Civilization cannot be built on a subjective ideal such as the nonaggression principle. Without an objective moral framework, we can’t define good vs. bad. It just becomes a matter of opinions, and who’s to say which opinions are better than others? Even philosophers like Aristotles acknowledged God (unmoved mover) even though they lived before Jesus’ time.
Discussion
Yea but isn’t that the point too? You cannot create an “objective moral framework” because the world doesn’t work like that. Humans are human, and there is ALWAYS some form of bias or opinion or feelings that get in the way. Even those speaking of and for god are still….human.
You cannot create a moral vacuum for an imperfect world to live by. You are set up for failure from the start!
Are you a bitcoiner? Reminds me of the idea of inherent value in something. And the Kaynsian idea that everything has an objective agreed upon value that the market has to discover. But thats the thing, the entire framework is the wrong framework. Its more like the Austrian way where the value is different and personal for each individual unique person. Each persons daily life, background, family, morals, circumstances, and opinions and thoughts ALL help to create what value is for them.
I say that to say this. You are trying to create a kaynsian “this is good and bad for every person no matter the person, no matter the circumstance, no matter what” framework for the world. But when people experience life in completely different ways all around the world, even with different religions and gods as their way to view the world, it makes it impossible to create that “one for all” objective framework.
Yes, and your point would make more sense if I were claiming I or any other human could create or decide what is objectively good or bad. I’m saying that without God, morality is subjective, and if morality is subjective, then societies crumble because who is to say that someone’s opinion that killing and stealing being bad is objectively true?
One’s experience does not make 2+2 equal anything other than 4. All I’m saying is that without God morality is subjective.
Yea i agree. Thats what i was thinking as well, and was trying to explain in the other response to you about the chef analogy, and i didn’t respond in time haha. But great that we are thinking along the same lines to talk about it haha
To not have an objective moral framework? I don’t think so. It’s not my objective.
We don’t create an objective moral framework, correct. It was given to us by our creator. Having an objective moral framework is not in conflict with humans existence.
Bingo!!! We cannot indeed follow the law given down to Moses (objective moral framework). That’s why Jesus died on the cross to atone for humanity’s sin so that we may be in heaven with him and the Father should we choose to accept his gift (salvation).
Yea i see what you mean. Not creating that objective moral framework, and that it is being given to us. But i mentioned that part as well, which still just makes too big of a leap. When i was saying “even those speaking of and for god are…human”.
The man Moses you mention, and the man that was Jesus are both still just humans that were living in that time. Any message delivered that is “divine” is being delivered through the wrong vessel. So that is still putting your trust and faith in humans and not a divine entity.
Its like saying you are going to get a great fantastic meal for dinner from a world renowned chef, then the goes into a dumpster on the side of the road to make the meal. You still eating that thing?
Well no, Jesus was and is God. He just happened to also be fully man. People hearing God’s word from Moses and directly from God himself via Jesus is not putting your faith in humans. If what you were saying was an accurate representation of Christianity I would agree with you, but it’s not.
That dumpster birthed the greatest civilizations known to man. Of course, the church did many bad things throughout history, it’s full of flawed humans after all, but the beauty and greatness that came from Christianity is undeniable even if you don’t personally believe in it.
Yea i agree i’m not making an accurate full representation of the religion, but theres thousands of years of backstory thats been added by humans, so that would be very hard for either of us to do.
I’m just saying all the things you talk about and mention are still human based. Any description of Jesus as god is all human based. Everything.
I would have more of an open mind if it was a more general discussion, but Christianity to me is just one of the many man-made businesses/companies of the religion industry. One of the best, most successful and profitable, yes. Making it one of the most popular. But i just can’t take anything said serious when theres so much bullshit to wade through.
I get you have parts and portions that you agree with and hold on to, i respect that. I just can’t do the same. We just different in that way i guess.
Faith is….a complicated word in general…at best haha
I don’t know what you mean by human based. We are God’s creation and because of our fallen nature (Adam and Eve) he had to send his only Son to atone for our sins so we could be reunited with Him. I understand the concept of the trinity can be confusing for unbelievers. If you refuse to believe Jesus when he said he was God, then your argument about human made/based is accurate. But Christians with good reason believe Jesus when he told us who he was.
The question of God can’t be generalized. If there is a God then it’s natural for people to want to know who is this God. All religions can’t be true at once. There is only one God, so the conversation has to be specific. It is my claim that Christianity is true.
I don’t think there’s bullshit to wade through in the Bible or in the theological doctrine of the Catholic Church. Can’t speak for other branches of Christianity that go against the Bible.
I don’t have parts and portions I agree with. One has to accept all of it or reject all of it. Picking and choosing what you like is a sure way to go to hell. One is better off rejecting all of it than being lukewarm.
I forgot the original point, but specifics of religion is irrelevant if one does not believe there is a God.
I mean it just sounds like we are so far off base from one another, i don’t know how to even continue this conversation haha.
By human based, I mean everything you are referencing is still coming from humans. The Adam and Eve stuff is Bible (human written), God sending his son to save us is part of the background story we are told, again by tales passed down by humans. And thats what I mean too when you are saying “to believe Jesus when he said he was God”. You are using your Faith in that scenario to rationalize your faith. Its faith rationalizing faith. From my perspective, you not being able to simply see that concept is like how you see me not being able to accept God and accept Jesus as our savior and therefore believe Christianity. Its the same thing, just coming from different bases of experience and knowledge and influence. That is my claim.
I was raised Christian. The stories and character arcs and rules and guidelines were all carefully explained to me. The trinity is not a foreign or confusing concept, i just reject it based on lack of anything substantial to sway me. The best I heard it described was actually from an anti-religious documentary (albeit by a very Christian person that was trying to explain the concept to them). The religious man in the documentary described it as the transformation of water. It can either be in a liquid solid or gas state. The melted ice is water. The heated water is gas. They are all the same and equal parts of the same thing. They are all the same yet still different forms.
So returning to the part you mention in that section, saying “Christians with good reason believe Jesus when he told us who he was”. I just mean to say, to me, a PERSON with good reason does not believe him. The fact that you view the reasoning process there already from a Christian perspective means, to me, that you are already too thick in the weeds at that point, and there is no use of “reasoning” anymore.
It was passed down by humans, but it came from God. I don’t see why that would inherently discredit God’s existence or that Christianity is or at least could be true in principle.
The historical accounts of Jesus are not fairy tales. Historians don’t dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person that really existed. It’s just that some people disregard the historical accounts that claim and confirm Jesus’ deity.
The historical evidence and some of the physical evidence such as the shroud of Turin is actually quite substantial. People as yourself are free to not be persuaded, of course, but to claim it’s all based on blind faith is not really true.
I’m not trying to convert you. If you looked at the evidence deeply and can’t get behind the God of the Bible, then that’s fine.
I was an atheist for many years too, so I can understand where you are coming from.
I don’t deny Jesus or the existence of these people, just the cosmic baggage that was attached to them. Theres a chance its all true, just too small of a chance for me to run with. Like you said, thats ok either way. On your end and mine.
And I know you aren’t trying to convert me, and I appreciate that. For what it’s worth, i’m not atheist. To me thats almost the same as Christianity in terms of faith and belief. Thats what i meant when I was saying i would be more open minded if it was a more general religious discussion than just “his god or her god. That religion or this one” type vibes.
Well i appreciate the good conversation and your ability to understand and empathize and just talk with a different view. Have a good one! đź‘Ź
🤝🏼