seebs

You're arguing from a premise I don't accept, so we're pretty much stopped. I think ethics are an inherent recognition of the underlying moral structure of the universe. I believe that morality is like physics; you can be objectively right or wrong on questions of morality. I don't necessarily think any living human can tell which is which.

I don't think sin has punishment; I think it has consequences, which are inevitable.

I believe that God is intelligent; I have experiences which I consider "interaction with God". (In other words, I pray.)

You seem to be looking for something specific here, but I'm not sure what. I mean, to make a long story short, I'm Christian. You asked; I told. I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. If it's admission that I could be wrong, duh, I could be wrong on any of them, even the formal logic or existance of the external world. If you're looking for inconsistencies, well, have fun. The inconsistencies always involve things I'm not sure I've correctly defined in the first place.

nowhereman

Please don't get defensive. I didn't mean it as an attack on your faith. Okay maybe I did But let's keep the discussion going.

So you think that morals were created directly by God as a part of the universe. It seems to me that only humans have morals, other things in the universe do not, as far as I know, but all things in the universe obey the laws of physics. Isn't morals just a code of conduct while interacting with other humans?

The thing I'm getting at is this. You seem to admit that your religion may be wrong. I haven't seen many Christians do that. Doesn't Christianity require absolute belief that its teachings are right? What does Christianity require belief in anyways?

seebs

I don't think so. For instance, I believe cruelty to animals to be immoral, *even if they cannot perceive it*. Note the careful use of "cruelty". Harm to animals, I can live with; my objection is to *cruelty*, or harm for harm's sake. I don't care if you eat cows. I don't care if you kill them to eat them. I do think you shouldn't delight in the suffering.

I do believe that only "sentient" life is capable of moral action. I am not entirely sure whether only humans are "sentient". Non-sentient life may follow similar patterns (they are, after all, good ideas, and evolution ought to select for them).

However, I still think that the question of "what is right" is inherent. To delight in the suffering of others seems to me to be wrong, and I don't think it matters what anyone feels.

The Nicene Creed is a good starting point; you'll find debate, though. I know people who otherwise match my understanding of Christianity, but believe that the "second coming" was a spiritual event which happened around 70AD, and that this *is* the "eternal kingdom" promised. I am mostly agnostic on this.

As to admitting I could be wrong: I'm a skeptic by nature. I believe that cats are fairly dim-witted animals which develop attachments to people. I could be wrong. I have often walked from one room to another and found the same cat in both rooms, with no easy explanation of how he got there. Perhaps he teleported; this would surprise me quite a bit, but I cannot actually prove it wrong. It is also possible that cats are very intelligent mind-readers who enjoy studying us and making us feed them, but this seems very unlikely to me.

Basically, I don't generally assert much certain knowledge; it seems a dubious path. In particular, it strikes me as being close to Pride. (Pride the term-of-art denoting a sin, not the normal English usage.) I believe these things. I may be wrong, but I do not *believe* I am wrong. I am aware that they are essentially untestable.

I certainly hope I am not required to be utterly certain; I don't think God made me to be utterly certain. I think He appreciates variety more than people give Him credit for, and has a good sense of humor.

FWIW, many of the Christians who absolutely refuse to admit they're wrong terrify me; they strike me as totally unready for any hints or suggestions God might have. I've noticed that, when I am uncertain, and open to input, I am more likely to get what I perceive as guidance. If I am certain that I am already right, why should I listen?

Since my religion and experience agree that it is crucial that I be ready to learn, I must start by accepting that I do not, yet, know. Otherwise, how could I learn?