vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
| vlad321 said:
I am oging to repost this:
Ah "whatever," the answer of a person with a defeated argument.I posted whatever on the sentence that had absolutely nothing to do with the main point of our discussion
I think you missed the point. I was asking how you determined what the right message is. You say Christianity doesn't have to be the only one with the right message, well, what makes the messages in the bible "the right messages?" I see you have absouletly no idea what Christ's teachings and message was on this world. He was teaching morals and righteous ways on how person should live his life. Puting it in simple English, his message was ''never do anything to another person that you dont wish to be done to yourself'' and ''respect your God and see hims as the loving and kind God'' Those are his teachings summerized in 2 simple sentences. So what exactly is wrong about his message? Those are both 2 morally corect statements. But again, it all comes down if you beleive in absolute universal laws of morality, or do you believe if they are subjecitve.
There are many other teachings, for instance to Aztecs you were definitely going to their version of hell unless you died in a few very specific way, one of which was being sacrificed to gods. Why is their message of "I need to be sacrificed to a god" not right? Why does it depend on what the other teachings are for them to be valid? What information do you have that is more valid than theirs? Again, substitute anything for Aztec beliefs, even several fairy tales work, and all my questions still hold. You missed the point I was talking about. It doesnt matter if Aztec's beliefs were right or wrong, that doesnt debunk the New Testament and it doesnt make it less vailed or less sacred compared to Aztecs. This only futher proves my theory that you havent read a single page of the New Testament.The New Testament isnt about proving Christianity as the best and the single correct religion in the world. Its about the life on the founder of Christianity and his motal teachings to everyone who choose to follow him or just anyone who wishes to be a good person. Not once did Jesus say that he is the only person people should listen to and that symbolics of abrahamic relgion actually matter.
In your own words: " it does give it vaildity as correct and righteous teachings" what exactly is that first "it?" Christ's words/ New testament. It comes down to if you believe in universal or subjective morals.
Finally, only the majority of biblical scholars believe Jesus existed. There are still plenty historians who aren't sure either. Just as the case of Arthur. He may have existed, he may not have.There is a lot of non-biblical evidence for hisotircal existance of Jesus Christ. There are few videos about it on youtube but Im too lazy to post them.
And add another question, why do you think it is morally right? Who told you that it is morally right? If you say "because Christ said so" that is extremely circular logic, and therefore wrong.Like I said above, it all comes down to if you believe morals are God given or man-made. I beleive morals are universal and God given, becaue I found all morals given by God and Jesus Christ to be perfectly correct. Its all about faith.
|
|
No, the whatever was meant specifically for that single point, I thought you'd catch on.
So... you basically admit to using circular logic to justify whatever you believe in. Good to know. Just as you say "I found all morals given by God are perfectly correct," I can say "I found all morals given by XXXXXXXXX are perfectly correct" where XXXXX is literally anything, again even fairy tales hold as much logical backing as any belief system out there. In fact using circular logic like you do, I can make ust about anything sound true.
|
I'm not seeing the circularity. He said he follows Christ's teachings because he agrees with the moral values they instill. That is not circular, and all ethical systems ultimately come back to this point. In essence, the question is, "what is good behavior?" Different ethical systems answer this question differently, and this gives rise to different types of behavior being justified. Most ethical criticism derives from the fact that the behavior justified by an ethical system might not be consonant with a person's feelings. If people raise these points, there is an impasse that prevents further discussion becuase there is an inherent difficulty in arguing over whose feelings are better.
For example, take utilitarianism. I don't feel that the sacrifice of innocents can be justified. Given that utilitarianism allows for the sacrifice of innocents, I reject utilitarian ethics. A utilitarian can come along and say that innocents can be sacrificed as long as the world benefits from the action. The problem is that I have already rejected that proposition because it gives rise to behavior I find to be unethical.
The main point I am making is that all ethical systems eventually come back to foundational beliefs, and if someone rejects these beliefs, there is no further reason for argumentation because they will be talking in circles. Asking someone to prove why someone should treat others as they would like to be treated also falls into the same category. The best someone could do is give examples of how this principle results in good behavior. If someone then denies this is good behavior (or asks why this behavior is good, like you are doing), there is no good objective answer because the truth of the statement is taken as foundational. This is a problem that confronts all ethical systems (not just the teachings of Christ), so you could play the questioning game with any system of ethical belief and eventually force the follower of that belief into a corner.
