21 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI agree, in part. However, if you notice the quote I took from Coletti's post he is making the claim that if people do not come to the same conclusions then there can be no truth. Christians do not come to the same conclusions, therefore under Coletti's logic Christianity or at least much of it's theology in not truth.
Obviously not.
However, a particular Christian's (or group of Christians'😉 views on morality can be compared to (in his/their worldview) an absolute standard that does not depend on those views. For an atheist ethicist, morals boil down to, "X is right/good because I say so".
TheSkipper
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think I must be missing something. Do Christians claim that were it nor for the existence of the Bible or God or Jesus (not really sure which) we (humans) would never come to understnad the difference between right and wrong? There would, in effect, be no right and wrong?
Obviously not.
However, a particular Christian's (or group of Christians'😉 views on morality can be compared to (in his/their worldview) an absolute standard that does not depend on those views. For an atheist ethicist, morals boil down to, "X is right/good because I say so".
TheSkipper
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerthis one was the Fourth
Thanks for the link - but my question was about the capture of Jerusalem (by the Crusaders).
this is from the first crusade
"....When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished. On the roof of the Temple a great number of pagans of both sexes had assembled, and these were taken under the protection of Tancred and Gaston of Beert. Afterward, the army scattered throughout the city and took possession of the gold and silver, the horses and mules, and the houses filled with goods of all kinds." Raymond d'Aguiliers
"...Count Raymond and his men, who were attacking the wall on the other side, did not yet know of all this, until they saw the Saracens leap from the wall in front of them. Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.....Fulcher of Chartres
http://www.ordotempli.org/siege_of_jerusalem.htm
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperLet's just take the case where God never clarifies what is right and wrong to humans (so, the Bible and Jesus never existed). Coletti's anthropology may be different here, but I think humans would still have a rough idea of right and wrong (because their souls are made in the Divine Image), but they wouldn't be able to agree on some (maybe most) actions.
I think I must be missing something. Do Christians claim that were it nor for the existence of the Bible or God or Jesus (not really sure which) we (humans) would never come to understnad the difference between right and wrong? There would, in effect, be no right and wrong?
TheSkipper
If God never existed, then right and wrong become merely a matter of human convention.
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompInteresting to note how you've inverted the order of paragraphs in the document to give the impression that the "blood up to their ankles" refers to the blood of civilians. Of course, the impression one gets from the document is the exact opposite - the second paragraph (in your rendering) refers to the blood from the battle (of both sets of soldiers/militia).
this one was the Fourth
this is from the first crusade
"....When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished. On the roof of the Temple a great number of pagans of both sexes had assembled, and these were taken under the protection of Tancred and ...[text shortened]... en were spared.....Fulcher of Chartres
http://www.ordotempli.org/siege_of_jerusalem.htm
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf they can have substancial differences on something as basic as the taking of a human life then you have no business asserting ownership of absolute moral standards. If various shades of christian can disagree on such a vital issue then their standards are not absolute and, in my view, some of their opinions are not moral.
Whatever their difference in views on concrete issues, all Christians (indeed, all theists) agree on one thing - that moral standards of right and wrong are derived (either by command or by nature) from a source outside the human race, viz., God.
The atheistic ethicist is forced to answer to Euthyphro's dilemma (as applied to him, of course) - something I believe Coletti is trying to demonstrate in this thread.
I will take issue with your assertion that "all Christians (indeed, all theists) agree on one thing..." Morals are a human construct and changes with the tides of history. This is as true of christian morality as any other moral code.
21 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't agree. There is a Natural Law which is based on our very existence as rational beings:
Let's just take the case where God never clarifies what is right and wrong to humans (so, the Bible and Jesus never existed). Coletti's anthropology may be different here, but I think humans would still have a rough idea of right a ...[text shortened]... then right and wrong become merely a matter of human convention.
The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law"😉.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm
Even the RCC concedes the existence of Natural Law. The fact that some will have differing viewpoints on the Natural Law in no way proves it doesn't exist, anymore than the fact that Darius and RBHILL believe that faith is sufficient for salvation and you don't doesn't mean that there is no Christian God. That is the point the theists on this site cannot get through their skull; the fact that their are moral principles that derives from our very nature and existence and that human beings act upon them by use of their reason. A outside agency is not required for human morality. This should be obvious to anyone who observes the behavior of most agnostics and atheists, but you guys just can't accept the evidence of your own eyes. Why is that?
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou do not think it possible that humans (absent a God given sense of right and wrong) would not eventually develop a social contract of some sort? Perhaps only out of necessity at first, for instance: "Don;t kill bob, the wheat grower, and steal his wheat because then we have nobody to grow wheat next season" etc etc.
Let's just take the case where God never clarifies what is right and wrong to humans (so, the Bible and Jesus never existed). Coletti's anthropology may be different here, but I think humans would still have a rough idea of right and wrong (because their souls are made in the Divine Image), but they wouldn't be able to agree on some (maybe most) ac ...[text shortened]... ions.
If God never existed, then right and wrong become merely a matter of human convention.
Soon a society develops around these basic rules, as culture grows the reasons for the rules gradually chnage from mere necessity to a more nuanced understanding etc etc
Is this not possible? It may very well not be, I'm just thinking out loud.
TheSkipper
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerInteresting that you ignore the "neither women or children were spared" to focus on irrelevancies.
Interesting to note how you've inverted the order of paragraphs in the document to give the impression that the "blood up to their ankles" refers to the blood of civilians. Of course, the impression one gets from the document is the exact opposite - the second paragraph (in your rendering) refers to the blood from the battle (of both sets of soldiers/militia).
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperThat's not what I was trying to convey. I am trying to establish a standard of truth. If truth is dependent on everyone coming to the same conclusions, then truth is personal (relative to the individuals ability to reason) and no one can say that what they think is true can apply to anyone else. This leads to rule by might or majority. Historically, we can see that this has problems.
I agree, in part. However, if you notice the quote I took from Coletti's post he is making the claim that if people do not come to the same conclusions then there can be no truth. Christians do not come to the same conclusions, therefore under Coletti's logic Christianity or at least much of it's theology in not truth.
TheSkipper
I believe there is a basis for truth (or knowledge, or good and evil) that is not dependent on popular opinion, or man made rules, or emotional appeal. There a moral truth that is independent of anything but truth itself.
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerthat's ridiculous ,,, I posted excerpts from 2 larger accounts.
Interesting to note how you've inverted the order of paragraphs in the document to give the impression that the "blood up to their ankles" refers to the blood of civilians. Of course, the impression one gets from the document is the exact opposite - the second paragraph (in your rendering) refers to the blood from the battle (of both sets of soldiers/militia).
thats the order the accounts were in.
It refers to what it says it refers to.
21 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiOk, I can certainly believe that a possibility but what good is it if nobody can agree on what the "basis for truth" is?
I believe there is a basis for truth (or knowledge, or good and evil) that is not dependent on popular opinion, or man made rules, or emotional appeal. There a moral truth that is independent of anything but truth itself. [/b]
Maybe we do not need to agree on anything? Is that what you are syaing? For instance...some of our actions are good and some of our actions are evil and it is not necessary for us to ever know which because our knowledge of Good and Evil has no bearing on what Good and Evil is!?
Holy cow, I think i just confused myself...ignore me.
TheSkipper
21 Jun 05
Wherefore with earnest prayer I, not I, but God exhorts you as heralds of Christ to repeatedly urge men of all ranks whatsoever, knights as well as foot-soldiers, rich and poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from our lands and to aid the Christian inhabitants in time.
I address those present; I proclaim it to those absent; moreover Christ commands it. For all those going thither there will be remission of sins if they come to the end of this fettered life while marching by land, crossing by sea or in fighting the pagans. This I grant to all who go, through the power vested in me by God.
["Council of Clermont, France," Pope Urban II, 27 November 1095, Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem: 1095-1127; Book I, Chapter III; translation: Frances Rita Ryan, 1969.]
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder1. The RCC does not "concede" the existence of Natural Law as something distinct from the Eternal Law:
I don't agree. There is a Natural Law which is based on our very existence as rational beings:
The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for exampl ...[text shortened]... cs and atheists, but you guys just can't accept the evidence of your own eyes. Why is that?
"According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209102.htm
2. Aquinas is using the same anthropology as I am when he writes, "the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light".
3. It follows, therefore, that Aquinas is definitely not positing that a "natural law" would exist in the absence of an Eternal Law.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou've clearly not understood what I'm saying - whatever Christians of different churches/sects or times say about morality, they believe that an absolute standard exists with which their notions can be compared. This absolute standard is independent of their notions.
I will take issue with your assertion that "all Christians (indeed, all theists) agree on one thing..." Morals are a human construct and changes with the tides of history. This is as true of christian morality as any other moral code.