Originally posted by alize:BroInChrist is saying that
1. the existence of morals proves the existence of god because nothing else can create morality. He cited the example of chemicals in the brain not being able to result in morality.
2. morality is objective because some acts are universally considered wrong.
3. god's morality is absolute.
And I countered that:
1. his argument for god's existence is valid only if nothing else can cause morality to come about. I said that the universal existence of pain and its unpleasantness can lead us to consider certain acts repulsive.
2. morality is not objective because not all acts are universally considered wrong. The diversity of morality shows it evolved from many earthly sources and did not come from one source.
3. if god's morality is absolute it should leave no room for doubt in interpretation, leave no room for other moralities and address all moral issues in life, which it does not. BIC said that morality in scripture can be interpreted by the learned, but I disagree.
Actually... I agree with broinchrist leh. That's my position.
Anyway, I'm not going to try to convince you of God's existence. That's your private spiritual life and personal beliefs.
You wrote:
1. his argument for god's existence is valid only if nothing else can cause morality to come about. I said that the universal existence of pain and its unpleasantness can lead us to consider certain acts repulsive.
In the world we live in, there is an unwritten/unspoken expectation to "play by the rules" so as to maximize benefits for the poeple - "society". This isn't morality at all. It is called playing your cards right. It's about looking out for personal interest - It is personal interest not to murder others, because I know in a 100% free world, some guy will "one-up" me with a knife-wielding gang, and escalate up to guns and armies. This ensures that nobody wins. "Society" unspokenly "agreed" to have civil laws to prevent this so the rules are set to ensure there is some predictibility in society. It is in everybody's interest. This is explained in Rosseau's "Social Contract". It isn't morality at all. It's political science. It's mutual benefit. It's called "I scratch your back, you scratch mine."
You wrote:
2. morality is not objective because not all acts are universally considered wrong. The diversity of morality shows it evolved from many earthly sources and did not come from one source.
You are talking about civil laws here. I see a difference between civil laws and moral standards. Civil laws are passed by the legislators and is a form of regulation - which regulates a man's behavior, not define morality.
If a tree falls down on the south side and nobody saw it, did it fall on the south side? Or did it fall on the south side regardless if someone saw it. If someone commited a crime and there are no policmen around, was there a crime? There is a reason why policemen are also called Law ENFORCERS. They enforce the law.
Now would you not agree that murder is pretty universal? Now if someone murdered another, and no one saw it and therefore cannot be charged in a human court. Did the person commit wrong? I'm not even asking why in some cases there are instances of guilt despite commiting a crime in private. Is guilt a subjective and arbitrary emotion?
You wrote:
3. if god's morality is absolute it should leave no room for doubt in interpretation, leave no room for other moralities and address all moral issues in life, which it does not. BIC said that morality in scripture can be interpreted by the learned, but I disagree.
Do you have children? Do you give them everything they want? Or do you have to make judgement calls, where every situation is different? Do you list in black and white in detail everything that is right and wrong for your kid? How does one have a decent relationship based on love, trust and respect with that sort of arrangement? (There's a reason why God gave the law - and reluctantly I must add, which I won't go in detail here. God does prefer another system where it is not based on "black and white" precisely for this reason, it's impossible to have a decent relationship.)
In my basic understanding of civil laws (EVEN civil laws), intention makes a difference. What is the difference between culpible homicide (manslaughter) vs. murder? The difference is premeditation. Who can objectivly tell what is in a man's heart, since he has every possible means to lie to fabricate false evidences, not just in civil courts, but in everyday life, children lie too. Even in secular life, all attempts to have a standard are consider "arbitrary" by your worldview. Do you know, in civil courts, it is in the judge's discretion to mete a heavy sentence or a light one? And it's not an exact science, I tell you. You should ask those who work in law agencies and in law enforcement. Black and white isn't 100% black and white.
There is also such a thing called grace in theology. Please read my previous posts in detail - Christ makes a way for God's standards to be fulfilled by those who cannot possibly achieve it.
Your conflict and tension is correct. All humans are imperfect. How can the imperfect reach a perfect God? God is JUST in condemning the one who is imperfect, and He has to, otherwise He isn't God.
So how can God claim to be love at the same time? The reconciliation is found in Christ. In case no one gave the message correctly. It's a FREE gift - you don't have to earn it. You are right and perfectly holy before God because of Christ. And you have to understand it isn't "free love" where it's sweeping the dirt under the carpet.
God is righteous in making you righteous in Christ. It's judicial, it's a legal term.
1. Don't say I spoke of law or mutually beneficial trading, I did not.
The common experience of unpleasantness or pain can indeed result in the formation of morality.
BroInChrist stated that animals are sinless and they do not commit immoral acts. This leads to there being no morality in animals, and yet they are capable of compassion when they are aware a human or fellow animal is in pain or need. Could this motive not be in humans and be the origin of our concept of morality?
That morality is a concept, there is no doubt. The question is why this concept can only be given by god. There is no requirement for morality to have necessarily come out of nowhere, without development or origins in animalistic compassion or self-interest or any other source, to be called morality.
2. Don't say I spoke of different understanding of laws. I spoke of people having different understandings of morality.
I agree that murder is universally considered immoral. I disagree that a crime is a crime regardless of whether it is seen or where it is committed. For example: forcing people or children or women to do things is not always considered immoral. People differ on whether autocracy is immoral or not. Some see it as good. This is quite apart from legality, which is irrelevant because laws can be drawn as one sees fit.
Originally posted by alize:Oh, fuck off. We'd rather listen to BIC than he who is least qualified.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
Are you sure BIC is so smart he pretends to be? It is ok to accuse Pastor Kong of Plagiarism, right? So how about your precious BIC? Go read following: http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality All copy-paste leh
A supporter of kong heeeeee heeee haaaa haaaaaaa. Court already charged him.
What is so great about kong heeeeeeeeeeee?
Originally posted by Joe 328:I think too many people think that the "bad news" is caused by God, hence, all the debate about why did God allow it? How can a perfect God create an imperfect creation? blah blah blah. There are theological answers, but I won't rehash them, I think atheists have heard them enough and an intellectual debate is not my aim (although I think intellectual debates are fun!).
The issue in the end is a heart issue. I personally think that atheists took the easy way out and threw the baby out with the bath water. The best way to deal with it all is to reject God altogether and what better way than to discredit the integrity of the sciptures?
The opening of the Red Sea, resurrection from the dead, bearing a child at 99 years old, humans living thousands of years old, giants, solid walls falling down from a blow of a trumpet! So many "incredible" tales. 6 day creation is the most "ludicrious"! How can something as complex as a world (complete with living things from bacteria to whales) be created in 6 days, when a swiss watch takes months to complete? It's very easy to use science to reason it all as folklore. WAY TOO EASY! So much that it should be a joke, but to atheists they take it very seriously, rather strange for "logical" people. It's rather like trying to prove ice is cold and water is wet. Why? Because of their heart is in conflict. They cannot believe in an angry God. They might not have the scriptures to prove it, but they intuitively discern correctly that it's not God's nature to being wrathful.
And so what is the answer when talking to atheists? I don't have all the answers yet, but I'm not so sure the best way is to use intellectual debate, because it's the conflict in their **hearts** that is what is the problem. And getting into an intellectual discussion is like trying to treat a heart disease with neuroscience.
To me (and to me only - my opinion, not universal), the best way is just to give the Message of Christ and the forgivenss of sins. For it is the Holy Spirit who convicts. It is also the Holy Spirit who knows the deep waters of a man's heart and what are the fears and conflicts within it that is preventing a person from opening his heart to Christ.
But if you don't give the message of Christ, the Holy Spirit has nothing to bear witness to or convict. It's not my responsibility to convince them (it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict others, not me. For Romans 2:14 also says: even those without the Law are a law unto themselves - all of us know our human shortcomings), my responsibility is to make sure I am a proper ambassador of God's intention of saving people by giving them the right message. That is, the message of reconciliation - reconciling them to God through the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Nobody has to openly admit they are a sinner (i.e. imperfect under God's perfect standards), the important Person to admit to is God. And they can do it privately, not necessarily under duress by a Christian trying to push them. I certainly did open to Christ in my own privacy. I HATED (back then) Christians pushing religion off of me. I HATED (back then) discussing creationism. Looking back, I learned a lot what not to do. It wasn't science that converted me. It was faith (in a loving God). Selah.
Lastly, it is the message of Christ that is the power unto salvation. The focus is Christ, not creationist theology. We know that blindness has affected those who don't see and the enemy is responsible for that blindness. The enemy isn't afraid of Bible info - in fact, he quotes scriptures when tempting Christ. It doesn't bother the enemy.
So, what actually does bother the enemy? I believe it is Christ, His message and His work, because it destroys and "disarms principalities... and puts them to open shame."
Just food for thought.
Anyway, I think there are people with genuine intellectual issues, or present them as reasons for rejecting Christ. My style would be to show that their objections are not as tough as they make it out to be. Paul debated and reasoned and demolished the arguments of those who opposed the faith. Acts 17 is insightful. Paul was reasoning with the Greeks and he started with a creation talk. Why? Because unlike the Jews in Acts 2, the Greeks did not have a creation foundation and the knowledge of sin based in Genesis. So Paul had to put that foundation in before he could talk about the need for a Redeemer. I believe today's society is like the Greeks. Evolution theory has deceives people into thinking that there is no God to whom they owe their lives to and are accountable to.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
Are you sure BIC is so smart he pretends to be? It is ok to accuse Pastor Kong of Plagiarism, right? So how about your precious BIC? Go read following: http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality All copy-paste leh
christianity a perfect faith or religion for all???? alamak! Where is my nasi lemak? I ordered very long still no delivery.
KONG HEE's NAME SCRATCHED OF CONFERENCE SPEAKER's LIST
Yesterday, we could read in ST that Kong Hee doubled bail to travel to the Wave Conference in Virginia Beach (see following extract...)
" But according to the City Harvest website, Kong is scheduled to attend the Wave Conference in Virginia Beach in the United States tomorrow and on Thursday.
Interestingly, Kong Hee's name has been removed from the speaker's list.
http://waveconference.com/contentpages/22978/ec223e17-13b5-421d-ac19-c5cacc25641d/Speakers.aspx
Looks like he has been found guilty in his own circles.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
Are you sure BIC is so smart he pretends to be? It is ok to accuse Pastor Kong of Plagiarism, right? So how about your precious BIC? Go read following: http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality All copy-paste leh
If you took my statement to imply that BIC is smart, you really are dense. Though I would consider him smarter than you.
Kong Hee is the least qualified to give his opinions on the topic. His understanding is shallow and opinions offensive.
However he is smarter than any of us. He had no skills or intellectual abilities of service to society and nothing more than a shop house in Jalan Kayu.
Yet his intellect was such that he grew richer on the backs of people like you than he could ever have by selling prata. His undoing was sloppy accounting, which does not reflect low intelligence as much as misplaced trust in his CFO.
In the event he walks free, I would still consdier justice to be served. Do people like you not deserve to be swindled?
Originally posted by Joe 328:I think too many people think that the "bad news" is caused by God, hence, all the debate about why did God allow it? How can a perfect God create an imperfect creation? blah blah blah. There are theological answers, but I won't rehash them, I think atheists have heard them enough and an intellectual debate is not my aim (although I think intellectual debates are fun!).
The issue in the end is a heart issue. I personally think that atheists took the easy way out and threw the baby out with the bath water. The best way to deal with it all is to reject God altogether and what better way than to discredit the integrity of the sciptures?
The opening of the Red Sea, resurrection from the dead, bearing a child at 99 years old, humans living thousands of years old, giants, solid walls falling down from a blow of a trumpet! So many "incredible" tales. 6 day creation is the most "ludicrious"! How can something as complex as a world (complete with living things from bacteria to whales) be created in 6 days, when a swiss watch takes months to complete? It's very easy to use science to reason it all as folklore. WAY TOO EASY! So much that it should be a joke, but to atheists they take it very seriously, rather strange for "logical" people. It's rather like trying to prove ice is cold and water is wet. Why? Because of their heart is in conflict. They cannot believe in an angry God. They might not have the scriptures to prove it, but they intuitively discern correctly that it's not God's nature to being wrathful.
And so what is the answer when talking to atheists? I don't have all the answers yet, but I'm not so sure the best way is to use intellectual debate, because it's the conflict in their **hearts** that is what is the problem. And getting into an intellectual discussion is like trying to treat a heart disease with neuroscience.
To me (and to me only - my opinion, not universal), the best way is just to give the Message of Christ and the forgivenss of sins. For it is the Holy Spirit who convicts. It is also the Holy Spirit who knows the deep waters of a man's heart and what are the fears and conflicts within it that is preventing a person from opening his heart to Christ.
But if you don't give the message of Christ, the Holy Spirit has nothing to bear witness to or convict. It's not my responsibility to convince them (it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict others, not me. For Romans 2:14 also says: even those without the Law are a law unto themselves - all of us know our human shortcomings), my responsibility is to make sure I am a proper ambassador of God's intention of saving people by giving them the right message. That is, the message of reconciliation - reconciling them to God through the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Nobody has to openly admit they are a sinner (i.e. imperfect under God's perfect standards), the important Person to admit to is God. And they can do it privately, not necessarily under duress by a Christian trying to push them. I certainly did open to Christ in my own privacy. I HATED (back then) Christians pushing religion off of me. I HATED (back then) discussing creationism. Looking back, I learned a lot what not to do. It wasn't science that converted me. It was faith (in a loving God). Selah.
Lastly, it is the message of Christ that is the power unto salvation. The focus is Christ, not creationist theology. We know that blindness has affected those who don't see and the enemy is responsible for that blindness. The enemy isn't afraid of Bible info - in fact, he quotes scriptures when tempting Christ. It doesn't bother the enemy.
So, what actually does bother the enemy? I believe it is Christ, His message and His work, because it destroys and "disarms principalities... and puts them to open shame."
Just food for thought.
Assuredly the road to faith is through emotions and not reason. Christians do not care that the biblical phenomena you mentioned are logically impossible. However most of their belief is founded in feeling god's presence.
Christians are often asked whether they would still believe despite not being able to explain biblical impossibilities or contradictions- and say yes. Some christian scientists say the same.
It shows that those who believe, came to believe through the emotional process. Few are christians who came to believe through reason.
The above, however, does not lead to the conclusion that an atheist's heart is in conflict.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:“Assuredly the road to faith is through emotions and not reason. Christians do not care that the biblical phenomena you mentioned are logically impossible. However most of their belief is founded in feeling god’s presence.”
YES YES YES YES YES – WELL SPOKEN – Finally some sense coming from you. I do feel the presence of God in CHC. I never felt before in Novena Church (Catholic). I experienced God many times. No matter what you guys blablabla, I will always believe what I feel. It’s about time somebody understands
I hope you start feeling your promised wealth soon.
That's why I say, unreasoning people like you who go round causing annoyance while on an emotional high, deserve to be swindled. All power to Kong Hee!
The blablabla of us here will always be more logical than the shakabalabala you utter in there.
Originally posted by JT1983:
KONG HEE's NAME SCRATCHED OF CONFERENCE SPEAKER's LIST
Yesterday, we could read in ST that Kong Hee doubled bail to travel to the Wave Conference in Virginia Beach (see following extract...)
" But according to the City Harvest website, Kong is scheduled to attend the Wave Conference in Virginia Beach in the United States tomorrow and on Thursday.
Interestingly, Kong Hee's name has been removed from the speaker's list.
http://waveconference.com/contentpages/22978/ec223e17-13b5-421d-ac19-c5cacc25641d/Speakers.aspx
Looks like he has been found guilty in his own circles.
Erm... it was reported he attend nia... not as speaker ma... unless you can prove he was scratched off from the original list...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thanks again for the sharing. There is much to agree with you. I would say that for nonbelievers it is both a heart and mind issue, but more of the heart than the mind. And for the more hardcore atheists I think it may be more a moral issue. Bertrand Russell was a womaniser, and was it Julian Huxley who said that God would interfere with his sexual mores? Someone said that when he met with a hardcore atheist he would cut to the chase and ask what sin the atheist could not give up.Anyway, I think there are people with genuine intellectual issues, or present them as reasons for rejecting Christ. My style would be to show that their objections are not as tough as they make it out to be. Paul debated and reasoned and demolished the arguments of those who opposed the faith. Acts 17 is insightful. Paul was reasoning with the Greeks and he started with a creation talk. Why? Because unlike the Jews in Acts 2, the Greeks did not have a creation foundation and the knowledge of sin based in Genesis. So Paul had to put that foundation in before he could talk about the need for a Redeemer. I believe today's society is like the Greeks. Evolution theory has deceives people into thinking that there is no God to whom they owe their lives to and are accountable to.
"I think there are people with genuine intellectual issues, or present them as reasons for rejecting Christ."
Same here. I try to explain to them as much as I can for those who are genuinely seeking. But some folks have decided, so there's nothing more you can do after giving the Word of Reconciliation. I don't like crossing swords for the sake of crossing swords. I can if I want to and I am well able to. But I keep in mind, why? And for what ends?
Since they have decided - It really doesn't matter what you say, so I just discontinue the conversation for edification sake.
Those who seek, find. Those who don't seek? Well, don't cast your pearls unto.... .. those who can't appreciate.
"Paul was reasoning with the Greeks and he started with a creation talk. Why? Because unlike the Jews in Acts 2, the Greeks did not have a creation foundation and the knowledge of sin based in Genesis."
Hey! Very good point! And this is my reason and motivation for debate - I learned something today. (I'm not trying to convert and push religion, and neither am I trying to win an argument. I like to learn something new.)
For the Greeks, they seek wisdom, for the Jews, they seek a sign (with an attitude of unbelief - a prove-me-wrong! attitude). But God will give neither - Not meaning that God will never give His power or his wisdom. Evidently, there is power and wisdom, but in the church. I think the key here is faith, for He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
I try to listen to a person's heart when they speak. Surprisingly, even on the web, it is not entirely impossible!
"I try to listen to a person's heart when they speak. Surprisingly, even on the web, it is not entirely impossible!"
It shouldn't be a surprise... The internet provide a veil of protection to the user. Such enables them to be themselves, to be more outspoken than in real life. I believe these expressions are more truthful, of course wisdom is required to discern those playing the fool... and those expressing nakedly.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:“Assuredly the road to faith is through emotions and not reason. Christians do not care that the biblical phenomena you mentioned are logically impossible. However most of their belief is founded in feeling god’s presence.”
YES YES YES YES YES – WELL SPOKEN – Finally some sense coming from you. I do feel the presence of God in CHC. I never felt before in Novena Church (Catholic). I experienced God many times. No matter what you guys blablabla, I will always believe what I feel. It’s about time somebody understands
Actually, I must say, CHC members honestly are not bad people at all in my various experience with them, although imo sometimes a little... misguided? My best experiences with them is when they know that when KH is against the teaching of another pastor, they just give the teaching and try to convince, but it never becomes personal. There's no hatred, no jealousy, no bad vibes at all.
They are also very helpful, when I was down, CHC people offered encouragement, despite me not joining their church. So far, I haven't had a bad experience with them.
I'm only uncomfortable with the structure, and their top down heirarchy and the way some things are done. It's a big no-no for me. But maybe because my experience is good because I haven't served in their Ministry, and never had to be hounded for a tithe??? Oops!!! Heehee! I personally believe tithing should be voluntary (broinchrist might disagree, that the tithe is 100% abolished under the NT).
I don't know, but I wish to keep the good impressions and good memories I've had.
Zeeweelong, just want to say (and I'm not pouring cold water, I know you have faith ok?) that whatever happens to KH, just know that there are other Christians who will still accept you and there are other churches that will welcome you.
I know you have faith, and I know you believe that KH will have no problem. But just know you have this hand extended out to you as a safety net; and you can be at ease in the worst-possible-case scenario - I'm sure KH always taught you all to be well prepared.
For those who are unbelievers here reading this, while I believe in grace, I also believe that a man (whoever he is) should be jailed if found to be dishonest - pastor or not. So, the best way is to let the (civil) law take its course, and CHC members can continue to pray.
That is gracious of Joe 328, but the big question posed to Zeeleewong reduces to this:
If KH is found guilty, will you accept the facts or will you insist on committing contempt of court? What is your answer?
Originally posted by alize:
Assuredly the road to faith is through emotions and not reason. Christians do not care that the biblical phenomena you mentioned are logically impossible. However most of their belief is founded in feeling god's presence.
Christians are often asked whether they would still believe despite not being able to explain biblical impossibilities or contradictions- and say yes. Some christian scientists say the same.
It shows that those who believe, came to believe through the emotional process. Few are christians who came to believe through reason.
The above, however, does not lead to the conclusion that an atheist's heart is in conflict.
Reading some of the things you have written previously regarding objectivity in morality.... I'm sure in real life, both me and broinchrist will look at each other and smile knowingly at some of the things you said...
Atheists are moral people, and like any people, they are also human beings with feelings like anger, fear, joy, happiness. I'm sure an atheist who wins a lottery will jump up and pump their fists!! Feel disappointed when their favorite soccer team loses a game... or, smile at one another when we both see a particularly attractive female. We both share many similar "human qualities". I see people as people, not Christians vs. non-Christians. I think where we differ is the issue of the existence of God.
If your beliefs work for you, I personally just leave them alone, though other Christians might disagree with me. I'll be happy to explain *my* reasons for believing in God, regardless if they agree or not.
There is a saying in the Bible and I'm sure you will agree with it regardless of its origin: "Each heart knows its own sorrows, and another does not share its joy"
At the end of the day, it is all about resting on your pillow (alone or not) and having a peace in your heart, and if faith and spirituality fills that, hey, why not?
You are right in your distinction of faith from reason, but faith isn't emotion, although it CAN give rise to emotions. I believe man has faith, precisely for reasons that *faith is not reason.* And faith fills in those gaps in people's lives - whether they are Buddhists or Muslims or Christians. For things such as happiness and minimizing pain and suffering, spirituality attempts to deal with those painful events in life that is so unreasonable, or simply to give hope to those who don't have one, or a person dealing with the unknown after death. It seems so cruel to derive people of that hope, even if by your understanding it is a lie.
And maybe you don't need it - "it's for weak people", one might say... Well, each man pursues his own happiness and surely by the moral standards of atheists, there is such a thing as individual free choice rather than coercion to renounce all faith (i.e. to turn atheist), no?
CHC followers are brainwashed by Kong Hee.
they dun have a brain to think for themselves anymore. Kong Hee, to them is god.
I think it is wrong of Kong Hee to brainwash and exploit his followers. He is quite a shameless fellow.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Erm... it was reported he attend nia... not as speaker ma... unless you can prove he was scratched off from the original list...
Originally posted by Joe 328:Actually, I must say, CHC members honestly are not bad people at all in my various experience with them, although imo sometimes a little... misguided?
I don't think anybody feels CHC members are bad people.
Misguided is a good definition. Gullible saying the same but with more negative connotation. Both believers and non-believers are frustrated with the (hidden?) exploitation of seemingly helpless (or non-thinking) people. My dear friend forgot his responsibilities towards his wife and children, and I am convinced this would not have happened if not CHC. The many "good" members in CHC are doing nothing to protect the helpless youth who are so easily influenced A good example is following article (read below). How many CHC members will dig in their pockets to support their pastor? How many students will give their pennies to Kong? How many financially troubled CHC members will their last money, delaying plans, to help out Kong Hee? Kong Hee is living a lavish lifestyle with penthouse in Sentosa Cove, and only God knows what else. He has obviously no issue of paying 1,000,000 bail. Does he really need the help? What if he is found guilty? Refund? Do you think this is a good thing? Is this the example we want to be for our children? "Sorry my dear princess, we cannot buy your dress because we need to save Pastor Kong who has so much hardship in his life right now" ??? Surely there were plenty of good people in Jonestown, right before they poisoned their children... I have seen with my own eyes, how a seemingly kindhearted and wonderfull Kong Hee can destroy a perfectly healthy family. This guy is more dangerous then Hee himself realizes. (source: http://news.insing.com/tabloid/city-harvest-church-raise-money/id-e35a3f00) City Harvest Church members may raise money for those accused of fraud inSing.com - 1 August 2012 2:26 PM | Updated 2:40 PM