- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:25 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:25 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
believe we innately understand some things are wrong and right.
Without a doubt, but still, where does the conscience come from? Even if it’s developed from generation to generation, there has to be an origin in the first generation.
3
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Exactly, "there is none" is the answer, because there is no objective morality to reason to, as I've been saying. We cannot reason to an objective morality at all, to what we "ought" to do. All reason can do is help us interpret the information we have available in accordance with what we desire. You can use reason to understand cause and effect, but it can't tell you what is morally right on its own.
In the "state of nature", from an individual perspective, there is none. A human raised in feral conditions won't be "moral" as the enlightened society versions of humans would judge.
quote:See, you prove that reason alone cannot provide an "ought". All you're saying is that morality changes based on the whims of societies and cultures (based on their preferences) and reason helps us navigate the current expectations within those fluid societies and cultures. That doesn't drive us to an "ought", only a "what now". Reason cannot
Morality is a societal and social construct. As societies change, morality has changed. If you want to see a great example of this, read the Old and New Testaments
I also think you're confused about application of the law of God in the Bible and thinking that if the application changes, that the law or standard, itself, has changed. That's not true. There is a reason that Christians have historically made differentiations between the moral law (the 10 commandments), ceremonial law (those that separated Israel from the surrounding nations and pointed to a need for a savior to cleanse sin), and the civil/judicial (laws pertaining to the governance of the city-state of Israel) laws. The moral law describes the moral categories as defined by God, and the other law distinctions describe how to apply them based on context (the laws pertaining to the state of Israel don't necessarily apply to America, and the laws pertaining to the cleanliness of the people of Israel are no longer necessary with the work of Christ).
quote:Objective morality is not the construct of a religion sect, though. It's the construct of a timeless, spaceless, and unchanging God who created the universe and wrote the moral law onto the hearts of rebellious sinners who twist that knowledge to their own ends. We have enough knowledge for our reason to condemn us but not enough for reason to get to a right understanding of that objective moral standard without the revelation of God. But we do have that revelation and we can use reason to understand it.
If morality is entirely a construct of any religious sect, then it doesn't exist in any objective way for us to reason to, if other sects have opposing moralities. The same standard works with religion, too.
quote:Actually it is. If there is no objective moral code, then we don't know what is right because what is right can change at any given time. We have to respond to society to know what is right in that given moment.
This isn't even correct.
quote:Like I said, reason can only help us navigate. It can't produce moral truth. Reason alone cannot bring us an "ought", we have to have an "ought" that exists apart from man's reason. The moral "ought" from God had to exist before I was able to acknowledge it and receive it.
It led you to a particular sect of a particular religion for which you find the morality acceptable to that very same reasoned process.
quote:The universal moral standard is God's law which reflects His very character. That is an un-objectionable truth within orthodox Christianity (I have to qualify this because there are many who claim to be Christians which do not seek the truth of morality from God, the standard bearer for morality). The problem comes in when people attempt to define their own moral standards apart from what God has revealed. That's a problem with people, not the standard.
Again, different versions of Christianity cannot agree on a universal moral standard.
Do you believe same sex marriage is moral? Or, more specifically, does your particular sect of Christianity?
Regarding same-sex marriage: it is not moral because it is both a violation of the command to not have same-sex intercourse as well as a contradiction of the biblical definition of marriage that God provided. If marriage is a description of a union of a man with a woman, then whatever union two men or two women have cannot be called marriage. But more broadly, same-sex sexual lust and behaviors are a violation of the 7th commandment not to commit adultery, which itself is a comprehensive law against all sexual immorality.
And let me remind that that disagreeing with an objective moral standard does not mean that the objective standard doesn't exist any more than deciding that it's illegal for the government to tax income (and therefore not paying income taxes) doesn't mean that the government can't enforce the law and demand back taxes.
quote:All of my comments about this have been generalized and non-specific to individuals in this thread. I've been talking conceptually about the logical necessity of competing truth claims and how they are necessarily at odds with one another. You haven't said anything about my comments not being directed towards specific posters in this thread until now. I'm not changing anything but have been consistent with my comments.
Not in this thread, which is what I was referencing (and to which you replied). Don't try to change the framing so you can argue a different point.
quote:You're obviously acting in bad faith here. I wasn't talking about the serious repercussions of disagreements that have occurred in the past. I was talking about what Christians by and large agree with vs. disagree with today, you know, like whether or the communion cup should be alcoholic, or whether the Spirit of God continues to work the same as as He did in the early church. I'm distinguishing between salvation-related doctrines and understandings of Scripture.
There have been many conflicts and murders that strongly disagree with this assertion.
And I say that to in no way criticize Christianity. I am just pointing out that you're minimizing the actual history of these conflicts. They've only become minor in recent history (really after industrialization developed society into proto-modernity). The vast majority of the 2000 years of Christianity have involved constant violence among the sects over these differences. They're not nearly as minor as you're portraying them.
The abuses in history that have resulted in unjustified deaths are certainly to be lamented. Those are the results of sin, not God's moral standard. Like I said, deviation from the standard does not disprove the standard.
quote:I think you've forgotten or misunderstood my initial claim. I said "But more specifically, reason alone cannot provide an “ought”, only an opinion based on personal preferences." Reason can help us understand what the "ought" is if there is truly an "ought" to begin with, but even then, reason is not pure and perfect because it is used by fallen creatures. We can and do reason wrongly and incorrectly. Our reason leads us to false conclusions. But even if we were to be able to reason perfectly, reason alone cannot get us to an objective "ought" when no objective "ought" exists. I don't think you've been tracking.
Again, not a universal truth within Christianity.
You have reasoned (or rely upon the reasoning of others, but still that involves your own reasoning in making the choice to believe this rhetoric) this in the same way you're claiming humans can't reason morality.
The choice to believe involves reason and discernment. This applies within Christianity and outside of Christianity.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:28 am to Padme
quote:
Even if it’s developed from generation to generation, there has to be an origin in the first generation.
Couldn't evolution select for humans who are naturally altruistic?
It's hard to argue against the successes that have followed from that (humanity putting itself on the moon, for example).
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:29 am to Padme
quote:
where does the conscience come from?
Not really definable from a rationalist standpoint.
I think rationalists jump the shark trying to live in that realm, because most of life is irrational.
“The whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano key.” Dostoyevsk
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:30 am to Azkiger
quote:Empathy is an emotion, like jealousy, lust, and anger. Why should someone be compelled to live according to empathy rather than anger?
So someone believing that empathy is an evolutionary adaptation that has helped humans accomplish what they've accomplished behaving empathetically is a contradiction? Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:31 am to Padme
quote:
Even if it’s developed from generation to generation, there has to be an origin in the first generation.
I know I've missed a lot, but with evolution, this isn't that big of a deal. The question is why that trait/gene was selected, not one of how it existed at some point in the past.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Empathy is an emotion, like jealousy, lust, and anger.
Yep, and its often misplaced.
Too many people mistaken empathy for morality.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:32 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Why should someone be compelled to live according to empathy rather than anger?
That depends on the society.
Mongols are going to see this a bit different than post-industrial man.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:34 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Exactly. You can have empathy override justice by letting a convicted child rapist go free because you don't want to see anyone be locked in a cage (I've heard people say that). What is right is not necessarily what we "feel" is true.
Yep, and its often misplaced.
Too many people mistaken empathy for morality.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:35 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Why should someone be compelled to live according to empathy rather than anger?
It would depend on the context. You could argue that anger is an evolutionary adaptation just like empathy. Each has its pros and cons.
Empathy for your fellow man could help build society, empathy for the tiger who needed to eat and ate your tribemate isn't likely to help evolutionarily. Anger would be better here. But anger might not help evolutionarily if your tribemate courted a female that you liked and you killed him for it.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:And that's the point. When someone makes a claim that morality is based on an evolutionary trait (empathy), they are attempting to ground morality in something concrete and universal in order to say that morality is essentially objective.
That depends on the society.
Mongols are going to see this a bit different than post-industrial man.
Evolution doesn't provide a moral "ought" (as we've been discussing). The best it can do is explain why someone might act a certain way; it can't say whether or not those actions are objectively good or bad.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:37 am to Azkiger
quote:
Couldn't evolution select for humans who are naturally altruistic?
Most altruism is self serving, even if its just to feel good about yourself..
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:38 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Most altruism is self serving, even if its just to feel good about yourself..
Ok. How does that change my point?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:38 am to Azkiger
quote:
Ok. How does that change my point?
Its a learned behavior based on classical conditioning. A conditioned response.
This post was edited on 12/18/23 at 11:39 am
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:39 am to Azkiger
I don’t study evolution because I think it’s ridiculous. It seems to be an excuse to ignore the origin by explaining away things that are impossible to prove and are much harder to piece together any logical flow. Evolutionist would rather believe in a self creating universe out of nothing than have faith in a God that was not created. How is a human originally “evolved”? As a baby? Or does the transition go from ape to a fully grown man? Where does an innate knowledge of right from wrong develop. Again, some explaining away of theory on that, just because it resist the most logical suggestion of intelligent design has no appeal.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:41 am to FooManChoo
quote:
We cannot reason to an objective morality at all, to what we "ought" to do.
If Christianity is the objective morality, then how did societies have moral overlap prior to exposure to Christianity? Was it luck?
quote:
All you're saying is that morality changes based on the whims of societies and cultures
Yes, and religious morality has, as well. That's the point.
quote:
Objective morality is not the construct of a religion sect, though. It's the construct of a timeless, spaceless, and unchanging God who created the universe and wrote the moral law onto the hearts of rebellious sinners who twist that knowledge to their own ends.
Think about what you just said.
quote:
Like I said, reason can only help us navigate. It can't produce moral truth.
You fail to realize just how inter-connected these 2 things are.
quote:
Regarding same-sex marriage: it is not moral because it is both a violation of the command to not have same-sex intercourse as well as a contradiction of the biblical definition of marriage that God provided.
Well, other Christian sects disagree with you. Both of you base your beliefs on "objective morality" and reason isn't relied upon in the analysis of morality, so where are we?
quote:
And let me remind that that disagreeing with an objective moral standard does not mean that the objective standard doesn't exist
The problem is deciding what that objective standard is, specifically.
If you have to rely on the same reasoning process to decide which morality is "objective", then you're literally just using reasoning to create your own perception of morality.
quote:
The abuses in history that have resulted in unjustified deaths are certainly to be lamented.
I didn't frame my comments in this way, nor did I use the intra-faith conflicts as a way to demonize Christianity. There has literally never once been a single set version of Christianity available to the masses. People rely on the same reasoning process to choose their version of Christianity (and its "objective" morality) as people who reason their perception of morality.
Trying to distance yourself from this is pure ego.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:42 am to Azkiger
quote:The only context is the goal that drives certain actions, and neither the actions nor the goals can be necessarily and truly "good" or "bad" in an objective sense without an objective moral law.
It would depend on the context. You could argue that anger is an evolutionary adaptation just like empathy. Each has its pros and cons.
Empathy for your fellow man could help build society, empathy for the tiger who needed to eat and ate your tribemate isn't likely to help evolutionarily. Anger would be better here. But anger might not help evolutionarily if your tribemate courted a female that you liked and you killed him for it.
Hatred for fellow man can also help build society, just in a different way. Killing a competing tribe mate may be good for both you and procreation, as you no longer have competition for the prospective mate you desire, especially if she is one of the only available options. "Might makes right" has been used to build and maintain societies throughout human history, and we see even our empathetic cultures falling to pieces in front of our eyes as empathy without controls leads to anarchy.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:43 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And that's the point. When someone makes a claim that morality is based on an evolutionary trait (empathy), they are attempting to ground morality in something concrete and universal in order to say that morality is essentially objective.
When someone makes a claim that morality is based on a religious belief system, they are attempting to ground morality in something concrete and universal, in order to say that morality is essentially objective.
See how that works?
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:43 am to Padme
quote:
I don’t study evolution because I think it’s ridiculous.
I know a lot of Christians who believe in evolution, plate tectonics, etc.
Posted on 12/18/23 at 11:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Its a learned behavior based on classical conditioning.
I'm not sure that's entirely true, but even if it is, even learned behaviors fall under the spirit of the theory of evolution.
Orca pods vary in their diet. Despite being apex predators that can kill virtually anything in the ocean (including great whites and even other much larger whales), they only eat what their parents taught them to eat. Even though there's no genetic origin for their diets, one could see that if for whatever reason an orca pod's traditional diet caused them to starve (say they're only taught to eat seals, and for whatever reason the seals in the area go extinct and they starve despite being able to eat literally anything else in the area) that traditional diet dies (no longer passed on to the next generation) just like a nonfit gene wouldn't be passed onto the next generation.
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News