Sinful awful people by the WORLD's standard. Where do you fit?

[evenifigoalone]

Why an I only NOW noticing your avatar is Sonic!?:eeeekkk

Uh, back to the topic. Sorry.

So, what corrupts human nature?

Maybe the artist who drew him made him look a little odd? The picture is from a series of American comics I'm subscribed to.

Remember the story of Adam and Eve? (Well, I am a Creationist. xD Not going to get into a discussion on that on this board.)
I'm not sure what the answer to this would be coming from a theistic evolution standpoint, but it probably has something to do with their interpretation of Genesis and how the genetics got corrupted somewhere along the line or something.

 

[AlexBC]

Remember the story of Adam and Eve? (Well, I am a Creationist. xD Not going to get into a discussion on that on this board.)
I'm not sure what the answer to this would be coming from a theistic evolution standpoint, but it probably has something to do with their interpretation of Genesis and how the genetics got corrupted somewhere along the line or something.

That was actually the point I was going to make. With so many THEISTS divided on evolution/creationism and even the existence of Adam and Eve in some theistic circles it becomes more difficult to talk about concepts like this.

Fun though.:p

Though if you DID take the theistic evolution approach. Then does that mean that God is just a poor programmer? What's salvation in that case? A software patch?

 

[Grazer]

It's a massively complex issue and there are no simple answers. What's interested me is the base of morality, what is right/wrong, how we tell the difference and the desire to do either. A friend of mine put a picture on her facebook advocating atheism and it included the below:

"I set my own standards and I alone enforce them. I am an atheist"

My immediate reaction was "well there goes objective morality" If I set a different standards to you and I alone enforce them, you have no basis from which to say I am wrong. Now we have the law but what if my standard doesn't include it? Your criticism of my standard can only go as far as "its against the law" The law has changed over time to reflect changes in society so whether its a base is debatable.

Yet we have a sense of what is good as AlexBC has shown. I doubt anyone would criticize with their moral standard of helping people in need.

So where do we get in from? I think evolution is part of the answer but not in the sense of genes passing it on because that would make morality genetic. More in the desire of parents to teach their children right and wrong and each generation passing it on though what gets passed on has changed as shown with the changes in the law. But it doesn't explain where it started in the same way the theory of evolution doesn't explain where the first cell came from, it pre supposes its existence.

Those are just my ramblings, as I said its a massive topic.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"Right. What you probably reject is the suggestion that you are fundamentally bad.

Avowed agnostics and atheists don't have a problem admitting wrong doing. It seems they can't bring themselves to acknowledge that by nature they are bad and unfit for the kingdom of God. "

You mean Atheists and agnostics specifically are bad and unfit or we, like everyone else, are bad and unfit?

I mean we are all alike--sold as slaves to sin. We've all sinned...because rebellion and self-centeredness is in our DNA, so to speak. And when we sinned we became slaves to sin. Sin is the symptom of the sinful nature, and the evidence that will be used against us at the judgment...unless we accept God's free plan of amnesty for all who would acknowledge their guilt, knowing there is no good they can do to make up for their sin and erase the reality of their sin nature. Doing good does not change the fundamental nature of a person. That's why salvation is not by doing good works, but by being forgiven of your sin and receiving a new nature that grows up into the stature of Christ (just as your sinful, adamic nature grows up into the image and stature of rebellious Adam).

And that refusal would only make sense if they even believed in God, which they don't. That's kind of the point.

If Christianity was just a decision somebody made based on various facts then you may be right. But as it is, Christians don't become Christians because of facts about nature and religion and how possible or impossible they might be to accept. Christians become Christians because they hear and acknowledge God's voice convicting them of their wrong doing and the judgment that is coming...and then ask for God's forgiveness, and are saved. That's what salvation is ALL about.

"The other peculiarity of this is, they say they can amend for the wrong that they can admit."

It's taking responsibility for one's actions.

Taking responsibility is one thing. Amending for sin is quite another.

Every saved Christian has accepted responsibility for his sin, but knew they couldn't make amends for that sin, and the propensity to commit fuirther sin. They are the ones that receive God's grace of forgiveness (his amnesty plan) and are saved...and changed into creatures who then grow up into increasing righteousness (just as they grew up into increasing unrighteousness when they were still in Adam).

 

[Grazer]

If Christianity was just a decision somebody made based on various facts then you may be right. But as it is, Christians don't become Christians because of facts about nature and religion and how possible or impossible they might be to accept. Christians become Christians because they hear and acknowledge God's voice convicting them of their wrong doing and the judgment that is coming...and then ask for God's forgiveness[/

I'm a Christian because I was convinced that Jesus died for my sins and rose again so I could have relationship with God who created me. I am not a Christian because judgement is coming.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm a Christian because I was convinced that Jesus died for my sins and rose again so I could have relationship with God who created me. I am not a Christian because judgement is coming.

Judgment = permanent separation from God.

When faced with being separated from God, now, and forever after I die (because of the sin I knew I had and couldn't stop), I chose to accept redemption and ensure my place with God after the end of this life. The terror of being utterly forsaken now and at death drove me to salvation. It was about separation from God's protection and love for me. I didn't want to live...or die...without it.

 

[Grazer]

Judgment = permanent separation from God.

When faced with being separated from God, now, and forever after I die (because of the sin I knew I had and couldn't stop), I chose to accept redemption and ensure my place with God after the end of this life. The terror of being utterly forsaken now and at death drove me to salvation. It was about separation from God's protection and love for me. I didn't want to live...or die...without it.

Yeah the permanent seperation didn't come into it for me at the time.

 

[Free]

What do you mean by "good"? You have nothing by which you can even say something is "good" or something is "evil."

This is a significant problem with such arguments. You are presuming a Judeo-Christian worldview to make your argument against that same worldview.

Yes, we do. The concepts of Good and Evil vary from culture to culture. These concepts also change over time. But the basic principles of our biology help shape our laws.

I dislike certain things to happen to me. There are like minded people who share the same opinion. Those like minded people come together, form laws, governments to preserve the kind of life that they enjoy.

And again, we have a thing called Empathy. I don't hit, kill rape someone because I have a theory of mind. I understand the consequences of that action and how they would affect me.

We have tons by which we can measure Good and Evil which are just labels anyway.

If good and evil are subjective concepts, as you are stating, then no, you do not have any means of determining whether something is actually good or actually evil. If there is no fixed point of reference, if there is no absolutely good standard or moral law by which to judge something as evil, then "good" and "evil" ultimately do not exist.

Back to the point I was addressing:

But it's not just be a good person and avoid hell. You could be the kindest, most law abiding person on Earth but if you sImply say "I don't think that God person exists" then you burn.

So by your belief in subjective morality, who is good? If, as you say, "the concepts of Good and Evil vary from culture to culture" and that they "also change over time," just who's concept of "good" determines who and who doesn't go to hell? Yours? Mine? Hitler's? Stalin's? Obama's? What if someone does better than you or a lot of people do better than you, what then? What would be "good enough"? What of all the varying degrees of "goodness" even within one subjective view of good?

Such an argument to "goodness" can only make sense if "good" and "evil" are absolute standards that everyone must adhere to, that everyone can be judged by.

Biblically speaking, everyone is born with a sinful nature, in rebellion to God and must accept his terms for getting right with him. It simply will not do to just try and be good or better than everyone else. It just cannot work that way.

 

[Atothetheist]

Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

Who is not to say that it was God who put the knowledge of morals there in our genes, though? This actually fits the Christian belief that God's law is written in our hearts.

The mechinism for morality works without the need of a deity.
Just use Ockham's razor, and cut out the uneeded, which is God in the case of morality.

 

[Atothetheist]

Here is your arguement attributed to smelliness, for humors sake: If there is no fixed point of reference, if there is no absolutely stinky standard by which to judge something as stinky, then "stink" and "un-stink" ultimately do not exist.

Good is a subjective concept in its own right!

I consider a skeptic based wordview to be a good one, while I think a religious worldview is not.

You obviously think the opposite.

See, two different things can be good by two different people.

People view good and evil in subjective ways.

Islamist extremeists MAY think that science and christians are evil, while you, and I think, respectivly, that they are Good.

There can be no OBJECTIVE good and evils unless we all lived in the same society, followed the same religion, or lack of, and was taught to think the same. And since that isn't the case... I guess I don't need to go on further, if you are well versed in this argument, then you know where it is going to head.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't like to make any appeal to agnostics and atheists much beyond the simple matter of sin and God sending the testimony of the Spirit into the world to convict people about that sin and their separation from God and his offer of reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

"...it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son." (1 John 5:6-10 NIV1984)

People believe because they've heard the testimony of God about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and retain that testimony in their heart, not because they have tangible, scientific proof that God exists. It's generally a waste of time to go there because that's not how God brings people to faith. It may help tip the balance in favor of what they're hearing in their heart from God, but it's facing the truth about sin, and the forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ, as spoken by the very voice of God himself in a person's heart that gets people saved.

People who can accept the truth about their sin and seek forgiveness get saved. Those who refuse the truth about their sin God speaks to them can not be saved.

 

[Free]

Here is your arguement attributed to smelliness, for humors sake: If there is no fixed point of reference, if there is no absolutely stinky standard by which to judge something as stinky, then "stink" and "un-stink" ultimately do not exist.

Good is a subjective concept in its own right!

I consider a skeptic based wordview to be a good one, while I think a religious worldview is not.

You obviously think the opposite.

See, two different things can be good by two different people.

People view good and evil in subjective ways.

Islamist extremeists MAY think that science and christians are evil, while you, and I think, respectivly, that they are Good.

We are discussing the uses of good and evil as they relate to moral judgements. Hence your analogies do not work. Either killing babies for fun is actually evil or, as your position would suggest, it depends on one's personal views.

There can be no OBJECTIVE good and evils unless we all lived in the same society, followed the same religion, or lack of, and was taught to think the same. And since that isn't the case... I guess I don't need to go on further, if you are well versed in this argument, then you know where it is going to head.

Not at all. Morality is objective regardless of what people may believe. There is no need to live in the same society or follow the same religion. That's the whole point. Looking back across time in all societies one can notice that there are many common actions considered evil and many considered good. This points to morality being objective.

If morality is not truly objective, then it is ultimately quite meaningless.

 

[Atothetheist]

We are discussing the uses of good and evil as they relate to moral judgements. Hence your analogies do not work. Either killing babies for fun is actually evil or, as your position would suggest, it depends on one's personal views.


Not at all. Morality is objective regardless of what people may believe. There is no need to live in the same society or follow the same religion. That's the whole point. Looking back across time in all societies one can notice that there are many common actions considered evil and many considered good. This points to morality being objective.

If morality is not truly objective, then it is ultimately quite meaningless.

Morality helps us survive, and avoid being orstrasized, it also helps us form bonds, and alliances, it has many useful, EVOLUTIONARY uses.

The meaning is what we give it.

 

[Free]

Morality helps us survive, and avoid being orstrasized, it also helps us form bonds, and alliances, it has many useful, EVOLUTIONARY uses.

The meaning is what we give it.

This cannot be the case as it then ultimately becomes meaningless. What if one group of people likes to kill babies for fun and another group thinks it's evil? Who is right?

 

[Atothetheist]

This cannot be the case as it then ultimately becomes meaningless. What if one group of people likes to kill babies for fun and another group thinks it's evil? Who is right?

Well, They would be wrong, because that doesn't at all help the survival of the species.

Thats how I tell good and evil. You base your morality, off of Yeshua, right?

They will think THEY are right, this is what I mean by subjective.

What they think, and how they determine morality is their way of doing things.

I don't think it is moral, but they might.

I know exactly what you are trying to make me to say, but I can only respond from my point of view.

I think donating money to churches is a bad thing, and you thinkthey are good things.

I think being respectful and kind is a moral act because it can increase your likability and it benefits you.

They might think it benefits them, in which case, from their point of view, it would be moral.

Morals change, culture changes, only the stuff that is in our genes stay relativly the same.

This is what I mean by society tends to control our morals.

There is no proof of Objective moral values. The only ones I would consider objectives can be easily explained by evolution.

Still, no deity needed.

You have yet to show me that there is Highest standard of Morals, there can only be higher, based off your points of view, and the culure, and circumstances you were born into.

I don't see how just because morality is not objective, it loses its meaning.

Morality is conformaty to the rules, or following what is right.

As long as people can make judgements on what right and wrong is, and they follow what THEY think is right and wrong, they are, from their point of view moral people, and have morality.

 

[AlexBC]

I do agree that what we might call "objective" morals do tie closely into our biology. I think the basic things like avoidance of pain, need for food and shelter, comfort, survival are all the basis of our morals. i think what we refer to as the objective morals are expressions of these.

 

[AlexBC]

This cannot be the case as it then ultimately becomes meaningless. What if one group of people likes to kill babies for fun and another group thinks it's evil? Who is right?

Not sure what you mean when you say it is ultimately meaningless? It serves a purpose, our survival. That means something to us.

And as for your example, neither party is right. How many people who'd call themselves moral would protect a human child but eat veal?

Also, an example I think I used in another thread was that people lacking certain hormnes (in this case Oxytocin) can demonstrate sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies. This to me shows that biology ties very much into our morality. I'm sure that , as we developed and our survival came to depend more and more on working together, individuals whose brain chemistry expressed more of these hormones had higher survival rates as they were able to work together and benefit the group as a whole.

The ones who expressed less of these kinds of beneficial hormones probably did not fare too well and so this did not became the norm for modern Humans.

Body chemistry plays a large part in our behaviour. Look at how something as simple as a balanced lunch menu can drastically improve the behaviour of troubled kids in certain schools.

 

[Atothetheist]

Not sure what you mean when you say it is ultimately meaningless? It serves a purpose, our survival. That means something to us.

And as for your example, neither party is right. How many people who'd call themselves moral would protect a human child but eat veal?

Also, an example I think I used in another thread was that people lacking certain hormnes (in this case Oxytocin) can demonstrate sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies. This to me shows that biology ties very much into our morality. I'm sure that , as we developed and our survival came to depend more and more on working together, individuals whose brain chemistry expressed more of these hormones had higher survival rates as they were able to work together and benefit the group as a whole.

The ones who expressed less of these kinds of beneficial hormones probably did not fare too well and so this did not became the norm for modern Humans.

Body chemistry plays a large part in our behaviour. Look at how something as simple as a balanced lunch menu can drastically improve the behaviour of troubled kids in certain schools.

Alex, You should really post some of this good stuff on the pther forum.

Speaking of, I disagree with the statement that none of them are right.

I can make a judgement on who is right and who is wrong based off of my moral code, but that is, like I argue, subjective thinking.

More or less, the way you precieve the world dictates what morals you may or may not have, its all based on perspective.

Search up Genetic Altruism if you want to know where the basis of human morality comes from, and then try to think of why selfless acts, such as self sacrifice, would be able to fit into an evolutionary way of figuring out problems.

I don't think eating veal is a immoral thing, seeing as we were evolved to try our hardest to survive, and we were evolved to hunt, gather, scavenge for anything, even meat. I do, However oppose the mass ill treatment of animals.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't see how just because morality is not objective, it loses its meaning.

I can. In fact you provided the illustration:

As long as people can make judgements on what right and wrong is, and they follow what THEY think is right and wrong, they are, from their point of view moral people, and have morality.

This effectively makes morality meaningless. Especially in the altruistic sense. In fact, this is probably the very antithesis of altruism.

Not really interested in a discussion about it...just thought I'd share my observation.

 

[AlexBC]

Not sure what you mean by meaningless. It works in favour of altruism because you'd do what you thought was right/beneficial according to the theory of mind.

I was thinking the other day of stories about animals who protect other species, Humans included. From female dogs taking in lion cubs to cats sheltering abandoned human babies from the rain. Not all animals would do this of course. But some have the capacity.