endemic racism, misogyny and homophobia to name but a few. Perhaps you'd care to make a complimentary list of aspects of our society that those from the past would find horrific and we can draw up a comparison?

As far as I am aware, those things are all still fairly widespread around the world. In the democratic West we may, by and large, have managed to suppress some of our more violent impulses (and that is a good thing) but it is a long way from saying that we are better or more moral people as a result. From the perspective of Christianity, the rot goes right to the core and modifying our behaviour doesn't go nearly deep enough. From God's perspective, we are just as bad as the medieval pillager; our badness just shows itself in different ways. We might find them more respectable and tasteful, but so what? We don't set the terms of what is right and wrong, God does.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

One problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming that those in the past weren't basically satisfied with their society as it was, regardless of whether they got to vote or not.

Given the larger number of people either in abject poverty, indentured labour or slavery in many pre-democratic societies, why would you think they were satisfied. Democracy came about as a mechanism to support the preferences of the majority.

In any case it doesn't matter, as there are plenty of things done by democratic societies that are clearly wrong. Take racial segregation in the US as an example, or the many injustices you referenced in Ireland since the foundation of the state. Is their consensus just as valid as ours, even though we find it distasteful? If not, why not?

That we continue to live in a flawed society today with many injustices is not in question though. The question is that on balance do we treat one another better today than at any time in the past? If the answer is yes, then we are progressing morally. If no, you could perhaps point out a time when things were better.

As regards objective morality, I think we just fundamentally disagree and that's ok. As a Christian I see it as something completely outside of us that we need to be conformed to, and not as something that we create and shape for ourselves.

That's fair enough, but as a society with many such different beliefs we need to find common ground in order to happily coexist.

As far as I am aware, those things are all still fairly widespread around the world. In the democratic West we may, by and large, have managed to suppress some of our more violent impulses (and that is a good thing) but it is a long way from saying that we are better or more moral people as a result. From the perspective of Christianity, the rot goes right to the core and modifying our behaviour doesn't go nearly deep enough. From God's perspective, we are just as bad as the medieval pillager; our badness just shows itself in different ways. We might find them more respectable and tasteful, but so what? We don't set the terms of what is right and wrong, God does.

I agree, but as per my first point, the level at which they're present is demonstrably lower than at any time in the past.

While you consider morality on the basis of your understanding of your god, others might consider it based of their god, a different understanding of your god, or the absence of any god. Until such time as we see divine intervention however, any change can only arise from how we behave collectively as people and religious belief is effectively the same as personal opinion.

Leroy42

Only God does? So what is gods morality then?

Do we base it on what we read in the bible?

And we are to be judged on our sins wouldn't it have been fair and reasonable to actually tell us what the morals are

smacl

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only God does? So what is gods morality then?

Do we base it on what we read in the bible?

And we are to be judged on our sins wouldn't it have been fair and reasonable to actually tell us what the morals are

My take on it is that there are many directly opposing notions of morality within Christianity depending on who you talk to. For example, Christianity has a long and well documented history of violence often justified by reference to the bible. At the same time Christian pacifism also has a long history and biblical justification. I guess you'd need to talk to a 'real' Christian to get the single truth of it, if such a thing exists

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Given the larger number of people either in abject poverty, indentured labour or slavery in many pre-democratic societies, why would you think they were satisfied. Democracy came about as a mechanism to support the preferences of the majority.

I didn't say that, though. I was pointing out that there is little reason to think that, on the whole, people are any more satisfied in modern democratic societies than they were in the past.

smacl wrote: »

That we continue to live in a flawed society today with many injustices is not in question though. The question is that on balance do we treat one another better today than at any time in the past? If the answer is yes, then we are progressing morally. If no, you could perhaps point out a time when things were better.

That's fair enough, but as a society with many such different beliefs we need to find common ground in order to happily coexist.

I agree, but as per my first point, the level at which they're present is demonstrably lower than at any time in the past.

I think we're going in circles on this, so maybe the conversation has run its course. I agree that we continue to live in a flawed society, and that we should all do what we can to make the world a more pleasant place to live in. But I don't think we are making any real moral progress as a species, and I find the idea that we are to be hopelessly naive. The bible leads me to have very little faith in human nature and goodness, and a lot of faith in God's goodness.

smacl wrote: »

While you consider morality on the basis of your understanding of your god, others might consider it based of their god, a different understanding of your god, or the absence of any god. Until such time as we see divine intervention however, any change can only arise from how we behave collectively as people and religious belief is effectively the same as personal opinion.

Clearly, if God doesn't exist and Jesus isn't the risen lord then I and others like me are badly mistaken. In that case, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

My take on it is that there are many directly opposing notions of morality within Christianity depending on who you talk to. For example, Christianity has a long and well documented history of violence often justified by reference to the bible. At the same time Christian pacifism also has a long history and biblical justification. I guess you'd need to talk to a 'real' Christian to get the single truth of it, if such a thing exists

It's interesting that you keep coming back to this. I guess it fits well with the idea that we're all our own masters and can manipulate reality to create our own version of truth. It's also a convenient way to dismiss anything that's put forward as a "Christian" position.

"What is truth?" as someone once said :rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

I
I happen to believe that that is an amoral position, luckily the human race, or the majority of it anyway, have ditched your gods moral position and opted for a better one.
.

So you've a disregard for morality. Everyone has a degree of morality at some level. A point at which something is just plain wrong.
Show me the evidence to the contrary.

I assume you've stats to back up your claim regarding the majority. I await your evidence.

Leroy42

Where have I said I have a disregard for morality?

But you are right that everyone has a degree of morality. There is no need to make up gods to have it.

Yet again you simply make up an argument to avoid dealing with your own failings.

And are you really bringing a requirement for evidence into a debate about God? Perfect. So what is the evidence for this god you believe in?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I didn't say that, though. I was pointing out that there is little reason to think that, on the whole, people are any more satisfied in modern democratic societies than they were in the past.

Hardly. It reminds of the sketch from Life of Brian, "What has democracy ever done for us?" Well there's promotion of equality, legislation for basic human rights, freedom from tyranny, no need for revolution, allowing the people to choose their leaders, etc... In most modern democracies we also have public healthcare, public education, public housing, and altogether less death by starvation, disease and acts of random brutality. Societies prior to democracy included features such as slavery, no emancipation for women, massive levels of poverty, despotic rulers and regular wars and armed conflicts of various sizes.

As asked previously, perhaps you could name a large non-democratic society where people were more satisfied than they are in a typical democracy.

I think we're going in circles on this, so maybe the conversation has run its course. I agree that we continue to live in a flawed society, and that we should all do what we can to make the world a more pleasant place to live in. But I don't think we are making any real moral progress as a species, and I find the idea that we are to be hopelessly naive. The bible leads me to have very little faith in human nature and goodness, and a lot of faith in God's goodness.

Again I disagree for all the reasons previously stated. In my opinion, the fact that most people no longer conflate morality with religious dogma but rather consider it part of basic human decency is key to this.

Clearly, if God doesn't exist and Jesus isn't the risen lord then I and others like me are badly mistaken. In that case, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

This just illustrates my last point. In the absense of god, rather than eat, drink and be merry while waiting for death, we can prioritise caring for one another, improving our collective lot and making the most of our finite existence. And of course eat, drink and be merry too, nought wrong with that but there's rather more to life.

I strongly suspect that for many Christians, they express their Christianity first and foremost through prioritising human decency and kindness. So for example if we look at the Merriam-Webster definition of the word Christian, we see on meaning as 'treating other people in a kind or generous way'.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

It's interesting that you keep coming back to this. I guess it fits well with the idea that we're all our own masters and can manipulate reality to create our own version of truth. It's also a convenient way to dismiss anything that's put forward as a "Christian" position.

"What is truth?" as someone once said :rolleyes:

Agreed, in the absense of divine intervention we are all our own masters and hold to our own subjective truths. Within Christianity, there is as much disagreement about "truth" as their is elsewhere, as evidenced through regular and often violent conflict. Resolution can be achieved through consensus or coercion, where the latter option is increasingly seen as socially unacceptable.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Hardly. It reminds of the sketch from Life of Brian, "What has democracy ever done for us?" Well there's promotion of equality, legislation for basic human rights, freedom from tyranny, no need for revolution, allowing the people to choose their leaders, etc... In most modern democracies we also have public healthcare, public education, public housing, and altogether less death by starvation, disease and acts of random brutality. Societies prior to democracy included features such as slavery, no emancipation for women, massive levels of poverty, despotic rulers and regular wars and armed conflicts of various sizes.

Again, I never said that democracy hasn't done anything for us. We've made massive material progress, and in some ways our outward behaviour has improved. But we are just as selfish, greedy etc. as at any other time in the past. In fact, it could be argued that we have facilitated our prosperity in the West at the expense of the rest of the world; in that case we've just outsourced a lot of the misery that used to be experienced here.

smacl wrote: »

As asked previously, perhaps you could name a large non-democratic society where people were more satisfied than they are in a typical democracy.

Garden of Eden, before the fall? There isn't a golden age when things were better, and all the democratic freedom and material prosperity in the world isn't going to change basic human nature.

smacl wrote: »

Again I disagree for all the reasons previously stated. In my opinion, the fact that most people no longer conflate morality with religious dogma but rather consider it part of basic human decency is key to this.

This just illustrates my last point. In the absense of god, rather than eat, drink and be merry while waiting for death, we can prioritise caring for one another, improving our collective lot and making the most of our finite existence. And of course eat, drink and be merry too, nought wrong with that but there's rather more to life.

I strongly suspect that for many Christians, they express their Christianity first and foremost through prioritising human decency and kindness. So for example if we look at the Merriam-Webster definition of the word Christian, we see on meaning as 'treating other people in a kind or generous way'.

Why would you think that Christians aren't concerned with human decency and kindness? It's just that we think there is more to human flourishing than being kind, experiencing material prosperity and having the right to vote.