Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I contribute ancient culture's need for a higher deity to their relative lack of science. They had no idea how they came into being or why the world around them acted like it did. This of course ignores the Greeks and Romans, but even they had a lack of knowledge on the molucular and evolutionary levels. And most religions do not resemble in the least. Examples of these are paganism, Zoroastrianism, the religion of the America's, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. The only real thing that all of them have in common (Other than Buddhism) is that they believe that a deity created them, and sometimes that deity wasn't even benevolent.

Also, how can we know that God gave us knowledge of morals? It is equally possible that most people know right from wrong irregardless of a deity. And some people do not have a need for a higher deity. In fact, approximately 2.3-11.9% of this world are atheist*. This doesn't include atheistic religions such as Buddhism and such. You could contribute widespread behavior of religion to herd behavior, although I find that a somewhat weak arguement. I believe it is simply because it was the dominant belief for a very long time, and thus few people break that mold.

*It is pretty difficult to classify atheists, so figures very by quite a bit.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

But for the Christian - and for that matter, anyone who cares to examine it - the issue isn't what psychological needs a deity might meet, but whether that deity is real. And that question always points us to the cross and the empty tomb.

_________________

That is very true. I personally don't believe in a deity, but that doesn't mean I am correct. Whatever you believe is true, no amount of teaching can steer you away from it.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

I'm actually surprised to find out that you have that belief, Lahi. Not that I disagree with you, I just find it interesting that you think that way. I think that some sins are innately known, eg) murder. You don't have to be Christian to know that those things are wrong. If you have no chance to learn about God, He may/may not punish you for that (that's up to Him, and I'm not going to try and make His decisions), but if you kill someone, or commit another obvious sin, I don't think God's going to take "I didn't know Your laws!" as a viable defense.

_________________

So...Christ gave us knowledge of sin therefore making us able to sin, but he died for them...

WTF

_________________

I'd have to agree with that, to some extent. I wouldn't call it sin, per se, but we are born with a moral code, so to speak. Most animals are as well. The most obvious rule of thumb, like you said, would be to co-operate with and avoid hurting/killing family members. Even if you're not closely related, chances are (at least they were in ancient times) that you might meet again, and so there's an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat (co-operate unless provoked) is one of the best strategies for said dilemma. Now, I don't say we're born with all of our morals, but we're born with a basic, well-tested model to work with.

In short, our morals inspire laws and rules, not the other way around.

I think you're missing the big picture here, Jello. Mankind is fallen: it's not as if God made us to sin; we did that on our own, and as a result, all humanity now shares this corruption. This was not God's doing. The conscience - at least in my theory, but I think Romans 2 backs me up - was God's way of making a correction to the fallen nature, by implanting a sense of right and wrong in mankind, a way of guiding people back onto the right path. But the corruption in man still drives him to defy even this God-given conscience, so what was given as a correction ends up bringing condemnation instead. The only way to ultimately break that cycle of condemnation is for there to be a perfect sacrifice that secures forgiveness of those transgressions. That is why Christ was sent to die: to bring about that forgiveness and to break that cycle.


I prefer to think that there's interrelationship between the two. In some cases, the laws and rules help to instruct, to show what behavior is and is not acceptable within a society, and thereby informs morality, assuming that the laws and rules in question are fair and just. In a society that lacks fair and decent laws - say, for example, under a strict dictatorship or a chaotic political atmosphere - morality is easily forgotten by the populace in general.

On the other hand, fair laws depend on lawmakers who understand and try to follow good morals. Otherwise, there would be no fair laws or just rules, as was the case in Iraq under certain periods of Saddam's rule there.

_________________

Didymus and I disagree here -- and profoundly. But having said that, the effective belief we each hold comes very close to being the same. Since I believe God won't squash the innocent (which includes anyone who hasn't themself sinned), and he believes that foks with "inherited sin" (as the doctrine of sinful babies or original sin is called) effectively never receives any punishment from God. See this comment and some of what follows, and this comment from the "is baptism necessary for salvation?" thread. If I've misrepresented, please clarify Dids.

Lim, you are delving into deep questions: "he who seeks finds". (Keep seeking, studying and discussing!) ;)

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

You're right. I fail.

_________________