Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.

You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

Whereas my nature doesn't inherently recognize an objective morality. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine, and then we'll see who has more fun.

And in that vein, just to hypothetically conform with your worldview: it sounds like all the cool stuff is in Hell; and all my friends are gonna be there too. Compared with your vision of an afterlife full of uppity lotus-eaters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.

You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.

Actually, the carrot-on-the-stick bit is the very root of Christianity. Hence, the eternal reward bit. As soon as the concept of a reward is introduced, it becomes the motivator. There's no other way.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.

I could quote scripture at you all day, but I really don't think that is the thing that will convince you. It's one of those things that may come to you one day or never come to you at all. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, it'll have to be you, seeking an answer you're willing to aknowledge as correct.
Currently, you seem to be in a place you are convinced is right and you are a sinless or basically sinless person.

I don't know if you own a bible or what stock you put in it but I direct you to the first Epistle of John , the whole thing.

youbedead wrote:You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason.

Yeah, but then Kant gives you a rational tool to determine what is good in every action ; the universal imperative. It puts the duty of judgement on the agent, not on the Creator. And it remains good even tho you've had to think and struggle about what would be the imperative in that instance.

To come back to my exemple, if I beleive the only possible action to be taken by everyone in that particular instance is to ask forgiveness for that overreaction, then I'm certain it's a good action.

Also ; I hate Kant. The guy couldn't write a short book if his life depended on it.

youbedead wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.

You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.

Pretty close, a Christian performs good deeds for the love of his fellow man, out of faith in the teachings of God's prophets and Jesus.
Good deeds performed for self glorification or the" look how good I am and what I can do" motive are not going to be accepted by God.
Think about someone you might know is an obvious bastard yet, when they are trying to impress someone, act like a saint decended to Earth.
You feel disgust for the person and their hypocracy would be my guess.
Take someone the polar opposite doing the same good deeds out of love and concern for the deed's recipiant and you might find yourself drawn to that person favorably.

Relapse wrote:
I could quote scripture at you all day, but I really don't think that is the thing that will convince you.

Nah it wouldn't. Exegesis is essentially artful sophistry by authority. Which is why I ask questions that appeal to reason, since it's the only thing that will ever convince me. If religion only banks on people having midlife crisis, or people brainwashing their kids, then I'm pretty sure it's claim to morality is bankrupt.

Currently, you seem to be in a place you are convinced is right and you are a sinless or basically sinless person.

I don't mean to say that I'm sinless, simply that I'm, in terms of North American morality, a pretty damn good person. I take care of homeless kittens and read Lovecraft, how bad can I be But seriously, I'm convinced my sins would put me in the high percentiles of human morality. I think most of the people here too, by the way.

I don't know if you own a bible or what stock you put in it but I direct you to the first Epistle of John , the whole thing.

I was sent to a Catholic boarding school when I was in primary school. The Bible was the only book we were allowed to read after homeworks at night. Honestly? I think the moral content of the Bible is actually pretty microscopic if you compare it to, let's say, the Nicomachean Ethics.

It's interesting you use the terms brainwashing of kids and midlife crisis.
Care to elaborate?

The Bringer wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Lol. Fear God. Why, is he going to make a move on my girlfriend?

Why fear the one who created the world from dust and could tear it down instantly? Why fear the one we have rebelled against?

This is why I wouldn't even worship any of the thousands of different Gods, they are all fearful, grotesque monsters who condone murder, sacrifice, genocide, drowning of children, rape, slavery and goodness knows what else.

If God of the Christian Bible, (or any for that matter) was real, which no one can say if he, she or it exists or not, would be the greatest mass murderer known to the universe.

Also, we'd all be the product off incest.

Relapse wrote:It's interesting you use the terms brainwashing of kids and midlife crisis.
Care to elaborate?

It might have been to reductive or too inflamatory. But simply, if religion cannot appeal to reason, then it relies on atheists experiencing a rather traumatic change of mind (hence midlife crisis) or on indoctrination while reason is not perfectly formed. Mind you I'm not claiming that religion can't appeal to reason, there's plenty of theological philosophers that have tried, but the stance of the Catholic Church, and in general most other Christian churches I've come across is that reasonnable knowledge is not the relation God wants us to establish with Him. Which is highly suspect of simply being a rethoric to establish their authority.

It's a fairly interesting view you've presented, and the mid life crisis approach you mention puts me in mind of disreputable charlatans controling their flock through fear as opposed to leading and instructing them through love. I don't know if that was what you were approaching, with the late hour and my fogging up through insomnia brain, but I can't deny for certain preachers of the gospel that is true.
That type had pretty much been described as a wolf in sheeps clothing in the scriptures and has, unfortunatly, been part of the Chistian landscape for millenia.
There are on the other hand, those in the scriptures that were praised for faithfulness and caring. These too still exist today.
It becomes the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" thing. As far as the children go, nature abhors a vacumn. I have the choice of letting my children learn the values of loving people and caring for them, and teaching them my values as a Christian, and I am doing that as best as I can.
There are several passages in the bible that encourage people to seek knowledge, but at the moment, I am losing steam and will have to get to bed.
I can only say that anyone that discourages an honest seeker of knowledge would be suspect to me or almost anyone I know, and is, to return to a phrase I used earlier, possibly a wolf in sheeps clothing the scriptures warn about.

As I said, I've mellowed out on Religion and I'm not interested in attempted to argue or change any unchangeable minds, but seriously these threads prove that America deserves its reputation, and that's why my missus is perpetually ashamed. Basically, 35-40% of your nation are full on Christian zealots that have been brainwashed just as vigorously as the Taliban.

I'm only glad the other 60 are doing all that hard work in the fields of Science and Technology, while the rest wallow in ignorance and theocracy. Honestly, some of the things that these Baptist Creationist types come out with absolutely blows my mind. I have lived in California and never met one, I honestly cant believe its part of the same country as Mississippi!

The average New Yorker or Vermonter has more in common with a bloody Frenchman than a bloke from Alabama or Louisiana..

And thats just wrong!

mattyrm wrote:As I said, I've mellowed out on Religion and I'm not interested in attempted to argue or change any unchangeable minds, but seriously these threads prove that America deserves its reputation, and that's why my missus is perpetually ashamed. Basically, 35-40% of your nation are full on Christian zealots that have been brainwashed just as vigorously as the Taliban.

I'm only glad the other 60 are doing all that hard work in the fields of Science and Technology, while the rest wallow in ignorance and theocracy. Honestly, some of the things that these Baptist Creationist types come out with absolutely blows my mind. I have lived in California and never met one, I honestly cant believe its part of the same country as Mississippi!

The average New Yorker or Vermonter has more in common with a bloody Frenchman than a bloke from Alabama or Louisiana..

And thats just wrong!

I for once highly agree with mattyrm for the first time ever.

The funny thing is, America was founded by deists and theist, and the idea was a nation free from Religious persecution and control.

Kinda ironic.

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.

There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.

So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?

Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?

What a disgusting thought pattern.

The argument would be that if a person truly had a relationship with God, would he still be a hateful, maliciouis bastard or is that an outward sign that he is not truly saved after all?

d-usa wrote:The argument would be that if a person truly had a relationship with God, would he still be a hateful, maliciouis bastard or is that an outward sign that he is not truly saved after all?

Well, if you truly followed the bible, you should be stoning people who come to your door and offer you a new Religon, or at least lay the first had upon them.

Also, if you say Gods a good person, that's a judgement, so HERESY!

So I think God would be like "Fine with me, I'm gonna go drown the world again so it don't matter."

Also, if the Bible was true, wouldn't we all be the product of incest?

From eight people?

If you say "follow the Bible" do you mean the version including the new testament?

Because I think it has already pointed out quite a few times that there is not really any mention of Christians stoning people who follow different religion.

People love ot throw up "the Bible says [old covenant law] but people aren't following it" as an argument, even though we are not bound under the old covenant.

Of coures some Christians do the same by trying to force the old covenant laws onto people (like this whole gay marriage debate), or even try to force the new covenant on others.

d-usa wrote:If you say "follow the Bible" do you mean the version including the new testament?

Because I think it has already pointed out quite a few times that there is not really any mention of Christians stoning people who follow different religion.

People love ot throw up "the Bible says [old covenant law] but people aren't following it" as an argument, even though we are not bound under the old covenant.

Of coures some Christians do the same by trying to force the old covenant laws onto people (like this whole gay marriage debate), or even try to force the new covenant on others.

Yes.

That is the new testament, but again, does anyone follow the Bible entirely?

See, if people actually paid attention and looked into the non moral parts of the book, or the idea that thought crime exists and is committed widely, the world was created by a dictator and we're all being watched like some sort of giant Big Brother, I could imagine people saying "Nah just ignore it, look at the moral side."

Also;

In the New Testament:
Saint Stephen, accused of blasphemy c. AD 31 (Acts 6:8–14, 7:58–60).
In the Talmud
Yeshu the Nazarene "will be led out to be stoned" (Sanhedrin 43a)[42]
Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.
John 8:5, NKJV.

What do you mean "follow the Bible entirely"?

Because we (Christians) don't have to follow the laws in the Old Testament.

d-usa wrote:What do you mean "follow the Bible entirely"?

Because we (Christians) don't have to follow the laws in the Old Testament.

I'm not stating the old testament.

Well, that is part of the confusion then. So the question is "who follows the New Testament entirely"?

And quite a few people actually do, since the message of the New Testament can be summed up in a few pretty easy steps.

1) God created the earth and he created us.
2) We decided to sin, and are unworthy of being with god.
3) Jesus came, lived a live without sin, and sacrificed himself to pay the price we should pay.
4) Accept the sacrifice made by Jesus.

And that is really the Gospel. Not the books, not the "do this and do that", just the message that we don't deserve salvation but God gave us a way anyway.

The other secondary teachings in the New Testament (love your neighbor, do good things, tell others about the Gospel, tc etc etc) are a result of salvation, not the cause.

But as far as instructions and "rules", there really are not that many in the new covenant. So quite a lot of people are actually following the NT entirely.

As to the posted NT quote about stoning. It is not a NT instructions that we should be stoning people. It is a quote of an old covenant law that no longer applies.

Edit: A big part of the problem is when people on both sides of the argument try to use Old Testament instructions to argue what they are trying to do.

Christians trying to legislate OT laws are missing the point of the law.
People using OT laws in a "you are not following the rules" are missing that we don't follow the rules anymore.

There is also a school of thought that thinks the OT laws were never intended as a road map to salvation anyway.

The Bringer wrote:The Bible isn't just about love, it is about our relationship with God. Love is the greatest of the commandments, but it is not the central idea of the Gospel. We are to love God, but we are also to fear him.

You are thinking of the wrong kind of fear, however. It is not a fear that God will raise Her mighty hand and smite us, but a fear that She will forsake us, because we have abandoned Her love.

Love IS the core theme of Christianity. To act out of love for one's fellow person, to keep faith out of love. A fearful faith is nothing more than worthless, base, and childish-- anyone can force someone to worship them out of fear. But what is accomplished out of fear? You cannot progress, you cannot better yourself, out of fear. A person who lives in fear of god must constantly be afraid, constantly regress to the childish fear of punishment. A person who lives in love, meanwhile, will strive to better themselves, and their fellow people, and the world around them. Strive not just to worship god, but to understand Her and in doing so become closer to Her.

Living in fear will encourage people to hate, to lash out at others. The people of Sodom lived in fear, and this fear drove them to gang-rape travelers in to submission, believing they were spies from another city. The fear that they lived in led to inhospitality, and that led to their punishment. Meanwhile, the Centurion and the Good Samaritan acted out of love ,not fear-- and they are cited to be the best examples of how Christians are supposed to act. The Centurion was not a Jew, and the Samaritan was a wayward Jewish sect that was not well liked, and yet Jesus said "look at them, and do likewise". For their love for their fellow humans was unsurpassed.

To the question regarding Incest and how come the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve, or even the descendants of the Ark survivors weren't handicapped after XX generations. The classic young earth view is that incest(brother/sister) was acceptable in the beginning, because the human race's gene pool hadn't degenerated yet. It wasn't until many years after creation that the debilitating effects of the Eden curse started to show. This is also an explanation as to why the patriarchs of the Bible lived so long. I think Methuselah was between 700 and 970(depending on which manuscript you use) years old before dying right before the flood.

GG

I think it is not as much fear of God, as it is apathy and growing away from Him.

I don't believe in the concept of hell as a "you are going to burn and suffer and be in pain" kind of place. I think hell is simply a place where we have no contact with God whatsoever, we are forever removed from His presence.


I think that our lives are the foundation of two paths that are all about a relationship between ourselves and God.

The first path is to have a relationship with God, and to have a desire to be closer to him. Which includes realizing that we could never be in his presence because even the best of us are not worthy of it and recognize the need of the Gospel.

The second is to not have a relationship with Him, or deciding to abandon that relationship. Either because you don't want to know Him, because you don't want to be with Him, or because you have never heard of Him.

So people that lived a good life and never heard the Gospel don't go to a hell where they suffer. They simply go to a final place where they don't know God and have no relationship with Him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:To the question regarding Incest and how come the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve, or even the descendants of the Ark survivors weren't handicapped after XX generations. The classic young earth view is that incest(brother/sister) was acceptable in the beginning, because the human race's gene pool hadn't degenerated yet. It wasn't until many years after creation that the debilitating effects of the Eden curse started to show. This is also an explanation as to why the patriarchs of the Bible lived so long. I think Methuselah was between 700 and 970(depending on which manuscript you use) years old before dying right before the flood.

GG

I think young earth theory is bogus, even as a Christian.

Also, genetic pool degeneration?

Seriously, are we trying to bring science fiction in to this?

This is Christianity, not Scientology.

Melissia wrote:Also, genetic pool degeneration?

Seriously, are we trying to bring science fiction in to this?

This is Christianity, not Scientology.

Yeah I sat through one of Kent Hovind's 90 minute seminars once out of morbid curiosity. They really do believe we are all descendants from the survivors on Noahs Ark, people fethed their sisters, and everyone used to live to be 900 years old.

As I said, they just fully make gak up and call it Science.

Squigsquasher wrote:

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.

There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.

So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?

Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?

What a disgusting thought pattern.

That's not the way I either believe or was taught if you read my posts on the subject. I believe there is a quote from Einstein that goes "God does not play dice with the world."
Similarly, he does not burn good people in Hell for not believing in him. For that matter, he does not burn anyone in Hell.

So, my life should be based around a blood sacrifice committed by a man (Zombie!) in the middle east who I have never met, have little evidence of knowing existed and should obey his rules designed by a man in the desert trying to deal with a early society after being talked to by a bush of weed on fire.

Seems legit.

Lets not forget that by the laws of creation, the Earth is six thousand years old, despite this has been proved incorrect. We would all technically be the product of incest, due to the fact God denied knowledge from two innocent people, who had no idea of good nor evil who where told by a talking snake that they should eat the knowledge, also knowledge is in the form of an apple.

Seems legit.

Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.

Seems legit.

blood reaper wrote:So, my life should be based around a blood sacrifice committed by a man (Zombie!) in the middle east who I have never met, have little evidence of knowing existed and should obey his rules designed by a man in the desert trying to deal with a early society after being talked to by a bush of weed on fire.

Seems legit.

Lets not forget that by the laws of creation, the Earth is six thousand years old, despite this has been proved incorrect. We would all technically be the product of incest, due to the fact God denied knowledge from two innocent people, who had no idea of good nor evil who where told by a talking snake that they should eat the knowledge, also knowledge is in the form of an apple.

Seems legit.

Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.

Seems legit.

First off, look at it this way. You see death as a removal from the stage, but with God's view, death is merely moving people around. They are still alive, but in a different place. As far as the morality of the people goes, I'll take it on faith that it must have been pretty bad, except for the children under a certain age, since children have no concrete concept of good or evil the same goes for mentaly disabled. Those children and mentaly disabled who died will have a ticket straight into God's presence, as they died innocent. Their parents, however would have a lot to answer for since they knew what was right, yet did not raise their children accordingly.
As far as scientific impossibility goes, even Einstein admitted he didn't know everything or every possibility in the universe. Look at the Mars Curiosity mission. Most people at the turn of the last century would have said that was impossible and could never happen, yet here we are, looking close up at the surface of that planet.

Of course we don't know. If we knew everything, science would stop.

Unfortunately, many of the zanier deeply religious people believe that they DO know everything-- and it's all in their little book.