The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

Monergism vs Synergism

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby frrostedman » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:49 pm

at1with0 wrote:I also have a dim view on those who say that anything outside the Biblical box is poison.

I agree with you there, but I am not sure you fully understand the Christian position. The Christian believes that all kinds of things outside the bible can be spoken and even believed. But what is NOT proper to a Christian is (a) Teaching something that goes against Sacred Scripture, or (b) Teaching something as the Gospel that has no reference in Scripture.

We can go willy-nilly all we want as long as we preface accordingly.

I may believe that God is a Master Programmer and we are all sentient programs inside a holographic, programmed simulation. I could propose that I believe God's "Word" as referenced in Scripture (not Scripture itself), is actually another name for the language He used to create this simulation. Did God say audibly "Let their be light?" Or did the "Word of God" dictate that there be light? And so on. All conjecture.

And I, or any another Christian could propose any number of seemingly outlandish things. But as long as we preface it with, "This is what I personally believe but it's not backed up specifically by the Bible," then it's communicated and treated properly.

Make sense?

The Bible doesn't teach us everything would could ever know. It is God's revelation to man, chiefly as relates to His character but also as relates to the character of the human race. The Bible teaches us what we need to know, not all that we are supposed to know.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby at1with0 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:59 pm

I concur.

The Bible gives the essentials but no book could ever hope to be the whole truth. It is the truth that is needed, perhaps a bit more, and that is all. But that is a lot in itself.

The whole truth of the nature of God would probably be infinite and beyond the scope of any finite book.

Everything else is really unnecessary to live. People need to know how to fix their car before they need to know about evolution or intelligent design. People need to bring food to the table before they delve into theory and speculation. We are truly blessed that we can conjecture about the nature of the universe, such as it being a simulation or what not.

btw: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=4960
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:22 pm

Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.

I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby frrostedman » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:24 pm

humphreys wrote:Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.

I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.

I never suggested that Relativism implies we are all right.

Relativism teaches that opposing views can both be true. Moral Relativism teaches that what is right for you is acceptable.

It's a total wreck of a belief system.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby frrostedman » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:25 pm

at1with0 wrote:I concur.

The Bible gives the essentials but no book could ever hope to be the whole truth. It is the truth that is needed, perhaps a bit more, and that is all. But that is a lot in itself.

The whole truth of the nature of God would probably be infinite and beyond the scope of any finite book.

Everything else is really unnecessary to live. People need to know how to fix their car before they need to know about evolution or intelligent design. People need to bring food to the table before they delve into theory and speculation. We are truly blessed that we can conjecture about the nature of the universe, such as it being a simulation or what not.

btw: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=4960


Very well said brah! I like it! All of it!!! *raises a glass*


*gives applause*



*cleans up spilled drink*



*nerd rage quit*
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby humphreys » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:42 am

frrostedman wrote:
humphreys wrote:Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.

I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.

I never suggested that Relativism implies we are all right.


frrostedman wrote:We can't all be right, that's relativism.


I'm sure you meant something slightly different by what you said, but that's what I was basing my response on.

Anyway, I have noticed that the usual critics of relativism are Christians, but they're usually attacking a strawman version of relativism which no one actually believes. The common claim being made by them is that "relativism tells us that all views are equal", which is just false.

As for moral relativism, I don't think it implies that "what's right for you is acceptable, either". For instance, for someone who thinks rape is okay it is not acceptable in a culture where rape is clearly seen as deeply wrong. Most moral relativists believe in a moral code just like you do, the only difference is they believe that moral code is culture specific and not something set in stone.

It's not that morals are absent, it's that they change from culture to culture, just like actual laws. For instance, you're allowed to have sex at 16 in England, other places it is 18, other places it is as low as 8. That implies there is no universal code to what is acceptable in that regard, but it is still unacceptable to break those codes for the country or state you are in.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby frrostedman » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:34 am

humphreys wrote:Most moral relativists believe in a moral code just like you do, the only difference is they believe that moral code is culture specific and not something set in stone.

It's not that morals are absent, it's that they change from culture to culture, just like actual laws. For instance, you're allowed to have sex at 16 in England, other places it is 18, other places it is as low as 8. That implies there is no universal code to what is acceptable in that regard, but it is still unacceptable to break those codes for the country or state you are in.

And likewise, to the moral relativist (see the 'burqa' thread in general section to see some moral relativists in action!) it is perfectly ok the way Muslim culture treats their women in the Middle East. Greeney brought up a prime example: if a woman gets raped - she needs to have several witnesses for the rapists to get into any trouble... otherwise she is punished for committing adultery.

Not ok in my book. Perfectly ok in the moral relativist's book.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby humphreys » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:38 am

I think it's a mistake to use moral relativism to suggest that anything goes, as long as it is accepted within that culture.

Morality can be thought of as something that can be viewed objectively, whilst not actually having an objective existence. We can calculate and form a solid opinion on what the most correct moral behavior using our intellect, and that works very well, but that final judgement is going to inevitably have a subjective element to it which will change based on culture, personality, perception, and so on.

That is certainly a relativistic stance, but it's a far cry from saying that rape is okay. I'm pretty sure it clearly isn't, and I could argue why that's the case quite convincingly, regardless of culture. Same with murder, and child abuse.

There is no actual greatest chess player ever lived, and we cannot make an objective judgement on who that would be, because it is subjective, but that does not mean it is as reasonable, or accurate to say you or I are the greatest ever, as it is to say Bobby Fischer is. We can tackle the problem as best we can objectively using our intellect, but ultimately the final decision is going to be tainted, for lack of a better word, by our own perceptions.

I think that's where the true thinking relativists are coming from, and in that regard, it's not such a ridiculous position at all, in my opinion.

I personally go further than this, though, and think we can extract morality from culture and personal opinion too, and come to a true assessment on what is right and wrong. I think a sufficiently powerful machine could calculate perfect moral behaviour.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:47 pm

humphreys wrote: is going to be tainted, for lack of a better word, by our own perceptions.



This is, I believe, also true of revelations inspired by "the presence" or whatever you wish to call it. It explains the incongruousness of the OT and NT.

I think it's a blessing that we are "allowed" to taint the information coming through by our perceptions. I know this is not at all what you were talking about; this just occurred to me.

It's a blessing that we have that freedom but people sometimes tend to abuse that freedom by, for example, claiming they know God and begin to oppress others out of some misguided self-righteousness.

Your sentiment is also encapsulated by my current sig: Your focus determines your reality.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby sandra » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:08 am

at1with0 wrote:It's a blessing that we have that freedom but people sometimes tend to abuse that freedom by, for example, claiming they know God and begin to oppress others out of some misguided self-righteousness.


lmao. It is also oppressive to try and maintain a level of delusion, a level of uncertainty,
of not knowing with certainty anything....and to support only those angled perceptions, out of self-righteousness. You many times are subtle in trying to create a dam, your subtle insinuations and points in time of messages are always noted. You would much rather people have alot more
uncertainty concerning the truth of the word of God and CHRIST in specific. And whats great,
you think you are slightly skilled at such attempts. What does someone like you know about the oppression of others? Let me tell you what you don't know enough about.

"But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold."

You would much rather make a larger cup for yourself than to share with others?

I sometimes act like I know people better than they know themselves?
Maybe I make an effort to try and really get to know people while I am both bad and good
myself. You hold a persona as though your ideas are opinions yet you nail them in, many times
believing inside that you are without a doubt right. Grow up a little. Maybe work on caring less about how people are going to perceive the truth of how you feel.
“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
User avatar
sandra
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:27 pm
Location: Minnesota US

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest