Didn't Epicurus and Plato DESTROY the idea of God with these two questions ?!

Maybe some of our not suffering theologists say so - but it's nonsense. Sometimes the suffering or the desperation of people forced them to do something what's completly senseless - for example to sit on nails or to torture oneselve with a whip. But to suffer is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - on the other side we are really with our cross on the way to our death and we are flollowing Jesus. To deny this simple truth would be wrong - to take the crosses of life is the only real answer - as hard as it sometimes is. But this doesn't mean to suffer in a psychological way of the word "to suffer". To be a Christian is normally a lot of fun for Christians - specially also for us Catholics. We have really a lot of fun - nevertheless life writes also serios stories. I remember an old lady, who had a very hard apoplectic insult. It was horrifying to see how her body was damaged and how she had to fight for everything what's for us all more than normal. But she was always friendly and everyone had to laughed a lot with her. One day I asked her: "Milady, others who have an apopletic insult are not so hard damaged like you. But they are very desperated. Why are you always so friendly and after a short time everyone laughs if he meets you and is happy?" She took a short look at me and tried to understand what I asked her - I felt for a moment as if I would be an alien - and then she said: "But if we would not laugh and have fun - what would be better?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_8g-eNkaq4

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, or even that you know what you're trying to say.

Are you trying to say the Jesus condones slavery?

Did you get that passage from an atheist website? (And then post a link to a Bible site to make it seem as if though you found it on your own?) Since they preach to the choir, they don't expect to be called out when they take things out of context.

He's referencing those who know the will of God but refuse to live according to it.

 

I’ve already given you one of the reasons I can’t deal with it: it would make genocide justifiable.

 

​

Not in modern society it wouldn't. And, assuming you're a Christian, genocide already appears to be justifiable of God says it is (Old Testament is replete with examples of this). And, really, it isn't justifiable to any modern society. You don't seem to be comfortable with societal progress for some reason.

 

The passage doesn't say anything about slavery. It says that all will get a beating. Some will get severe beatings (maybe some broken bones) and others will get light beatings (maybe concussions). Jesus got a very light beating (no concussion or broken bones). He was in good enough shape to carry his cross for a while.

It doesn't look good for back-sliding believers. The popes and preachers are going to get the crap beaten out of them.

Luke 12:47-48 (CEB) =
[SUP]"47 [/SUP]That servant who knew his master’s will but didn’t prepare for it or act on it will be beaten severely.[SUP]48 [/SUP]The one who didn’t know the master’s will but who did things deserving punishment will be beaten only a little. Much will be demanded from everyone who has been given much, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked."

 

So does the Old Testament.

 

Only in the eyes of those who support it. And it will always be justifiable in their eyes anyway.

 

The point being that with your worldview you could not even speak of “progress”. Progress towards what? There’s no objectively better or worse society, if there isn’t an objective standard for value that progress could be measured by.


I am a Christian indeed, and as such I believe in “progressive revelation” which is not the same as societal progress, even though I certainly see it as my Christian duty to work for the world to become a better place.
When it comes to the genocides and other atrocities that God is described as condoning in the OT, you ought to be aware that not all Christians interpret the Bible in the way American Evangelical fundamentalists do. In fact those Christians take on the Bible is a relatively new phenomenon in the Christian landscape. The Bible must not be confused with the natural law I was talking about. Clearly the writings of the Bible reflect the authors’ own cultural horizon. They were children of their time and with all due respect for divine inspiration: what a crude desert tribe thought God thought is not necessarily a 1:1 mirror of what God actually thought. But in the Bible, whose texts are hundreds of years apart from each other, you find moral ideas developing into what I believe to be our two highest moral obligations and the best guide to that unknowable natural law: to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. (The two being pretty synonymous, because in loving your neighbour you love God, i.e. good). In some form or the other you will find this Golden Rule in any developed religion.

It’s that Golden rule that inspired religious people to work on societal progress, to come up with the notion that all men are created equal, that slavery ought to be abolished etc. etc. I’m very comfortable with that and I think we must strive to continuously improve.

Yet I do not share your optimism concerning societal progress. The Nazis were considered progressives in their day and even left-wing progressives thought that eugenics were a wonderful idea at around that time. These days we see the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy starting pre-emptive wars, talking down the killing of innocent children as “collateral damage” and openly turning into a surveillance-state with the majority of the population just not giving a (*)(*)(*)(*), because all they care about is the newest smart-phone. I fear we are on our best way to turn our society into an Orwellian nightmare. And none of this can be described as objectively “bad”, when you think all morals are subjective and arbitrary.

 

But who is to say that they are wrong and you are right? What would stop you from supporting it if you happen to live in a society that widely supports it?

 

Mm, nope. Progress is working towards a definition of morality. If we come to a consensus about how we define morality, then it becomes objective. Honestly, how do you not run into the exact same problem dealing with what is moral and what is not? How do you move pay the divine being you worship claiming genocide is acceptable?

Okay, then you're in the exact same position as secularists, you rely on personal interpretation and cultural relativism. I don't see how you can be critical of my position if yours relies on pretty much the exact same precepts.

Same thing with secularists.

And the Nazis and the majority of political leaders in the US were/are Christians... So...

 

No, then it just becomes a consensus that can be overthrown at any time by a new one if the dictatorship of the masses so pleases.

I tried to explain to you why I don't think that God ever condoned genocide.Don't confuse my Biblical Hermeneutics with those of a Fundamentalist subscribing to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Only a minority of Christians subscribes to that.

I'm not saying my practical moral problems are very much different from that of a secularist. I'm not even saying you need to be religious in a closer sense to assume priori fundamental principles for morals.
I have to continually reflect my morals. But I believe there's an objective standard I have to live up to. In trying to get closer to this standard my highest moral obligation is the Golden Rule I mentioned. What you said is that you don't believe there is such an objective standard. Not to assume such a standard easily renders one a leaf in the wind when it comes to reflecting moral decisions.

Most Nazis were Christians just on paper and most political leaders in the US are Christians just because saying so will secure them votes. And - more importantly - even Christians can go astray. Sad but true.

 

Yep, and that's as objective as we can get besides the evolutionary role in our moral system.

The second sentence in what you quoted me saying wasn't even in my previous post....

As does yours, once again. Your acceptance of the Golden Rule is due to a long history of cultural progress and inflection.

And this is what we call the No True Scotsman fallacy. Who are you to say who is a Christian and who is not? Are you Jesus? All your morality relies on a specific interpretation you've adopted that aligns with your cultural context.

 

Without any doubt the Nazis were not Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKLCazetcY

 

A lot of the Nazis were Catholics, including Hitler. He even prayed.

 

You know that I am Catholic while a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis because they were Jews - and nevertheless you like to speak with me in such an ignorant way? U-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e. I don't have any duty to look for anything what someone said during the so called Third Empire in Germany - but okay: Give me the source for this what you understand if you say "Hitler prayed". I will take a look wether it is true or not what you imagine under such an expression. But I'm in the moment really very angry on you. Don't make me more angry with any other stupidity now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtrQFVw_8Ag

 

And who are you to say that? Are you The Lord? We have already had this conversation, Anobistar. Hitler was a Christian, most of the Nazis were too. Just because you don't like being associated with them doesn't mean they weren't Christians. I can accept that Stalin was an atheist; you don't see me whining that he wasn't a "true" atheist.

 

It isn't ignorant in any shape or form. Just because you don't like Christianity being associated with mass murderers doesn't mean they weren't actually Christians. You seem to believe that no Christian can ever do a horrendous thing.

I have already provided you with Hitler's own words, and you bowed out of the conversation because you never have a rebuttal when someone confronts you with facts.

 

Without doubt my neighbour isnt Scottish as he doesn't put salt in his porridge.

 

I. The Nazis were without any doubt no Christians. One example why I say so because you call Hiter a Christian: "Hitler" for example did not give any longer the bible for free to the people who married - as it was usual before he became "The Leader" - he gave them his book "Mein K(r)ampf" instead and the state gave him the money for his famous book what nearly no one ever read in the honeymoon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhHpTRuBrk

 

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

Rephrase this sentence. It makes no sense in English.

Why did you put Hitler in quotes?

A source that states that the Bible was given to newly-married couples before Hitler took power would be a start.

 

Hitler was just one nazi. What reason is there to believe that all or even most nazis were not christians?

 

It's as objective as we can get, but not as objective as Platos "Form of the Good"/ "the Absolute" can get. And I strongly advise against basing your morals on the role evolution may have played in their development. If you do social-darwinism is knocking at your door. *shudder*

Sorry, don’t know what went wrong there.

Indeed. But apparently you are not even aware of the role religion/ philosophic Idealism and their assumption of an ultimate standard for value played in the history of ideas that eventually led to the moral values I suppose we share. And that you still speak of progress indicates that you still assume a standard we can progress towards.

Paper-Christians are a reality. My brother is one: registered church-member and cultural Christian while defining himself as agnostic. So no true Scotsman anywhere, especially if you had cared to read my second sentence. I’ll happily rephrase it for you: being religious does not automatically make you a better person. I don’t think not believing in an objective standard for value necessarily makes you a worse person either. As I said: I trust in the natural law ingrained in people’s heart. But would not believing in an objective standard for value enforce the universal acceptance of unalienable rights as described in the declaration of human rights? Certainly not. Just like any other set of morals they would have to be regarded as absolutely arbitrary and subjective. And actually people would not have come up with them in the first place had it not been for above mentioned history of ideas.

 

Sorry but you are wrong. My grandfather was a stout Nazi and a member of the "German Christians". Of course I think the "Confessing Church" had a better grasp of the teachings of Christ, but that does not whitewash my Church from sin.

 

Depends on what you mean by "Christian". Germany was already pretty secular at that time. Being Christian was certainly not a defining factor for the NSDAP. One of the first things Hitler did was undermining the Catholic and Protestant Churches power and Catholic youth organizations and the Hitler Youth would frequently get into fights (until getting into a fight with members of the Hitler Youth became deadly dangerous, that is.)

 

Yep, but that doesn't make Plato's argument correct anymore than his idea that there was a perfect Form of a chair that all chairs are based on.

How in the world does studying evolutionary impact on our morality lead to Social Darwinism?

No problem.

I am, but many of those ideas are simply based on empathy towards other living beings.

No more than evolution's progress is working towards a final goal.

And that only goes so far. The real restraint on human morality is that we are recognizing that we aren't only individuals, but also a group of people that we have to deal with on a daily basis. It simply makes logical sense to form a set of rules to keep society, or a group, together. Basically every animal in the world does this. Also, I don't see how it wasn't a No True Scotsman fallacy. How were/are the Nazis and our politicians "paper Christians"? You're suggesting that there is some definition of Christianity that is objectively true and if you don't abide by the principles laid out in the definition, you are a "paper Christian".