V
Village Atheist
Guest
I wasn't trying to use a strawman argument, sorry. I was trying to say "I understand what you mean, but I disagree. This is how it looks to me."StanJ said:I don't get it? If you really did get my meaning then why are you changing it? I was kinda hoping that you wouldn't be one to use strawman arguments.
Unfortunately, the fact that you used an analogy and I tried to reply by extending the same analogy confused matters.
That's the point I was trying to make. You're telling me how a "real" Christian is defined according to your worldview ( i.e. "In my world").Well perspective does always enter into what we perceive or know, but in this regard it is impossible to know what a real Christian is unless one knows the word of God and has the holy spirit in them. I can show you what the word of God says about being a real Christian but if you don't accept the word of God as being factual, then there's no use in me deploying that tact. In my world one has to support one's opinion from scripture and many people cannot do that.
I was saying that I understand how your worldview works, but I also hear from other people - with different worldviews - who also call themselves Christians and they disagree about what a "real" Christian is. Some would include you but be more inclusive. Some would even have a definition that excludes you.
So from my point of view as an outsider (who doesn't believe in God and therefore doesn't believe that the Bible is inspired scripture) there's no reason to privilege one claim of "real" Christianity over another. Hence in my worldview it's easier to say that anyone who genuinely thinks of themselves as a Christian and "walks the walk" - following Christ's teachings as they understand that - is a "real" Christian.
And if some of you disagree with each other and use stricter definitions that exclude each other, well that's people for you.
I do have a habit of that, yes.I have to break this down a bit because you're just going on and on.
I'm aware that it's a lot older than the Bible, and it was included in there (that's not the same thing as being "from" the Bible).Are you aware that the golden rule is from the Bible? Matt 7:12
Interestingly, most religions - and most non-religious moral philosophies - have a version of it. It seems to be part of the core of human empathy from which we develop and expand our various morality systems.
Like most people, I acquired the basics of my moral viewpoint growing up in society at large. But when it comes to the more in-depth stuff it's from a combination of learning, discussions with others, and introspection.Seems most of your morality here is from the biblical perspective and it has been around for some time so the question is how did you come about acquiring this morality if you don't believe in God? Were you taught as a child in Sunday School? Where your parents Christian or at least believers?
I could write a whole essay on where I think morals come from and how morality works (and I have in the past - and done formal debates on the subject) but to boil it down to a couple of bullet points for the sake of brevity...
- There is no single objective morality. Moral systems are all subjective.
- We get the core of our morality from the sense of empathy we evolved as we became social creatures. That's why most moral systems are similar at their core - we all share the same fundamental feelings of right and wrong.
- When it comes to translating our feelings into actual language and formalising them into statements about morality, this is where individual and societal differences come in.
- We each have a complex feedback with society. Our morality is influenced by it, and it is in turn influenced by us.
That's one of the places where I disagree with most Christians about morality - the fact that they believe there is a single objective morality handed down from on high.Of course it happens but if there wasn't ultimate arbitrator, which by the way there is but we're not discussing him as such now, then the arbitrator would be able to emphatically state what is and isn't acceptable.
I think that the whole concept of an ultimate arbitrator is incoherent.
If there were an objective morality out there, then we wouldn't need such an arbitrator. We could just judge by that morality itself. On the other hand, if there weren't an objective morality out there then morality is just whatever the arbitrator says it is. "Right" and "Wrong" simply become "Doing what I say" and "Disobeying me". Worse, with no objective morality out there there's no way in which we can judge that doing what the arbitrator says is right and going against the arbitrator is wrong other than the arbitrator's say-so. We've basically reduced all morality down to doing what someone bigger than us tells us because they say so.
So to my mind an ultimate arbitrator is either unnecessary or - if you excuse the pun - arbitrary. Either way, we don't need one and we're better off coming up with our own moral precepts instead.