Christian morality: an atheist's point of view

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Joe90

I would like a new glorified body, that can run a 100 metres in 6 seconds flat (from a standing start) be able to lift 1000lbs effortlessly, as well as being able to swim underwater at 45kts (without needing to re-surface) and of course...... be able to fly.

And to be in two places at once, of course.

Originally Posted by Vizio

We will have different, glorified bodies in Heaven.

Jesus has a new, glorified body that retains the scars. Here's a good soruce to clarify it:

Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?

Yep. So (according to the story) a magical being appeared that had no need for wounds but faked them in order to look like it was really Jesus. Right.

If your presupposition prevents you from accepting that, there's not much I can do for you.

If your indoctrination prevents you from asking legitimate questions, that is your problem. That you cannot put up a convincing case and must play the bias -accusation card to excuse yourself, that is also your problem. So I hardly need your help.

P.s
I was wondering how we got here. There was a Q about how we knew God wasn't evil.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Because he is good. He was willing to become a man and be nailed to a cross to redeem us.

The point is that this story is dubious on 3 levels.

As a record of events
As a story in itself (the valid point was made that it was no sacrifice at all).
as some justification of the Christian belief that God is doing good for us by all this.

The story, message and dogma is also shot through with fakery on three levels. I just touched on no 2.

Those whose presuppositions prevent them from asking burning (never mind legitimate) questions I can do something for. That's what I do. I am accustomed to the wino protesting that he is perfectly happy as he is and doesn't want help to kick the habit.

Fine. I just provide the service. Doesn't hurt me if some people don't, won't or can't avail themselves of it.

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

The problem with this assumption is that despite the claim the overwhelming majority of non theists are loving caring moral family people. People who act responsibly (morally) because it's the right thing to do. As opposed to theists who seem to require the fear of God to keep them in line, and would apparently run totally amok without that fear.

And who find it impossible to comprehend that other people are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong all on their own, and don't have to scurry off and look every single situation up in a bible to check and see how much trouble they might get into by thinking for themselves.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

... other people are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong all on their own, and don't have to scurry off and look every single situation up in a bible to check and see how much trouble they might get into by thinking for themselves.

Those who believe in an objective, god-bestowed morality argue that anything else is random opinions that carry no authority. Which fits with the Biblical admonition that all [human] righteousness is "as filthy rags". What they never seem to stop to ponder is that they are literally saying that righteousness is not a matter of DOING right, but of BEING right regardless of what one DOES. Hence an unbeliever who is a paragon of actual virtue will burn in hell for having unapproved reasons for being virtuous; whereas a believer who, say, makes his wife and children miserable and cheats on his taxes, but believes "correctly" by faith that he is forgiven by the grace of god, will end up in heaven.

Morality describes the quality of one's actions, and whether one's actions bring benefits or harms to oneself and to others. So much has been done in the name of god that is evil (yes, the Inquisition being the canonical example) that you'd think it would give even a theist pause. Yet they seem content to think there's such a thing as pulling out fingernails for Jesus, I guess.

Insisting on a backing authority for a morality is basically suggesting that no one really ever voluntarily does anything moral, and it must be enFORCED by someone with "big guns". It has been heartening to me since leaving the faith to find that in fact most people mean well and, given half a chance, try their best to do well. And often even manage to succeed. Humans are not filthy, unworthy worms who can only perform good as god's sock puppets. They are far from perfect, and plagued with primal impulses that are sometimes divorced from the direct influence of their will, but social reciprocity and kinship and enlightened rational self interest carry the day, or we wouldn't be here cheerfully inconveniencing electrons in the peace and quiet of our own homes today.

[southernbored]

Originally Posted by Vizio

My God stepped out of heaven and allowed himself to be nailed to a cross to redeem me. That's good enough for me.

Prove that the being that "stepped out of heaven and allowed himself to be nailed to a cross to redeem me" is "God" and not the devil, or a different god, or a teapot, and we will talk. We all know you can't do so, which lends your belief no more credibility than anyone else's.


Face it Vizio, you know nothing more about a so called "god" than anyone else. You only CLAIM to have that insider knowledge. I can CLAIM that I am a respectable actor and worth a billion dollars, but making the claim doesn't make it true.