Christian morals

Originally posted by @sonship
You see, many of the moral discussions I see going on between Christians and skeptics end up in some assumptions. One of those is that the Bible is a book of Do's and Don't for man to grit his teeth and apply his natural energy to " live morally the way God SAID to in that book" .

"Go off now and be a GOOD person like the book of God said to do".

"Go off now and be a GOOD person like the book of God said to do".

Can a Christian who does not become a good person, in the way the Bible clearly instructs them to, still be demonstrating "Christian morals"?

Originally posted by @sonship

FMF: Do you believe, then, that there are "Christian morals" on one hand and "Satan's Morals" one the other, and that's all ~ no other kinds of morals?

Maybe it could be put that way - there are other being's morals.
I don't see much problem in expressing things in that way.

So, do you see the "good" Samaritan - in the Bible's story that has taken his name - as displaying "Satan's morals"?

Originally posted by @fmf
Yet another long waffly response. But I am tenacious. I read it twice. So, just to be clear. If a person has Christian beliefs it makes their moral behaviour better than the moral behaviour of non-Christians, right? This difference isn't created by the amount or extent or quality of their actions, behaviour or conduct, but is instead created - in your view - b ...[text shortened]... borate things they think about themselves and their god figure, have I understood you correctly?

I don't think you have understood anything I have ever written here correctly.
Is it some surprise that you don't also now.

You don't intend to understand. And I would call your "objective seeking clarification" also just a "figure". I count your postured sincere objectivity as a "figure" too.

And I tell you another thing too. If you pride yourself in being able to identify some bit of inconsistency in my explanations, that doesn't prove your atheism or disprove my faith.

So formulate your questions as fine tuned as you wish. Locating some inconsistency in reasoning only shows that my case could be better argued. I don't deny that it could be better presented by someone else.

And I don't think that a chink in my flow-chart here or there erases the testimony of Christ on history's stage. So YOU can pinpoint some not too consistent logic here or there in my posts. Not a show stopper.

"That your faith may not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God" says the New Testament.

You can be as tenacious as you want. It proves ___________ ?

Originally posted by @sonship
"Band-aids" which have kept the Christian church surviving for 20 centuries, fad boy.

Christianity is the fad. Fading away now, but it ran for a while, didn't it.

Originally posted by @sonship
I don't think you have understood anything I have ever written here correctly.
Is it some surprise that you don't also now.

You don't intend to understand. And I would call your "objective seeking clarification" also just a "figure". I count your postured sincere objectivity as a "figure" too.

And I tell you another thing too. If you pride yourse ...[text shortened]... " says the New Testament.

You can be as tenacious as you want. It proves ___________ ?[/b]

This is mere dodging - of the tedious and transparent kind. My simple question about "Christian morals" remains unaddressed.

Originally posted by @sonship
You don't intend to understand. And I would call your "objective seeking clarification" also just a "figure". I count your postured sincere objectivity as a "figure" too.

Muslims have a god figure. Hindus have god figures. People in ancient times had god figures. Mankind has had innumerable god figures. Christians have a god figure. Your god figure is a torturer god figure; I've met other Christians who seem to worship - at its very essence - a different god figure than you do, but it goes by the name Christian anyway, due to the shared literature.

Your pouty trying-too-hard attempt here to throw the word "figure" back at me indicates that you don't really understand the word as it is being used. Referring to the supernatural being you worship as your "god figure" is a neutral, unspun bit of terminology that reflects the fact that human beings admire and worship a wide range of deities and beings.

Originally posted by @apathist
Christianity is the fad. Fading away now, but it ran for a while, didn't it.

What continues to be the world's longest running top read book ?

Let Bart Erhman tell you. Even he knows (author of skeptic's darling book "Misquoting Jesus". Dr. Erhman says its the New Testament.

He says so in his opening statement early in the debate with James White.
Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P1
YouTube&t=2419s

The demise of the Christian faith is the hype of wishful Internet Infidels, isn't it?

(Demominations losing young members does not necessarily mean the demise of Christianity. Or even if it does indicate some thinning of institutional religion it does not signal the demise of faith in Jesus Christ)

Originally posted by @fmf
Muslims have a god figure. Hindus have god figures. People in ancient times had god figures. Mankind has had innumerable god figures. Christians have a god figure. Your god figure is a torturer god figure; I've met other Christians who seem to worship - at its very essence - a different god figure than you do, but it goes by the name Christian anyway, due to th ...[text shortened]... that reflects the fact that human beings admire and worship a wide range of deities and beings.

Muslims have a god figure. Hindus have god figures. People in ancient times had god figures. Mankind has had innumerable god figures. Christians have a god figure. Your god figure is a torturer god figure;

You so often slide in there the torturer god matter that it really must be your main objection on your mind to Christ's Gospel. Is it?

Is punishment from which the offender cannot escape the utmost offensive matter to you about the teaching of Christ?

If I dodge so much, show me now how not to dodge and reply directly with no hedging or ambiguity.

Is the concept of eternal punishment the absolutely topmost objectional concept you have fueling your atheism ?

Your pouty trying-too-hard attempt here to throw the word "figure" back at me indicates that you don't really understand the word as it is being used. Referring to the supernatural being you worship as your "god figure" is a neutral,

I consider it blasphemy.
In a sense you are saying that God is an idol.

unspun bit of terminology that reflects the fact that human beings admire and worship a wide range of deities and beings.

Those rejectors of a universal Divine Governor with a deadened human spirit continue to substitute their lack of touch with reality with a wide range of alternative explanations.

You want to sound neutral about "god-figure"?
Then take it that I regard your musings as erecting one of millions of "objective sounding inquisitor figures".

Make your next post admit or deny that the single most unpleasant matter to you about God is the prospect of not being able to escape possible retribution forever.

Originally posted by @sonship
You want to sound neutral about "god-figure"?

It is a neutral way for non-believers to refer to the supernatural beings that religionists worship, yes.

Originally posted by @sonship

Muslims have a god figure. Hindus have god figures. People in ancient times had god figures. Mankind has had innumerable god figures. Christians have a god figure. Your god figure is a torturer god figure;

You so often slide in there the torturer god matter that it really must be your main objection on your mind to Christ's Gospel ...[text shortened]... atter to you about God is the prospect of not being able to escape possible retribution forever.

More red herrings and deflections. My straightforward question about "Christian morals" - the thread topic - remains dodged and unanswered.

Originally posted by @sonship
[bIs the concept of eternal punishment the absolutely topmost objectional concept you have fueling your atheism ?



[quote]
Your pouty trying-too-hard attempt here to throw the word "figure" back at me indicates that you don't really understand the word as it is being used. Referring to the supernatural being you worship as your "god figure" is a neutr ...[text shortened]... atter to you about God is the prospect of not being able to escape possible retribution forever.[/b]

Start a thread about your torturer god ideology if you want to. The topic here is my question about certain superstitious beliefs being the only thing that turn ordinary moral behaviour into "Christian morals". Stop dancing around. If you have other topics you are itching to erect slabs of text about, start threads about them.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat to sonship
The absurdity here is the lenghts you're going through to dodge FMF's question. The countless red herrings you toss around thinking they will disguise your unwillingness to answer FMF's question.

Six or seven pages later, and sonship is still at it.

Originally posted by @sonship
"Band-aids" which have kept the Christian church surviving for 20 centuries, fad boy.

20 centuries?
You would not recognise early Christianity.
And your brand of Christianity would not be recognised in most of those centuries.

Christianity is constantly changing, here are some highlights.

Common Bible agreed and put together 325 CE
Belief in transubstantiation becomes obligatory 1215 CE
Black Death victims absolved of their sins! 1340s
Protestantism 1517 CE
Pope's illegitimate son made Duke of Parma 1545

When was your Church started?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
20 centuries?
You would not recognise early Christianity.
And your brand of Christianity would not be recognised in most of those centuries.

Christianity is constantly changing, here are some highlights.

Common Bible agreed and put together 325 CE
Belief in transubstantiation becomes obligatory 1215 CE
Black Death victims absolved of their sins ...[text shortened]... antism 1517 CE
Pope's illegitimate son made Duke of Parma 1545

When was your Church started?

When was your Church started?

See Acts chapter 2. That's when.

Now this is perculiar to me. On the one hand I hear intellectuals complain that the Christian Church is not like enterprise of Science which changes, develops, undergoes revision, improvement, etc, But I hear, that the Church is are too rigid and dogmatic - always staying the same. You seem to be arguing from the other side now. Instead of complaining about the rigidity of the Church you're complaining about too much change and "evolution".

Which complaint is more important to you, the Church is too much the same or the Church is too much revising and developing ??

Originally posted by @fmf
Start a thread about your torturer god ideology if you want to. The topic here is my question about certain superstitious beliefs being the only thing that turn ordinary moral behaviour into "Christian morals". Stop dancing around. If you have other topics you are itching to erect slabs of text about, start threads about them.

Christians have a god figure. Your god figure is a torturer god figure;

You brought it up. You slipped it in there as usual -- ie. "Hey now, don't forget about your torturer God now ... ". YOU make sure you slip it into the discussion. So don't be a hypocrite if a question arises because you pull it out and put it on the table.

Now work on some slimy rationalization to explain this away.