Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im curious as to the point of an atheist view of Christian morality? What does an atheist know about Christianity? Even if they grew up with some simplistic teaching in the matter, to be atheist, they obviously missed something and desided against it, lol.
Aside from missionaries, what Christian ever throughout history cared what anyones viewpoint on their religion is?
It makes me sad that there are those living out happy and healthy lives on Earth, and they never had the opportunity to feel the existance of something bigger than themselves guiding them - unless it is something tangible and of this Earth.
Don't get too invested in your condescending sadness - plenty of us live lives that are quite fulfilled without having to embrace the fantasy that some all-powerful entity has a special and all-important role for us in his magic cosmic plan.
Quote:
You cant blame anyone singularly for being skeptical, or rejecting a particular sects practices and/or dogma.
Now we have the word, "believe". To accept without solid proof, the validity of the existance of spirituality. What is spiritual about not believing in anything, and having no religion? Nothing.
Quantum physics can be applied to spirituality, and prove that God is possible, yet most atheists I know profess a belief in Darwinism...there is no concrete solid irrefutable evidence that Darwinism is truth and evolution actually ocurred.
The word 'evolution' means two things.
First, the phenomenon - the change in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool over generations. This happens. If you think it doesn't, you desperately need a very basic introduction to biology. Second, evolutionary theory - which, being a theory, can no more be proven than the theory of gravity (hint: it helps to understand basic scientific concepts such as theories before revealing that you really don't understanding them by suggesting they should effectively be proven).
The evolutionary model accounts for all the biological evidence we have. The GodDidIt model no more does than the LeprechaunsDidIt model.
Quote:
His theories beyond evolutionary can be labeled archaeic racism. Its doesnt even have the eons old development behind it that God does, but is easily accepted as a "belief' by these people. Go figure... *shrugs*
They can be labelled anything by people unconcerned with accuracy. But, please, why don't you explain the racism in Darwinian evolution? You can't, of course, because there's nothing racist about it. Indeed, there cannot be, since evolution is a biological process and human races are social, not biological, constructs. But, please - you leveled the serious charge of racism, so you have an obligation to explain what you see as racism in evolution.
Well?
Note: I'm guessing you're confusing 'social Darwinism' with evolutionary theory, though the former has nothing much to do with the latter, save for the use of Darwin's name by those who profoundly misunderstood his theory. Not that that is an acceptable excuse, but the serial ignorance about evolution by those who eager to dismiss it is quite predictable.
One thing that has astounded me throughout this particular line of reasoning is how your opinion has never really entered into the discussion.
I've said several times that morality is decided by consensus. Even the morality you currently practice came about through consensus and opinion; you've simply been acclimated to that particular morality. But our current morality has not always been practiced - and it certainly isn't universal.
The morality that Christians practice should always be based on the entire Bible. Period. That means not cherry picking a single verse to meet an agenda. Or pointing to some OT commandment regarding slavery and declaring slavery as moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Some of the very harsh laws in America during the Colonial period come to mind. This is the era of the dreaded witch trials. More than that though, there was a time when some communities decreed it immoral to laugh on Sunday, church attendance was mandatory, playing cards was illegal (and immoral) as was the theater, and husbands could put a dog muzzle on their wife's face if he thought she was nagging him too much. There is even the quasi-famous case of a ship captain who, upon returning home from a long voyage, made the mistake of kissing his wife - on Sunday. That landed him three days in the stocks.
I doubt even you would advocate for such unhealthy strictness - but in the Puritan colonies, that's precisely the morality many people believed in - and naturally, of course, their version of God believed in it too. No doubt they could cite chapter and verse.
And that morality was based on cherry picking. They looked at Exodus 22:18 yet completely ignored Acts 19:19 which demonstrated forgiveness and redemption for witches. That's not being a Christian. Jesus even detested the people of his day who were strict task masters of the law. So your example is really pointless. God's law of righteous doesn't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Thus it would stand to reason that a group of Christians who interpreted the Bible differently than you do would be wrong - because God always agrees with YOUR interpretation of his word. Why else would you even hold that particular interpretation if it were otherwise?
In that case, that's when you look at the fruits of the Spirit. If their fruits are murder and unforgiveness, they are Christian in name only.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The morality that Christians practice should always be based on the entire Bible. Period. That means not cherry picking a single verse to meet an agenda. Or pointing to some OT commandment regarding slavery and declaring slavery as moral.
What about the NT portraying slavery as acceptable?
Quote:
And that morality was based on cherry picking. They looked at Exodus 22:18 yet completely ignored Acts 19:19 which demonstrated forgiveness and redemption for witches. That's not being a Christian. Jesus even detested the people of his day who were strict task masters of the law. So your example is really pointless. God's law of righteous doesn't change.
Or the people who look at Leviticus for their inspiration to hate homosexuals, but ignore Ruth, where it clearly states that she love Naomi like Adam loved Eve.
And John certainly describes a rather, shall we say, cozy relationship Jesus had with the disciple that was cuddling against his chest.
Of course, Paul blows that all to, well, hell. He condemns and damns and demeans all sorts of abominations, including homosexuality, and women who want to talk in church.
That bible! A bunch of books written by committee. And then cobbled together by another committee. It's like trying to design a bactrian camel.
The morality that Christians practice should always be based on the entire Bible. Period. That means not cherry picking a single verse to meet an agenda. Or pointing to some OT commandment regarding slavery and declaring slavery as moral.
Well, this is the reason why I think taking morality from the Bible is such a bad idea.
Ever see a Family Circus comic?
Trying to discern what the Bible really means and what God thinks is truly moral is like following the dotted line. Following such a convoluted dotted line to morality only ensures that there will be lots of places for someone to become lost along the way.
Morality needs to be simplified and straightforward.
What about the NT portraying slavery as acceptable?
It doesn't. If you are going to take that position then you have to explain why 1 Timothy 1:80-10 lists enslavers as sinners along with liars and murderers:
Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2 liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1 Timothy 1:8–10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Or the people who look at Leviticus for their inspiration to hate homosexuals, but ignore Ruth, where it clearly states that she love Naomi like Adam loved Eve.
And John certainly describes a rather, shall we say, cozy relationship Jesus had with the disciple that was cuddling against his chest.
So it is impossible to have love and affection for someone in a non-sexual way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Of course, Paul blows that all to, well, hell. He condemns and damns and demeans all sorts of abominations, including homosexuality, and women who want to talk in church.
That bible! A bunch of books written by committee. And then cobbled together by another committee. It's like trying to design a bactrian camel.
And Jesus said that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. If the Bible was so cobbled, hacked up, mistranslated and distorted by several commitees then the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been significantly different from our modern day Bible.
It doesn't. If you are going to take that position then you have to explain why 1 Timothy 1:80-10 lists enslavers as sinners along with liars and murderers:
Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2 liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1 Timothy 1:8–10
So it is impossible to have love and affection for someone in a non-sexual way?
And Jesus said that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. If the Bible was so cobbled, hacked up, mistranslated and distorted by several commitees then the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been significantly different from our modern day Bible.
How much of the new testament was found in the dead sea scrolls? Where was Jesus even mentioned in the dead sea scrolls?
It doesn't. If you are going to take that position then you have to explain why 1 Timothy 1:80-10 lists enslavers as sinners along with liars and murderers:
Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2 liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
Your version of Timothy 1:10 is a modern take on the verse. You are being bamboozled by revisionist nonsense. Because Christians, I guess, got tired of people using slavery as an argument so they decided to stamp that out by quietly revising Timothy 1:10 by including "slave traders" or "enslavers" in the sin hall of fame (along with homosexuality, of course, because Christians can't let that one go.)
The words "slave-trader" and "enslaver" only appear in modern Bibles - and the vast majority of those are *ahem* American. I suppose that stands to reason given that America is the only Western nation left with a significant number of fundamentalists.
No, the older Bibles do not say "slave-traders" or "enslavers."
They say "kidnappers" and "man-stealers."
And when they say "man-stealers," you know full well they're talking about people who walk off with someone else's slave. How else can you "steal" a man unless that man is someone's property? The word "kidnap" is used in those "new translation" versions designed to make the Bible easier to understand, but using that word destroys the original context. Kidnapping in this case is NOT about snatching a child from the playground. Even before, the word was MAN-stealing, not child-stealing.
No, the Bible is specifically talking about people stealing slaves. The only prohibition comes in Exodus which says that anyone who "steals a man" or is found with a stolen man in his possession shall surely be put to death. But this is almost certainly referring to family members, not the general population. Thus selling your family into slavery is the big sin here - given that this prohibition can be found right in the middle of a bunch of other rules on how to treat your family members.
All I really meant was that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the scientific community to give up on evolution and announce officially that "God did it."
In other words, we aren't going to find God sitting at the end of the evolution trail.
Which is why I said betting on religion is a bad bet when talking about the natural world. Science has always been right. Sure, science sometimes makes a wrong turn on the way to its final destination. But it DOES get to that destination sooner or later. Then, within a generation or two, ideas like the sun revolving around the earth, glacial movement being caused by demons, eating a potato being a sin, natural disasters being caused by an angry god, epilepsy being demonic possession, and lots of other things fell by the wayside - as they should. The idea that humans were magically created from a rib and a pile of dirt will eventually fall by the wayside, too.
Well, this is the reason why I think taking morality from the Bible is such a bad idea.
Ever see a Family Circus comic?
Trying to discern what the Bible really means and what God thinks is truly moral is like following the dotted line. Following such a convoluted dotted line to morality only ensures that there will be lots of places for someone to become lost along the way.
Morality needs to be simplified and straightforward.
It really isn't. At least not if you actually take the time to read and study it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*shrugs*
