26 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMind you, William Golding was a divine writer.
A by-product I suspect of once belonging to a cult.
If an individual surrendered their morality to any other book on the planet, we would consider them deranged. (Mr X, what is your moral view on child sacrifice? - Wait, let me just check 'Lord of the Flies.' )
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhy do you believe the bible is unerring? It was put together from literally hundreds of competing books written by men early on, and in the 4th century at the council of Nicea, a political debate enused that ended up being the books of the bible. That was MEN deciding what books would be in the bible. No god said a word about that. So why do you ONLY pay attention to the resultant which we call the bible when there were many many compteting books some with 100% opposing views like the recent discovery of the book of Judas where it says Jesus TOLD Judas he had to expose him and set up the execution and that books says Judas was a hero. So why do you stick with this version of the bible as if it were written by god itself?
I am undecided on the issue. If someone has any scripture to support their view I will listen to them.
Originally posted by @whodey1) If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
What are they?
2) Gregory S. Paul, in the Journal of Religion and Society, systematically compared seventeen economically developed nations, and reached the devastating conclusion that 'higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen preganancy and abortion in the prosperous societies.
3) An atheist is a person who does not live his life according to the dictates and dogma of some wandering ancient tribesman. An innate sense of right and wrong existed before the Ten Commandments.
Originally posted by @pianoman1What does the absence of God mean? If it means people may not acknowledge the existence of God, then I see what you mean. Nevertheless, if God is real he is not absent no matter whether I believe this or not.
1) If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that G ...[text shortened]... ering ancient tribesman. An innate sense of right and wrong existed before the Ten Commandments.
It is interesting that you use the word "innate morality", something I also believe. This was put in us long before the scriptures were given to us.
Originally posted by @whodeyWhat I meant, and what I think you inferred, by "the absence of God" is a non-belief in his existence. Whether he does or does not really exist is irrelevant to my thesis.
What does the absence of God mean? If it means people may not acknowledge the existence of God, then I see what you mean. Nevertheless, if God is real he is not absent no matter whether I believe this or not.
It is interesting that you use the word "innate morality", something I also believe. This was put in us long before the scriptures were given to us.
Interesting point about an innate sense of right and wrong. Rather undermines the need for religion!
27 Oct 17
Originally posted by @pianoman1Obviously not, sense we all violate that inner voice.
What I meant, and what I think you inferred, by "the absence of God" is a non-belief in his existence. Whether he does or does not really exist is irrelevant to my thesis.
Interesting point about an innate sense of right and wrong. Rather undermines the need for religion!
We obviously need help and judging by the state of affairs in the world, not everyone is getting that help.
27 Oct 17
Originally posted by @whodeyReligion is prevalent, so clearly that isn't working. Christianity itself gives us slavery, inquisitions, witch burnings, misogeny and racism and elitism. The 10 commandments are a joke - half say worship me, the rest are already figured out by any secular preschooler.
...
We obviously need help and judging by the state of affairs in the world, not everyone is getting that help.
Looks like we have to help ourselves.
Originally posted by @apathistI've personally seen Christ change lives for the better.
Religion is prevalent, so clearly that isn't working. Christianity itself gives us slavery, inquisitions, witch burnings, misogeny and racism and elitism. The 10 commandments are a joke - half say worship me, the rest are already figured out by any secular preschooler.
Looks like we have to help ourselves.
What you are talking about is the state subverting Christianity, something that Constantine did. He simply wanted power and saw this new religion that seemed to spread despite being oppressed. In fact, the more severe the oppression the more it spread, so he adopted it as his own and conquered in the name of Christ.
Meanwhile, Constantine continued to worship his pagan gods, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed.
Christ made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, something Constantine did not agree with.
Originally posted by @whodey"I've personally seen Christ change lives for the better"
I've personally seen Christ change lives for the better.
What you are talking about is the state subverting Christianity, something that Constantine did. He simply wanted power and saw this new religion that seemed to spread despite being oppressed. In fact, the more severe the oppression the more it spread, so he adopted it as his own and conquered in ...[text shortened]... made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, something Constantine did not agree with.
??
How?
What you mean is, you have seen people's lives change for the better after they have taken to Christ.
Totally different.
Originally posted by @whodeyIf what you mean is that you have seen people derive some personal benefit from their religious beliefs, then I have personally seen, not only Christianity but also Hinduism and Islam change lives for the better. Surely you have too?
I've personally seen Christ change lives for the better.
28 Oct 17
Originally posted by @whodeyJudging by Romans 13:1-4. this is exactly what your god figure wanted, is it not? Constantine and his government were established, put in place and ordained by your god figure according to the texts you subscribe to.
What you are talking about is the state subverting Christianity, something that Constantine did. He simply wanted power and saw this new religion that seemed to spread despite being oppressed. In fact, the more severe the oppression the more it spread, so he adopted it as his own and conquered in the name of Christ.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfWhy then do you try to talk people out of it if it is a personal issue and your stance should not be imposed upon people?
I could not be - and never have been - involved in sanctioning or carrying out an abortion; I have succeeded in talking people out of it; and I have failed to talk people out of it. I have been proactive in trying to prevent abortions. I have given my emotional support to women who have decided to go ahead with abortions despite not agreeing with them exercisin ...[text shortened]... lthough I don't think - given the criteria I have mentioned - that it's "evil" in and of itself.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfThe issue of capital punishment does not affect me at all and I have not given it much thought, why do you think it is imperative for me to have a stance on it?
Here's the main part of the post you were replying to, but didn't reply to, again:
Is your having "no preference on the matter" a more coherent moral stance than mine?
We both agreed that rape is wrong, but I remember you asserting that you condemning rape was morally coherent while me condemning rape was morally incoherent.
Are you morally coherent on the issue of capital punishment?