How can it be the same?

Originally posted by knightmeister

I am 'bound' to have to accept "New York is a city" is a fact because I would have to be psychotic or deluded to think it wasn't.

I hate to jump in a nitpick, but you are factually incorrect - pun intended.

You are bound to accept New York City is a city because there is more than enough physical evidence to back up the claim.

The way you phrase this acceptance is obvious and rather than based on "fact", it is opinion. You could say the exact same about anything:


"I am 'bound' to have to accept God's existence is a fact because I would have to be psychotic or deluded to think He doesn't."

Basically this type of rationalization can be applied to whatever you wish to believe in, and I truly hope you don't go around accepting various statements as "facts" with such an ambiguous reference as your guide.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I hate to jump in a nitpick, but you are factually incorrect - pun intended.

You are bound to accept New York City is a city because there is more than enough physical evidence to back up the claim.

The way you phrase this acceptance is obvious and rather than based on "fact", it is opinion. You could say the exact same about anything:

[i]
"I am ' ...[text shortened]... various statements as "facts" with such an ambiguous reference as your guide.

-JC

I think you think I am making a point that I am not making. I am saying that moral 'facts' are useless unless men feel obliged to follow them. Only a real fact can do this.Subjective facts cannot. Therefore we need an 'actual' moral law independent of opinion. Comparing God to New York is not a correct comparison as God is not so easily proved or perceived and I would not think you deluded for not perceiving God. What I am trying to establish is that we can't just make up moral law as we go along dependent on opinion and expect men to feel bound by this. God's moral law may be hard to establish and not always obvious but at least we have some hope of being taken beyond mere opinion towards real facts , infact the hope is this will one day happen and it will be as apparent as New York. There is no such hope in Atheism that I know of , and therefore no hope of any ultimate vindication or obligation to the facts. It's not the same.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you think I am making a point that I am not making. I am saying that moral 'facts' are useless unless men feel obliged to follow them. Only a real fact can do this.Subjective facts cannot. Therefore we need an 'actual' moral law independent of opinion. Comparing God to New York is not a correct comparison as God is not so easily proved or perce ...[text shortened]... refore no hope of any ultimate vindication or obligation to the facts. It's not the same.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. -Heinlein


I am not an atheist, however I find much more hope in secular principles than I do Christian doctrine. You may preach about moral Facts as you see fit, but the fact remains that morality is relative - even within the church. Man interprets God's "law", always has, and these interpretations lead to inherent "opinion" based on cultural experience and evolution.

The closest you will ever come to a Moral Truth is described in the short quote above.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
[b]


Facts as you see fit, but the fact remains that morality is relative - even within the church. Man interprets God's "law", always has, and these interpretations lead to inherent "opinion" based on cultural experience and evolution.

-JC[/b]

Ok , so you would take issue with dottewell then , because he doesn't think morality is relative but thinks them to be a property of some sort.

You are right to say that man interprets God's law according to opinion , this is not surprising really. But what does this say other than that men can take truth and pervert it or distort it in many different ways ( eg statistics are facts that can be distorted). There is still a belief in a law as factual and existing that our opinions are judged against.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is still a belief in a law as factual and existing that our opinions are judged against.

Sure there is. The only problem is the belief in that "factual law" has changed as readily as human morality does. You may believe in an ultimate Judgement, and there may in fact be one, but you will never know what it is while you are on this Earth.

The trouble comes when people claim they do know that Judgement for a fact. Of course, if no one ever made such claims, we wouldn't have much of a religious, would we?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Sure there is. The only problem is the belief in that "factual law" has changed as readily as human morality does. You may believe in an ultimate Judgement, and there may in fact be one, but you will never know what it is while you are on this Earth.

The trouble comes when people claim they do know that Judgement for a fact. Of course, if no one ever made such claims, we wouldn't have much of a religious, would we?

-JC

You make some good points. How can we know a moral law even if it exists? I mean if there is a God and a real moral law he should have visited us or something !! He could even show us them in action. ! we could model ourselves on his charactor. Then after he has gone he could leave a bit of himself behind to remind us and instill in us what he was really like...we could call it something like..um..er ..I've got it!..the Holy Spirit! That would do it ! Then at least we would have a fighting chance of finding out about moral law. We could maybe do with a book as well and lots of stories about the subtle differences between the right and wrong way of doing stuff...um ...parables..yes ..parables!

If only God had done these things.....bah humbug!

Originally posted by knightmeister
You make some good points. How can we know a moral law even if it exists? I mean if there is a God and a real moral law he should have visited us or something !! He could even show us them in action. ! we could model ourselves on his charactor. Then after he has gone he could leave a bit of himself behind to remind us and instill in us what he was rea ...[text shortened]... ng stuff...um ...parables..yes ..parables!

If only God had done these things.....bah humbug!

Nice try. The Bible was written by man, not God. It may be divinely inspired, but it is not divine, and there more than a few parts which should absolutely not be used as a basis for moral law.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Nice try. The Bible was written by man, not God. It may be divinely inspired, but it is not divine, and there more than a few parts which should absolutely not be used as a basis for moral law.

-JC

Once again, I agree entirely. This is the reason why we need other points of verification like the Holy Spirit to begin to work it out. There is also the consistency of Christ's charactor to consider. You admit the Bible to be divinely inspired? This is fine by me. But to be honest I think there is a lot of guff in there too.