Christian, Morality, and Materialism

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

If [moral principles] are not independent of human thought, then by definition, they can't be universal.

I agree. But they can be universal among all humans, i.e., ancient peoples who never were exposed to Mosaic law would apply similar fundamental principles, and we would expect to see that reflected in their writings (which is indeed the case).

Why?

Perhaps I just haven't been able to grasp your argument. I still don't see how [morality as relative] and [morality as absolute] can be anything but mutually exclusive. You seem to be trying to make a case for both, and expecting us to flip between modes as you do (which seems to be as is necessary to support your position).

Can you elaborate what you mean by grace. Do you mean this:

"...it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..."

That's the stuff. Is that gift handed out in varying quantities, based on a merit system? Or not?

 

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
I agree. But they can be universal among all humans

Why the distinction? What about other mammals or reptiles?

From the MA view, evolution is based on natural selection that is completely impersonal, voided of any planned direction.

Perhaps I just haven't been able to grasp your argument. I still don't see how [morality as relative] and [morality as absolute] can be anything but mutually exclusive.

Oh come on. How do you reconcile your physics? Einstein's Monkey paradox or the closing of the doors?

You seem to be trying to make a case for both, and expecting us to flip between modes as you do (which seems to be as is necessary to support your position).

Well, am I standing still or in motion. In relation to the receptionist, I'm standing still. In relation to the guy on the moon, I'm in motion.

That's the stuff. Is that gift handed out in varying quantities, based on a merit system? Or not?

Salvation is a gift. No merit system needed.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Why the distinction? What about other mammals or reptiles?

If a species of reptile or an alien life form evolved sufficient cognitive abilities, I would expect them to discover the same universal principles of mathematics that we use, and the same universal moral principles as well. ...At least, I think so. I will admit that I have encountered arguments against this view that I also find somewhat compelling, and I reserve the right to change my position on this without further notice.

But (again) while that is an interesting puzzle, it really is a separate discussion. Let's try to stay focused here. Your claim that Mosaic (Hebrew) law is the standard for all mankind does not extend the scope beyond our species, and my main argument does not either. There are passages from the Bagivad-Gita, or the Upanishads, that match passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew almost verbatim (while predating that writing by many centuries).

Oh come on. How do you reconcile your physics? Einstein's Monkey paradox or the closing of the doors?

I don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Well, am I standing still or in motion. In relation to the receptionist, I'm standing still. In relation to the guy on the moon, I'm in motion.

I would say that motion is always relative, whether that fact is obvious from a particular frame of reference or not -- limiting one's observation to a particular frame does not make motion absolute.

Salvation is a gift. No merit system needed

The sole requirement being 'belief'. So grace is absolute; no one is any more -- or any less -- saved than anyone else. Returning then to my original question, what heavenly consequences does the Christian adulterer face, beyond the earthly consequences which both he and the atheist adulterer face?

 

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
If a species of reptile or an alien life form evolved sufficient cognitive abilities, I would expect them to discover the same universal principles of mathematics that we use, and the same universal moral principles as well. ...At least, I think so. I will admit that I have encountered arguments against this view that I also find somewhat compelling, and I reserve the right to change my position on this without further notice.

Ok, we wont get into this here.


But (again) while that is an interesting puzzle, it really is a separate discussion. Let's try to stay focused here. Your claim that Mosaic (Hebrew) law is the standard for all mankind does not extend the scope beyond our species, and my main argument does not either. There are passages from the Bagivad-Gita, or the Upanishads, that match passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew almost verbatim (while predating that writing by many centuries).

You don't want to get into the universal principle discussions and you do want to get into an archealogical one? That would be way off topic.

I don't have the first clue what you are talking about.


I couldn't find the monkey paradox but I did find examples of others (including the opening of the doors)

Paradoxes

I would say that motion is always relative, whether that fact is obvious from a particular frame of reference or not -- limiting one's observation to a particular frame does not make motion absolute.

Ok, but the speed if light is absolute. How do you solve that?

My point is simple, things can be absolute and still have a quality of relativity without losing its fundamental absolute quality.

Adultery is immoral (that is an absolute statement)

The sole requirement being 'belief'. So grace is absolute; no one is any more -- or any less -- saved than anyone else. Returning then to my original question, what heavenly consequences does the Christian adulterer face, beyond the earthly consequences which both he and the atheist adulterer face?

The sole requirement is acceptance. Yes, grace is absolute.

The Christian adulterer (as the passage I presented explains) will have less treasures in heaven. That will be the consequence.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

You don't want to get into the universal principle discussions and you do want to get into an archealogical one? That would be way off topic.

On page 1, you said this:

"My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not."

Which I take to mean that we should reject our own moral instincts in favor of an external set of standards (preferably those set forth in Hebrew law). My position is that this 'outside standard' is derived from a set of internal moral standards with which every human comes factory-equipped. That there is so much commonality in the standards of various ancient peoples supports this, as does Romans 2:15, which says:

Which show the work of the law written in their [the Gentiles] hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another.

My point is simple, things can be absolute and still have a quality of relativity without losing its fundamental absolute quality

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

The Christian adulterer (as the passage I presented explains) will have less treasures in heaven. That will be the consequence.

So it is a merit system, and grace is distributed in varying amounts. There is a difference between a paradox and an outright contradiction.

As far as the site you linked...Autodynamics? I never heard of that before, but on a casual look, it appears to be pure, unmitigated crap. I hope you aren't relying too much on sources like that.

 

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:

On page 1, you said this:

"My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not."

Which I take to mean that we should reject our own moral instincts in favor of an external set of standards (preferably those set forth in Hebrew law).

Ok, yes but I didn't imply Hebrew law. The point was that external standards are the only effective for MA.

My position is that this 'outside standard' is derived from a set of internal moral standards with which every human comes factory-equipped. That there is so much commonality in the standards of various ancient peoples supports this, as does Romans 2:15, which says:

Which show the work of the law written in their [the Gentiles] hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another.


How do you know your assumption is correct. For the MA position, it would be extremely difficult to accept the notion that humans come factory-equipped. I don't think that position can be held with a MA reference.

Have you ever considered a career in politics?



So it is a merit system, and grace is distributed in varying amounts.

No, no. We are confusing things here. Grace is only related to going or not going to heaven. The merit system you are thinking about has nothing to do with the doctrine of grace.

Grace is not distributed in various amounts. Either you go to heaven or you don't. Now, the subset of those that go to heaven get distribution of treasures. But that has nothing to do with th doctrine of grace.

There is a difference between a paradox and an outright contradiction.

Actually a paradox is a contradiction by definition. The special quality of this particular contradiction (what qualifies it as paradox) is that it is both at the same time.

As far as the site you linked...Autodynamics? I never heard of that before, but on a casual look, it appears to be pure, unmitigated crap. I hope you aren't relying too much on sources like that.

I took a physics course in college and I have read some material on the subject. I assure you it is not crap.

Let me explain why the paradox exists. The paradox is create because the speed of light is constant.

Ok, an example. Suppose you are riding your car at 40 Km/h and from the car, you throw a ball forward at 20 km/h. From your point of reference, what is the speed of the ball going forward? That should be 20 km/h.

Now, what is the speed of the ball from the reference of someone on the side of the road? It should be 60 km/h.

Ok, here is the interesting part.

Suppose you are not traveling at 40 km/h but at the speed of light (SOL). And now, you throw a ball at 20 km/h. What is the speed of the ball from your perspective? It should be 20 km/h.

Now this time, what is the speed of the ball from the reference of someone on the side of the road? It should be the SOL+20 km/h. It is not. From the the guy on the side of the road, he still sees the ball traveling at the SOL.

This creates contradictins (paradoxes) all over the place. The site I posted are two examples.