' Defining Christianity ' How?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

' Houston, we have a problem! '

On the surface of things, Christianity is easy to define. It comes from Christ and Christ comes from the 1st century personage of Jesus.

With the proliferation of interpretation and disagreement around the circumstances of the Jesus happening...the whole thing becomes like a competitive game of stick- stacking. Invariably ,all ends down in a heap.

Define - late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define).

How do you set bounds to this metropolis of a religious sprawl?

I would start here and probably end very close by.

Matthew 5:16
' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Start at the table of hard graft.

Question:How would you begin to define Christianity?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say - " I see God’s moral law as the most fair. It’s not a mystery to me. Not at all. I can’t think of anything unfair in anything God did or His moral law. Not a single time or act."

I dismiss this as just a fallacious pipe-dream( just an opinion).You have failed to include observable reality, in all this.

I have observed, otseng, TRANSPONDER, William, POI, Yourself ,Myself , and others approach this elephant on the path that is objective morality. Our impaired senses fumble to define its outline. Our intellects apply themselves to the task. There is a limited, timidity to this approach that borders on cowardice.

Should the three blind men be allowed out on their own? Why did they not bump straight into the elephant. Would they have been trampled upon?
Probably!

Why does the first wilderbeast jump into the croc infested river? Why do base jumpers do it? What about free-climbers.They are confronting objective morality head-on and their deductions will be more profound than ours will ever be. Do not tell me that God loves you, do not tell me that God cares for you...in any way that is human.

Jump from the top of the Temple and see if he catches you, even Jesus did not fall for that one.
Test objective morality and it bites....it really bites.

Thanks

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H

You say - " I see God’s moral law as the most fair. It’s not a mystery to me. Not at all. I can’t think of anything unfair in anything God did or His moral law. Not a single time or act."

I dismiss this as just a fallacious pipe-dream( just an opinion).You have failed to include observable reality, in all this.

God’s law and deeds being just is “ a fallacious pipe-dream?” Really? If you think it’s a pipe-dream, what are His moral codes? Something quite negative and critical?

Why should I lengthen the post by giving examples if you’ve decided his laws aren’t at all just? Nevertheless I offer the wisdom of Solomon and the woman caught in adultery brought before Jesus. Do you find any justice there? Do you think I’m wrong in thinking His laws are just?

I have observed, otseng, TRANSPONDER, William, POI, Yourself ,Myself , and others approach this elephant on the path that is objective morality. Our impaired senses fumble to define its outline. Our intellects apply themselves to the task. There is a limited, timidity to this approach that borders on cowardice.

You underestimate God and His ability to be just and communicate that. But don’t include me in that list. I understand God and His justice and can defend Him. But if one wants to believe He isn’t just, then they will be closed-minded to seeing it. It’s fruitless.

Should the three blind men be allowed out on their own? Why did they not bump straight into the elephant. Would they have been trampled upon?
Probably!

Better not to be blind

Why does the first wilderbeast jump into the croc infested river? Why do base jumpers do it? What about free-climbers.They are confronting objective morality head-on and their deductions will be more profound than ours will ever be. Do not tell me that God loves you, do not tell me that God cares for you...in any way that is human.

Ok, I won’t. Doesn’t make it so, but I don’t.

Jump from the top of the Temple and see if he catches you, even Jesus did not fall for that one.
Test objective morality and it bites....it really bites.

Thanks

I only test Him when invited by Him to do so. Doesn’t bite in those cases, but otherwise you’re right.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are indeed addressing the problem as a proble. To dismiss it is 'perfectly fair'or even a perfevct syste4m that Man messed up in Eden is dfenialist and an excuse, respectively.

The Problem is the usual one - a Theist assumption that there is an objective Cosmic law of morality, and that it is god - given, never mind which god, as the irrational mindset of Faith just assumes which god it is.

The irrationality also extended to the 'blind men and elephant' analogy. It is a fallacy that I propose, if it isn't known one - using an analogy of an unproven claim to validate the claim. Which is of course 'assuming as a 'given' what is being questioned. Which is the basic illogic of theism, and we see it here.

One might replace the analogy with 'evolutionary forces' (in the broad sense - chemical, geological, biological and social (1) and the bods of this world do not see the whole. That works because 'evolution' (natural processes - without a god needed) is validated, unless one rejects science.

So the Cosmic Mind that is the Unity behind the supposed objective moral law (which doesn't actually exist any more than the Mind) is turned into an analogy of a real thing, an elephant and blind men. That would work - they all describe a different bit but none actually see the whole.

But secularist materialists do see the whole, and why it cannot give an objective moral law, any more than it can give a perfect creation when evolution is survival of the species where one may have to eat the others.

The believers do not see this and won't believe you even if you describe it to them. They believe in an Intelligence doing all this and if it isn't Perfect, let's blame man for it.

It all a sham, lies and and a fallacy and never mind denial; once one with the mind still open sees it, they won't be fooled by this 'assume the claim as a given' swindle ever again.

They may believe a god, sure, but they won''t believe the analogy - trick as a valid argument.

(1) I have always seen 'evolution does not apply to cosmology' as somewhat evasive. We goddless ought to understand the argument and (while making the corrections) answer it. Same with "Miracles don't happen" or indeed 'The Bible ears the burden of proof". Atheists is also people, and their logic can fray and much as any What should not fray is our intellectual integrity.

[Mae von H]

You are indeed addressing the problem as a proble. To dismiss it is 'perfectly fair'or even a perfevct syste4m that Man messed up in Eden is dfenialist and an excuse, respectively.

The Problem is the usual one - a Theist assumption that there is an objective Cosmic law of morality, and that it is god - given, never mind which god, as the irrational mindset of Faith just assumes which god it is.

No, I don’t assume, I see and know that God is just. You assume that I assume.

The irrationality also extended to the 'blind men and elephant' analogy. It is a fallacy that I propose, if it isn't known one - using an analogy of an unproven claim to validate the claim. Which is of course 'assuming as a 'given' what is being questioned. Which is the basic illogic of theism, and we see it here.

One might replace the analogy with 'evolutionary forces' (in the broad sense - chemical, geological, biological and social (1) and the bods of this world do not see the whole. That works because 'evolution' (natural processes - without a god needed) is validated, unless one rejects science.

IOW, agree with you or one “rejects science.” There’s no simply disagreeing with you.

So the Cosmic Mind that is the Unity behind the supposed objective moral law (which doesn't actually exist any more than the Mind) is turned into an analogy of a real thing, an elephant and blind men. That would work - they all describe a different bit but none actually see the whole.

Incorrect. Doesn’t work.

But secularist materialists do see the whole, and why it cannot give an objective moral law, any more than it can give a perfect creation when evolution is survival of the species where one may have to eat the others.

If you saw you could do so. We see and therefore can do what you cannot.

The believers do not see this and won't believe you even if you describe it to them. They believe in an Intelligence doing all this and if it isn't Perfect, let's blame man for it.

Incorrect on all accounts.

It all a sham, lies and and a fallacy and never mind denial; once one with the mind still open sees it, they won't be fooled by this 'assume the claim as a given' swindle ever again.

They may believe a god, sure, but they won''t believe the analogy - trick as a valid argument.

(1) I have always seen 'evolution does not apply to cosmology' as somewhat evasive. We goddless ought to understand the argument and (while making the corrections) answer it. Same with "Miracles don't happen" or indeed 'The Bible ears the burden of proof". Atheists is also people, and their logic can fray and much as any What should not fray is our intellectual integrity.

Too many errors to address…

[Purple Knight]

I am one. And after a time, a long time, I can tell the fakers from the real and the immature ones from the fakers. But it takes a lot of listening to their words and watching what they do. Sounds more judgemental than it is because mercy is generously applied.

....

Third, when others tell me what God says to them, I know if it’s God. You don’t have that from animal exchanges. The external evidence establishes the validity of the divine exchange.

You know. I concede that. You. But God doesn't talk to me, and if he does, he's saying something VERY different from morality. My internal moral compass says things like, racism by itself is not wrong, you're allowed to think what you will of who you will for whysoever you will. And you can be wrong. You're allowed to be wrong.

Point is, you very well know who is faking. But people who don't have that line to God, can't know.

And frankly I think there are fakers so good in modern day that they could convince the most truthful believers astray, or tell a genuine Doolittle that the animal was saying something different than what the person with the genuine ability heard it saying. The welfare system suffers from this. Genuinely needy people are viewed with suspicion and can't get past the red tape the fakers have necessitated, which of course any faker bypasses with ease on raw charisma.

What if he steals from a family who then starve? How about begging? It’s very rare a man steals so he doesn’t starve…pretty much non-extant. In western countries there is no death by starvation. There is free food for the starving. If you look at a fair number of the poor, they’re overweight, not starving. Those starving don’t do what Aladdin did in agility. They are skinny, weak, and not well dressed. I give to beggars from time to time but never ever fat ones. They have more than enough.

Our world has pretty much dealt with starvation, but the fact that it doesn't happen to be an issue here and now, doesn't mean there's not a moral judgment on the issue that divides people. If someone were really starving, most people will say, he may steal. My conscience (which I admit is busted) says he may steal only if he's looked for honest work and no one will hire him. Some people will say he may never steal and must starve. It's a genuine conflict.

And you can CHOOSE to believe our moral structures are obeyed because they make all of us better, but you don’t live like that. You can’t really live like is true. You lock your doors, guard your passwords, secure your accounts, use a firewall or virus scanner. This shows you don’t believe your view matches reality. It’s much easier to have one’s view match reality.

If no one stole, I think it would make us all better off. I don't mean I think nobody steals. I know there are thieves and scammers and they're largely parasites, who could find honest work, but choose not to, to be richer. I think that's wrong. And I do actually worry that it isn't right to lock my doors, guard my passwords, and things like that. I worry if I am being greedy by guarding my stuff from someone who deserves it more than I do. Most thieves I judge to be pretty bad, but I'm worse, mainly because my conscience doesn't function properly. There's a nagging feeling, always, that maybe by keeping my stuff for me, I'm doing wrong. I still do it, I still guard my things, but I feel terrible about it.

Actually lefties think harming those who disagree with them is just fine.

They do. But who can say they're wrong? Imagine if someone thought murder wasn't wrong. At that point, people like you and me would probably imagine that locking them up would be fine, because they might murder someone. And we say, to one another, well, because murder is actually wrong, and we are correct, and that guy is not correct, we may harm him.

Everyone has things they think are actually, in reality, irredeemably morally wrong, and if others disagree on those wrongs, well then it's open season. It's not just Leftists that believe that, though they gain a stronger reputation for it, because they have a larger library of mortal sins. But contrast your library of the truly horrible with that of someone genuinely immoral, whose library of mortal sins is smaller (doesn't include murder for example) and you'll look like a Leftist to them, hurting people for disagreeing.

"I can't believe it. I'm being punished for speaking my mind? These fools are hurting me for disagreeing with them!"
"I can't believe it. I'm being punished just for killing somebody? These fools are hurting me for disagreeing with them!"

Now you'll agree with the former and disagree with the latter. But to the latter, you look like the Leftist, see? (I mean, if he genuinely believes murder isn't wrong. Most people I imagine murder out of convenience and if they could push a button that would make murder legal, would not. But imagine you have someone who really would push that button. To him, you're a moral tyrant.)

And everyone agrees that if they or those they love are murdered it’s wrong. Everyone agrees that if they or those they love are robbed, it’s wrong. We mustn’t think that because people EXCUSE their own immoral behavior that we don’t agree on morals. They all agree when they’re the victim. Perpetrators, of course, don’t agree but surly it’s obvious why.

I do not agree. If someone steals from me, I wonder if he's in the right and I am EXTREMELY bothered by the idea that I might be the one in the wrong, for trying to greedily keep my stuff for myself in the first place. It would be nice if I deserved it more than him but I can't prove that.

The definition of “harm” is fluid.

Extremely. I'd take a real beating over a moral flogging any day. Physical harm is meh to me unless the damage is permanent. If I was going to lose an arm, a leg, or an eye, that's when I might choose being chastised and berated. Otherwise I pick the real beating.

Look carefully at the left agenda and see if it’s fair. Every country the left has taken over becomes poor and/or oppressive. And these laws are being enacted. In Scotland if someone FEELS offended by something you communicated in your own home, you can face 8 years of prison. But rape young girls and it’s only 6 years max. Free speech is a product of the Christian right. Lefties are intolerant of the right. They are abolishing the rights to any view but theirs. Is that fair?

I don't think it's fair, but true morality, like the morality of Jesus, tends not to be. If someone rapes you, forgive him. Six years might be too much. Anything might be. The story of the prodigal son wasting half his father's money, then simply being forgiven, is anything but fair.

Why? Would you let pedophiles and rapists free to express themselves assuming they “evolved” to be such? Really? Do you see this doesn’t work in real life.

I'm worried I might have to whether it works or not. This is why I vastly prefer a morality that does not end with, "I evolved to be this way so you'd better let me."

[Mae von H]

I am one. And after a time, a long time, I can tell the fakers from the real and the immature ones from the fakers. But it takes a lot of listening to their words and watching what they do. Sounds more judgemental than it is because mercy is generously applied.

....

Third, when others tell me what God says to them, I know if it’s God. You don’t have that from animal exchanges. The external evidence establishes the validity of the divine exchange.

You know. I concede that. You. But God doesn't talk to me, and if he does, he's saying something VERY different from morality. My internal moral compass says things like, racism by itself is not wrong, you're allowed to think what you will of who you will for whysoever you will. And you can be wrong. You're allowed to be wrong.

Point is, you very well know who is faking. But people who don't have that line to God, can't know.

And frankly I think there are fakers so good in modern day that they could convince the most truthful believers astray, or tell a genuine Doolittle that the animal was saying something different than what the person with the genuine ability heard it saying. The welfare system suffers from this. Genuinely needy people are viewed with suspicion and can't get past the red tape the fakers have necessitated, which of course any faker bypasses with ease on raw charisma.

What if he steals from a family who then starve? How about begging? It’s very rare a man steals so he doesn’t starve…pretty much non-extant. In western countries there is no death by starvation. There is free food for the starving. If you look at a fair number of the poor, they’re overweight, not starving. Those starving don’t do what Aladdin did in agility. They are skinny, weak, and not well dressed. I give to beggars from time to time but never ever fat ones. They have more than enough.

Our world has pretty much dealt with starvation, but the fact that it doesn't happen to be an issue here and now, doesn't mean there's not a moral judgment on the issue that divides people. If someone were really starving, most people will say, he may steal. My conscience (which I admit is busted) says he may steal only if he's looked for honest work and no one will hire him. Some people will say he may never steal and must starve. It's a genuine conflict.

And you can CHOOSE to believe our moral structures are obeyed because they make all of us better, but you don’t live like that. You can’t really live like is true. You lock your doors, guard your passwords, secure your accounts, use a firewall or virus scanner. This shows you don’t believe your view matches reality. It’s much easier to have one’s view match reality.

If no one stole, I think it would make us all better off. I don't mean I think nobody steals. I know there are thieves and scammers and they're largely parasites, who could find honest work, but choose not to, to be richer. I think that's wrong. And I do actually worry that it isn't right to lock my doors, guard my passwords, and things like that. I worry if I am being greedy by guarding my stuff from someone who deserves it more than I do. Most thieves I judge to be pretty bad, but I'm worse, mainly because my conscience doesn't function properly. There's a nagging feeling, always, that maybe by keeping my stuff for me, I'm doing wrong. I still do it, I still guard my things, but I feel terrible about it.

Actually lefties think harming those who disagree with them is just fine.

They do. But who can say they're wrong? Imagine if someone thought murder wasn't wrong. At that point, people like you and me would probably imagine that locking them up would be fine, because they might murder someone. And we say, to one another, well, because murder is actually wrong, and we are correct, and that guy is not correct, we may harm him.

Everyone has things they think are actually, in reality, irredeemably morally wrong, and if others disagree on those wrongs, well then it's open season. It's not just Leftists that believe that, though they gain a stronger reputation for it, because they have a larger library of mortal sins. But contrast your library of the truly horrible with that of someone genuinely immoral, whose library of mortal sins is smaller (doesn't include murder for example) and you'll look like a Leftist to them, hurting people for disagreeing.

"I can't believe it. I'm being punished for speaking my mind? These fools are hurting me for disagreeing with them!"
"I can't believe it. I'm being punished just for killing somebody? These fools are hurting me for disagreeing with them!"

Now you'll agree with the former and disagree with the latter. But to the latter, you look like the Leftist, see? (I mean, if he genuinely believes murder isn't wrong. Most people I imagine murder out of convenience and if they could push a button that would make murder legal, would not. But imagine you have someone who really would push that button. To him, you're a moral tyrant.)

And everyone agrees that if they or those they love are murdered it’s wrong. Everyone agrees that if they or those they love are robbed, it’s wrong. We mustn’t think that because people EXCUSE their own immoral behavior that we don’t agree on morals. They all agree when they’re the victim. Perpetrators, of course, don’t agree but surly it’s obvious why.

I do not agree. If someone steals from me, I wonder if he's in the right and I am EXTREMELY bothered by the idea that I might be the one in the wrong, for trying to greedily keep my stuff for myself in the first place. It would be nice if I deserved it more than him but I can't prove that.

The definition of “harm” is fluid.

Extremely. I'd take a real beating over a moral flogging any day. Physical harm is meh to me unless the damage is permanent. If I was going to lose an arm, a leg, or an eye, that's when I might choose being chastised and berated. Otherwise I pick the real beating.

Look carefully at the left agenda and see if it’s fair. Every country the left has taken over becomes poor and/or oppressive. And these laws are being enacted. In Scotland if someone FEELS offended by something you communicated in your own home, you can face 8 years of prison. But rape young girls and it’s only 6 years max. Free speech is a product of the Christian right. Lefties are intolerant of the right. They are abolishing the rights to any view but theirs. Is that fair?

I don't think it's fair, but true morality, like the morality of Jesus, tends not to be. If someone rapes you, forgive him. Six years might be too much. Anything might be. The story of the prodigal son wasting half his father's money, then simply being forgiven, is anything but fair.

Why? Would you let pedophiles and rapists free to express themselves assuming they “evolved” to be such? Really? Do you see this doesn’t work in real life.

I'm worried I might have to whether it works or not. This is why I vastly prefer a morality that does not end with, "I evolved to be this way so you'd better let me."

I think the whole question of morality is easily solved if one is willing to see that how one says others ought to behave is how they ought to behave out of their own mouths. So the starving thief who feels justified at stealing another man's meal would not feel so justified if another man stole his meal. There would be no mercy even if the other man had been starving longer. He would not ask nor care. He can steal but no one ought to steal from him.

I agree with you that verbal flogging is worse that physical. The wounds go deeper and fester longer and healing is harder to fine. Most people find that having their home invaded is not solved by the insurance replacing everything.

The other thing is being forgiven is as fair as the one doing the forgiving has also been forgiven. That was the point of the parable Jesus told. The man who was forgiven needed to forgive those who offended him. Jesus thought that was the fair thing to do.

[Purple Knight]

I think the whole question of morality is easily solved if one is willing to see that how one says others ought to behave is how they ought to behave out of their own mouths. So the starving thief who feels justified at stealing another man's meal would not feel so justified if another man stole his meal. There would be no mercy even if the other man had been starving longer. He would not ask nor care. He can steal but no one ought to steal from him.

I've been thinking about this, and one thing that occurs to me is that the reverse is always true, also.

You're right that a man stolen from always says that the thief may not steal.

But, also, a man stealing always says that he is permitted to steal. He, also, will justify it somehow.

So if we're to take the negative (the may not) that a man imposes on another, and universalise that to the man making the imposition, why would we not also take the positive (the I may) and apply it to the others? Values like free speech (which you champion) are a result of universalising that positive of, "I may."

They're not even different. "I may steal" is not different than, "He may not stop me from stealing because that would be immoral." So even if we only take the may not, and extend that, we could as easily get yes to stealing by getting no to stopping people from stealing.

We can't take the fact that people will always justify whatever they do, yet cry out, "No fair!" when they are disadvantaged by what others do, as evidence of anything, because they will always do it, in every possible situation. They will say no fair to free speech when offended, but when it is their speech they will insist, because they are correct. They will steal but say no to stealing when stolen from. They will always say of violence that they were defending themselves, but the fellow who struck them was not.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. In one of the Flashman books Kit carson (who Flashman visits with) says 'If you think a (native American) don't know right from wrong, wrong him, and see what happens".

The thief who steals from others is not going to be easy going if the dosh is stolen from him. The morality here is the selfish instinct where the individual is driven to prosper and thrive at the expense of others if necessary. We also have an instinct of sympathy, engineered into socialrules and customs, as well as the exclusivist ones.

Point is, tea - leaves can sideline the moral rules we have and be totally selfish, and can even justify it to themselves for example with the 'Victimless crime' trash argument.

Point of the point is that morals is not a clear -cut let alone Cosmic law matter, but a system devised by humans which needs constant updating and id ny no means an unshakeable cosmic law. It is not a set of rules, mindset or cosmic law imposed by a god, name your own anyway.

Point of the point of the point, morality isn't an argument for any god, and never really was.