Sye and Paul show comments

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:26

Hi Sye - as agreed I'll post our emails as the opening posts. Hopefully they will in the correct order - but the time sent doesn't show.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:27

New Thread

From You to SyeTenB
Sent Jul 20

Morning Sye. Good to talk to you yesterday. As always I thought of loads of things afterwards I should have asked but there was never enough time.

I'd be interested in exploring the notion of absolute morality in a thread with you before the broadcast (particularly as the date is only provisional).

I will say beforehand that I am going to be provocative, not in the language but in the concepts that I'm going to use and begin with discussing whether or not child molestation is absolutely morally wrong (the provocative question on your website).

I would see our discussion not as being adversarial but inquisitorial.

Are you up for that ?

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:29

SyeTenB
New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 20

Hello Paul,

Thanks so much for participating in that discussion with me yesterday. Indeed I also had things racing through my head that I wished to say, but either instantly forgot them or replied to the third point of something you said, without going back to the first. I’m a real amateur at that sort of thing (radio interviews) and take this as a great learning experience.

I fully understand what you mean by this apologetic seeming to have a bludgeoning effect, and I sincerely apologize for any time that you felt that I was being less than graceful. I had so much that I wanted to say in such a short period of time that I think I lost the personal aspect of the discussion. The problem is that I want to teach Christians how to defend the faith properly and tried to use this time for teaching them, more than focusing on you as a person. I also want to apologize for how the Christians in this forum (and probably throughout your life) have misrepresented God. I was entirely sincere when I said that I agreed with you more than the Christians you were engaging in the forums on almost every point. You have a better understanding of the God you deny then they do of the God they affirm. Since I would enjoy future appearances on the show, and because I used to argue almost as poorly as they do, I was gentler in my criticism towards them then I actually feel.

As far as a new thread on morality goes, I’m not sure I want to start at that point and I’ll explain why. The way I laid out the website, actually had some purpose (it wasn’t random :-) The very first thing the person is confronted with is the concepts of absolutes which one must affirm to get into the site. The next thing one must affirm is that there are laws of logic. Indeed we have at that point not established that the laws of logic are absolute but it is my point that if those questions are not first cleared up, then there is no point in talking about absolute morality. You see we use our logic and reasoning in order to process the concept of morality and if I grant that you can logically discuss morality from the basis of your worldview, then even if I ‘win’ the argument, I have made a concession which is far too great. In order to even get to the question of morality on the site, one must affirm absolutes. I would much rather discuss your view on absolutes. I was even considering taking out the section on absolute morality, as it is not essential in the proof and tends to rip up a lot of people. Absolutes of ANY kind cannot be made sense of apart from God.

cont'd

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:30

SyeTenB
New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 20

I had discussed with some Christian friends the thought of taking out that section, but they thought that it was important for non-Christians to dwell on the implications of denying moral absolutes.
Now I have and do indeed discuss the question of moral absolutes with people in a conversational way. Presuppositional apologetics however, does not lend well to conversations. It is a conversation killer rather than a conversation starter. Not all aspects of life are apologetic though. I would, for example, not ask a person how they make sense of love, and human dignity who is grieving over the loss of a loved one. That is a time for comfort, not for apologetics. I do talk about morality to get the ball rolling, but my main goal is to get the person back to the idea of trusting their ability to reason about anything let alone moral absolutes.

The reason I am telling you this, is that I would not want you to waste your time formulating an argument against moral absolutes and then have me instantly say: “How do you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone moral absolutes is valid?” (And that is precisely what I would do).
If you wish to discuss the topic privately though, I would be happy to do so.

If you wish to start a thread, I’d much prefer if you started at the beginning of the site with regards to the existence of absolute truth. I’m not entirely sure what Justin meant as far as us discussing this further on the thread. I imagine that he is not interested in maintaining the illusion that the conversation was live, but I’d like to get some feedback from his as to whether or not he would mind if we started this discussion now, or wait until after the show airs. I think that it could serve as advertising for our on air discussion, but I’d like to hear from him how he wishes us to proceed.

I’ll email him to see what his wishes are, then I’ll get back to you. Of course you are free to start any thread you like, and I would likely comment on a thread against the idea that there is absolute morality, but if it is intended to be between just the 2 of us, then, as I said, I’d rather do that privately.

Anyhow, thanks again for your time yesterday, and I hope that this is the start of a friendship, not just a debate between opponents.

Cheers,

Sye

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:31

New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 20

Hello again Paul,

Justin has gotten back to me. He would like us to start any discussion in the Uneblievable group as opposed the Unbelievabe forum. I imgane that you know better what he is talking about, but that group is the one that is linked from the Unbelievable radio show webpage.

Of course you can start it whenever you like, but he suggests waiting at least until the week that the show airs. He anticipates airing the show on July 31st, so starting sometime next week would be fine. I will be heading down to Florida at the end of the week for some ministry business though, and may not be able to contribute too much until I am back (A week later). Still I plan to have some internet access and will post when I can.

One last thing though. I found your comments about Hell yesterday heartbreaking. Indeed it is my position that unbelievers do in fact choose Hell, but when the view is actually voiced it becomes more personal. I realize that you have grave reservations about Biblical authenticity, but I would urge you to read (although you are probably already familliar with it) the story of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16 verses 19-31.

I once told one of my unbelieving Uncles that I was praying for him, and he told me that he felt that to be an invasion of privacy. I hope that you do not feel the same way, but since I heard of our discussion, I have prayed for you, and have brought your name up with our church prayer group as well. Indeed I hope and pray that you come to know the peace which passes all understanding. One thing that I did not get the chance to voice in our discussion was the fact that salvation was not only for the next life, but it saves our reasoning now. This is something I'd be pleased to continue to discuss with you.

Please keep in touch.

Cheers,

Sye

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:31

New Thread

From You to SyeTenB
Sent Jul 20

Well, talk about stealing my thunder ! :-)

Hmm, back to the drawing board.

What I was going to discuss was the notion that morality is not absolute but relative to the time and the society. I found the slide that if one did not accept the notion of absolute morality then how would one answer the question

"Is child molestation absosutely morally wrong ?"

In trying to envisage a scenario (playing devil's advocate) whereby I could honestly answer the question "No." I came up with a number of scenarios, but after discussing them briefly with Justin after the show I could see that they were not appropriate in that you had had left holes in the line of argument for the sake of keeping the site simple rather than because you hadn't necessarily thought of them.

That then led me onto an earlier discussion that I'd had with a number of Christians on this about the role of pre-Christian morality on our modern sense of morality. Not just that pre-Christian societies had a moral code, but that they had a different moral code. Some things that they would find morally acceptable we now no longer find so, and vice versa.

The point of the exchange of posts I was hoping to have was to explore that with you - and inquisitorialy rather than adversarily ie not trying to win the point but investigate the line of thought.

Anyway, I'll put something akin to this up once the show is broadcast to see what the others think.

I'm not sure how accepting absolute logic on it's own proves the existance of God, particularly the Christian view of God though. I'm not playing the awkward card here, I just don't see it. Perhaps if you lay the argument out. Again, I'll answer inquisitorialy.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:33

New Thread

From You to SyeTenB
Sent Jul 20

Hi Sye. I imagine it can be quite shocking for a Christian to hear a non-believer express the sentiments that I did but it is based on one of those walk by moments when you see something and it has a profound effect of one's views.

I used to live in West Watford, literally the western part of Watford in Hertfordshire just outside London. It has a large Islamic community and the local Asian corner shop used to advertise stuff in the door window. One of the most moving things that happened to me there was after finishing work one afternoon the head of family thanked me for the work and then invited me to go to the Mosque with him.

Anway, one Christmas (and I mean Christmas in the generic and not particular sense) I was walking past and noticed an advert for talk being given by an Islamic speaker (at the time he was well-known but I can't remember the guys name now).

Anyway, the poster for his event was

"Was Jesus the Son of God ?
1.2 Billion Christians say Yes !
1.0 Billion Muslims say No !
Who's right ?"

and it was then I felt a great sadness and asked myself the question - "Is that all it is, a numbers game ?"

I've known good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Pagans and in my heart of hearts I could not go to a place after my death knowing that there were people who were going to hell who were good, decent, noble and honest (amongst other traits), yet there would be Christians who would be going, where aside from their belief in Jesus as their Saviour they were not all of the same character.

For that reason I would say that yes I am happy to be destined for hell. It is a provocative statement, but I say it with sincerity.

As for a Christian praying for a non-Christian - in some circles, that can be the height of rudeness.

I would actually be quite upset and annoyed if you are praying for me and even moreso if members of your prayer group are doing the same. Please do not do it.

Anyway, I'll kick off the thread in the Unbelievable group nearer the time.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:34

SyeTenB
New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 20

Hello Paul,

Actually the question was: “I child molestation FOR FUN absolutely morally wrong?” You see, I wanted to avoid all the “Well what if I said that I would kill a billion people if you didn’t molest that child” scenarios. I still believe that it would be absolutely morally wrong, but the way I stated it avoids those scenarios. Still if you wish to present your scenario as to how molesting a child FOR FUN isn’t absolutely morally wrong, I’d be glad to hear it.

As far as pre-Christian societies go, it’s not relevant to the discussion. It is my position that there can be no absolute morality without God, and that there is in fact absolute morality. Keep in mind that societal behaviour has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of absolute morality. That would be on pat with saying that murder is not absolutely wrong because some people murder. Also it is my position that there is no such thing as a “pre-Christian society.” Before Christ’s earthly ministry the societies may not have been called “Christian,” but as part of the Godhead, Jesus has always existed. Everyone who has ever lived is without excuse for rejecting the God of Christianity no matter what He was called at whatever time.

As far as the existence of logic being proof that the God of Christianity exists, it’s what as known as a “Transcendental argument” or “true by the impossibility of the contrary.” The argument can be laid out like this: God is the necessary precondition for absolute laws of logic by the impossibility of the contrary, absolute laws of logic exist, therefore God exists.. The only way to defeat that argument is to provide your contrary valid precondition for logic. You see Paul you are trying to argue logically with me, but without a basis for logic, you cannot justify that your arguments are valid.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:34

SyeTenB
New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 20

When I said that I hope you don’t feel offended that I prayed for you, and asked others to pray for you, I did not mean to present it as an option :-) I was hoping that you wouldn’t feel offended, but that you do does not affect the matter. If someone was offended that I pushed them out of the way of a train bearing down on them, I would be happy to live with that offence. I do find it very odd that you find it rude though. From your standpoint it should be on par with me telling you that I was going to ask Santa Claus to give you some presents. Perhaps you would find that rude too though. Ironically, from your standpoint, you couldn’t even tell me why rudeness was absolutely wrong ;-)
As far as the numbers game go, don’t feel sad, it is not a numbers game. Even if there were 5 billion Muslims on earth and NO Christians, it would not affect what this is really about -TRUTH. That is why I totally disagree that worldviews should be based on arbitrary beliefs. You know Paul there are people who justify their arbitrary belief that child molestation is a viable option for getting pleasure, but I would not want anyone to build a worldview on that. It is about TRUTH, not belief.
I would also argue that you have only known “good” Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Pagans from your arbitrary definition of “good.” If “good” is actually derived from honoring God (which it is), then one can only do good BY honoring Him. Apart from honoring God “our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6). Filthy rags being the translation of what was actually menstrual cloth in the day. To say that your friends do “good” based on an arbitrary standard of goodness is question begging.

I get the impression that you feel it would be unfair of God to send people to Hell that you deem to be “good,” problem is, without God, you have no absolute standard by which you could call ANYTHING “good” or “fair.” When you make that objection, you also give evidence to knowing God.

Lastly, I am incredibly grateful that God is NOT fair. You see Paul, if God was fair, I’d be going to Hell too, cause that’s what I deserve. God is JUST, but in matters of our eternal destiny He is not fair. God would be perfectly justified in sending everyone to Hell, it is only by His mercy that He saves some.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:36

New Thread

From You to SyeTenB
Sent Jul 21

Hi Sye, I hope you don't mind then if I return the favour and ask some of my pagan friends to do an invocation for you. I don't buy the Santa Claus analogy. I'm not a Christian but I give presents at Christmas. The term Christmas means something totally different for me though.

I think you're wrong about the numbers game, and I do think that, to misquote Mandy Rice-Davies "you would say that wouldn't you ?"

Your view of Islam is a bit shocking. I'm not a Muslim but I would not stoop to describe it as an arbitary belief.

Turning now to the controversial statement that childmolestation for fun is absolutely morally wrong. The premise wherein the statement is false is historic.

Firstly we need to examine the notion of what is a child, what is childhood and what are the rights of the child.

A child is any human being under the age of 18. This is not an absolute. The age at which a child becomes an adult has varied throughout history. Other ages being 14, 16 and 21.
Childhood is a modern invention. The notion of childhood only begins in the middle classes during the Victorian era. Prior to that children were not viewed as anything other than small adults.
The rights of the child only began with the legislation that set out what a child was and what a child was expected to do and to not do.

From these points I would suggest that the absolutes that you are proposing are absolute only within your own value system. Can you quote the Bibilical verse that sets out different criteria ?

Furthermore, in terms of human rights I think that you are overlooking the importance of slavery. For a slaveowner the slave was a chattel, a thing, an item of property. The slaveowner had all rights of life and death over the slave and wouldexercise those rights based on, amongst other things, the value of the slave to his estate.

The rights of the slave were zero. Let me repeat that - the rights of the slave were zero. Man, woman or child - the rights were zero because they were valued as things.

In such circumstances, and this is recorded in historical documents, slave owners would indeed molest slave children and would do it for fun and believed that it was their moral right to be able to do so.

This happened not simply in the obvious places such as the Deep South of the USA but in older slave owning civilisations too.

For that reason the contention that you have put forward cannot be absolute as it is based on modern mores and social norms and could not apply everywhere and at all times because the historic record contradicts it.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:36

New Thread

From You to SyeTenB
Sent Jul 21

Hi Sye, well we'll have to agree to disagree on the numbers game. Others view Christianity as being as much of a mythology as you would view theirs.

As for the child molestation issue the historical aspect is important if you are going to use the word 'absolute'. As for my own personal views relating to the 21st century Western Liberal Democracy that I was raised in - they are that it is morally wrong. As for murder - I think you're actually on much dodgier ground than with the child molestation angle, but it does introduce the notion of the absolute moral dilemma - which is worth exploring.

You cannot use the word absolute and ignore what previous societies did or did not do otherwise your worldview within your paradigm is as subjective as theirs was within their paradigm.

By the way 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in base 3, it's 11 (that's one, one not eleven). Again, there is grave danger in using absolutes.

Anyway, this is an interesting exchange of views. I look forward to more !

When we start the thread would you be ok with using these emails as the OP ? We've covered alot of ground and I think it would add to the discussion that we recorded.

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on July 31, 2010 at 9:37

New Thread

From SyeTenB to You
Sent Jul 21

Hey Paul,

If you want to encourage your friends in their mythology, that’s up to you, but I would not advise it for your own standing before God. You have been given an opportunity that many people do not get - to hear the truth. There are different degrees of Hell, and while each is horrendous, the more truth you reject, the more responsibility you bear.

You may think I am wrong about the numbers game, but all you are doing is expressing an arbitrary personal opinion. I really would like to continue our discussions, but am not really interested in arbitrary personal opinion, I’m interested in truth. Proverbs 18:2 says: “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion.”

If Islam is not arbitrary is it true? If it is, how do you know that it’s true? If it's not true, how is it not arbitrary?

As far as child molestation for fun goes, I’m in the process of writing a book and I’m interested in knowing if you are willing to go on record as saying that raping babies for fun is not absolutely morally wrong? You see Paul, I’m not talking about what other societies do, or have done, I am asking quite simply if YOU believe that raping babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong? As I said in my analogy, just because some people murder, it does not follow that murder is not absolutely morally wrong. With your reasoning, one would have to conclude that 2 + 2 does also not equal 4 because some children get that answer wrong on their math tests.

Cheers,

Sye

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 74
• Next ›
• Page