Jaxian,

I understand your perception of religion and its "rules". From the outside, I suppose many things do not make sense. Rather than try to argue each rule and convince you of its correctness, I will just say the following:

True religion is designed to help us become more fully human in the sense that Adam and Eve were fully human prior to the Fall. The "rules" help to keep us on that path. Much like our parents set "rules" to raise us up as good people.

I am sure there were times that you did not like the rules your parents set, but in hindsight you can realize they were for your own good. So it is with religious "rules".

We are talking about two different things. A word is defined by consensus. If everyone believes that the word "cloud" describes the fluffy things up in the sky, then that is what the word means. If everyone agrees that "green" describes the color of the grass, then that is what the word means. If everyone agrees that "morality" means improving the welfare of others, then that is what it means. It is the definition of a word.

On the other hand, no one is trying to say that the definition of morality is "owning slaves." When people said slavery is moral, what they really meant is "slavery doesn't unjustly harm people." Slaveowners still agreed with the same definition of morality that we use, and they said that slavery is moral.

So, what they're saying isn't just a matter of consensus: it can be shown logically that slavery does indeed worsen the lives of others unjustly, and so slavery is indeed immoral because of the definition of morality that everyone already agrees on.

On a side note, few Christians opposed slavery 1500 years ago; slavery was barely debated back then. When slavery did become debated, Christianity was used as a major reason for continuing slavery. The Bible contains many passages which appear to justify slavery, and the curse of Ham was even used to suggest that God marked black people as slaves. Christian abolitionists were generally far withdrawn from the church. As far as I know, the only branch of Christianity which did oppose slavery is the Catholic church, which condemned slavery as early as 600 years ago.

I think only a Christian would say this. Some parts of the Bible do say to treat others kindly. But other parts say to kill, mistreat, and discriminate. And this is reflected in the way that Christians treat non-Christians.

You say that evil acts are contrary to Christianity, but should I believe that when most Christians seem to commit evil acts, and the Bible seems to back them?

It is impossible for a human to become more fully human. A human, by definition, is fully human. This is just a meaningless twisting of words used to justify evils committed by Christians. That sounds harsh, I know, but let me explain:

A Christian may treat a gay person poorly and use the Bible to justify it. When the gay person points out this mistreatment and asks the Christian to stop, the Christian may say something like, "homosexuality prevents the human from being fully human." As I said, that phrase is meaningless: it hides the fact that the Christian is hurting somebody.

It is true that I did not like the rules that my parents set. But I understood those rules: my parents explained them to me. And my parents never asked me to hurt anybody else.

This is good. You agree then, that there are realities (truths) that are independant of whether or not we recognize them.

Just as slavery was just as wrong then as it is now (though they did not understand it's wrongness as we do now), there are other truths that exist regardless of our awareness or belief in them.

Most Christians commit evil acts - Really?

Regardless, anybody can say that the bible backs up their claims to whatever it is they want it to say. The key is to compare what they say with the official teachings and traditions of Christianity.

Well, here you've got me. I slipped in a term that has a specific meaning in Christianity and did not clarify that.

By "fully human" I am referring to humanity's state prior to the fall in the garden of Eden. In other words before our nature was corrupted by Original Sin.

Before the fall humans did not have a propensity toward sin. Sin being "willfully acting against the will of God".

A Christian cannot deliberately treat anyone poorly. Telling someone the truth with compassion however is not treating them poorly.

If your parents said to you "You are too young to drive." It may have hurt your feelings at the time, but they were not treating you poorly.

I agree with what you said, but how does that relate to our discussion? Are you saying that I'm wrong about Christians commiting evil because I don't yet understand some truth?

If I become a serial killer, it would be ridiculous for me to claim that my actions are moral because "there are realities people don't recognize yet." The harm of murder is obvious, just as the harm in the actions of religious people is obvious.

Really? I would think that we should compare their claims to the word of the Bible, not to the interpretations of other humans.

Regardless, I'm trying to say that the official teachings and traditions of Christianity are evil. Remember the evil actions I listed? That list of political issues? Those are stances supported by Christian institutions, not just individual people.

Well, okay. You originally said that you understand the rules of Christianity may seem evil to me, but they are intended to help people become "fully human".

But I can see the harm that these rules cause to other people. I don't think that this state of being "fully human" really exists, but if it does, I do not intend to get their by hurting other people.

I agree with that. I really wouldn't have any problem with Christians telling people the truth. Heck, I wouldn't even have a problem with Christians lying. But I do have a problem with Christians making themselves superior to others, denying the equality of non-Christians, and using the law to spread their teachings. I'm not complaining about Christians merely telling people things: they are actually making life worse for non-Christians, and, deliberate or not, that is evil.

Jaxian,


Originally Posted by ccvasquez
This is good. You agree then, that there are realities (truths) that are independant of whether or not we recognize them.

It relates to our discussion in that, by first agreeing that there are truths that are independant of mankind (i.e. Man does not create moral truths, it exists regardless of our understanding of it or our acknowledgement of it) we can no longer say "consensus or subjective opinon determines morality".

In other words, relativism is false.

How one "feels" about a moral topic is not relative to whether or not something is moral.

Therefore, one cannot say "that may be true for you, but that is not true for me" or "you can't judge me". If truths exist independant of mankind, what is true for you is also true for me and my actions can be judged against an unchanging standard of truth.

This is different than dissagreeing about a personal preference. I might say "blue is the best color in the world" but that only applies to me - anyone else might think any other color is better.

However, if I were to say "I think the killing of an innocent person is okay" I would be wrong because there is an objective truth that murder is immoral to judge that statement against.

I am wondering what you consider to be "harmful" to other people? Is telling someone the truth with compassion harming them? Is acting out of genuine concern for another's wellbeing hurtful?

I guess to boil it down, in your opinion, is evil committed every time someone's feelings get hurt?