|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2004 : 22:17:27 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
Sure,
Thanks. Honestly. I appreciate your willingness to step into what many other believers might consider a "trap" of sorts. But I really did not have pre-determined answers to the questions I asked. I would like to do some follow-up, however...
I wrote:quote:
2) It's been argued here that without belief in God, people won't know right from wrong. From the above case, it seems clear that belief in God is no guarantor of morality. How is it possible to tell willful sinning (using "free will" to choose to spit on God's rules) from insanity?
To which you responded:quote:
2 ) Only God and the person sinning really know if it is willful are not. Believing in Jesus will not make a person perfect or stop sinning. God will change people over time to sin less but we will never be able to stop sinning completely while we are on this earth. As for knowing right from wrong, if there is no absolute truth then we all just make up our own morality and who's to say who is right. That's my two cents on morality.
I think you misunderstood my question.
Believers here on the SFN have suggested, if not outright stated, that without faith in God, people cannot know right from wrong, as morality (in their opinion) is absolute and is handed down from the Lord, in the Bible. Unless Laney's defense team was made up entirely of atheists (unlikely), their claim that she didn't know right from wrong can be seen as incorrect, itself, as she certainly claimed to know God (on a much more personal level than most).
And so, I'm not talking about faith being a guarantee against sin itself, I'm just talking about it being the only way to know what sin is. It seems to me that even that much isn't guaranteed, even though some would claim it is (or at least the apostate, that without God you cannot know right from wrong - I think this case puts a dent in that idea, too, but am willing to hear arguments as to why it doesn't).
As for us all making up our own morality, I don't believe that, either. In other words, morality is neither wholly personal nor wholly derived from a god (whichever you might believe in). It is, instead, largely derived from one's family and peers, and to a lesser extent from society as a whole, mixed in with personal goals. Only true sociopaths develop their own morality, and only true sycophants allow their choices to be determined by someone else. But, that's taking us off track.
You also wrote:quote:
God does not change over time, neither do his laws.
I'd just like to ask from where these ideas derive? I mean, were I an omnipotent being, I would certainly "reserve the right" to change my mind at any time, without warning. Certainly each new Covenant God made between Himself and us mortals signifies a change in God. After He slaughtered all but eight of us in the Flood, He promised never to do that again, when such a promise obviously didn't exist before the Flood. Jesus allegedly brought another Covenant with Him, signaling yet another change in the relations between people and God.
quote:
Whether a |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 23:01:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
1)At the very least, would it not be the case that many priests, ministers, pastors, etc. would tell him to seek the help of a mental health professional?
Yes I think they would, the ones who have some rational thought or conform to community standards.
quote:
How can we tell the difference between a delusional person and the real Son of God?
Dunk them in water and if they don't drown they are the 'real thing'.
quote:
2) It's been argued here that without belief in God, people won't know right from wrong. From the above case, it seems clear that belief in God is no guarantor of morality. How is it possible to tell willful sinning (using "free will" to choose to spit on God's rules) from insanity?
Don't know anything about 'the above case' that you are talking about but I don't think one has to know about individual situations to think about the question.
The definition of insanity changes with the times. As do the rules of the church for living ones life. One goes toward the scientific the other with the power of the leadership at the time. In other words science clarifies the human condition, religion confuses it.
If someone commits a crime, there are laws that explain what is insane in society. In the church, I don't know but would think it's up to the persons pastor or church leader to determain the persons mental or any other state. I don't think someone outside an individuals life situation has the power to judge.
quote:
3) And how can we mere mortals tell the difference between either insanity or willful sin, and a case where God really does speak to someone, and tell them to do something horrendous?
Maybe they are one in the same?
IMO, one has to be crazy to talk or listen to god!
The person could be insane in the eyes of the law and be delt with by society. Because we have separtation of church and state here in the US. Right? And in the eyes of the church sining. Then the church can deal with that end of it.
nlm |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
