Morality without God

[Chris777]

Originally posted by XNemesisX

For real. If anyone can say that they will be in heaven but Ghandi will be in hell because he "denied Christ" then you are crazy. That would put you under the exclusivist Christian title. Actually, the more "open minded" Christians are inclusivists (they wouldn't believe that Ghandi, or any other great person of another religion or culture would go to hell - there would be exceptions in other words).

 

It sounds good, and it is sad, because so many refuse Christ, but it is what the bible says, God gave us one way of salvation. Thats is why Christians appear to be so black and white, because in the ultimate end of things, that is all their will be, Accept Jesus, or Refuse.

 

And I'm sure you will think I am ignorant, and closed minded, But I didn't make the rules, God did. Heaven and hell is not just about good deeds and bad ones. Jesus even states, that their will be many who claimed to be christian, and he will deny them, because he didnt know them.

Know them, by their fruit.

 

I repeat from what I said above...this is what a lot of people despise. The arrogance and holier than thou attitude.

It is not an attitude, AS a Christian, I believe what the bible says, I no longer doubt any of it.

and I am just stating what the scriptures have to say, not some believ I have formulated to comfort myself, or anyone else. But what the bible says. If you don't believe it, that is your choice, I have been where you are at, and asking the very same question to another christian I assumed was presuming, and proud, and close minded. Vut I have seen enough to convince me personally of its validity, and truth. I don't know why you doubt it, other than judging it, by people who claom to be christians, but apparently werent.

 

In all probability, after we all die we will rot in the ground and be just like we were before we were born. There is always a chance it is something more, but how can you be so sure? Because God told you he is real? How do you know that is not your own thoughts telling you that?

Several reasons, one of which is prophecy written before my birth. others, I have just come to understand after reading the scripture, some of which Ive tried to express, but people mis the point, so it is ultimately up to you whether you receive of reject Christ.

 

You know what I hope? MY God would punish the hell out of the people who go around using him as a way to be hateful to others. My ex? Well he would punish him severely for using his name to repeatedly hurt another person. (i.e. "I can never talk to you again because God told me you are bad" "God does not like you" ) I hope he burns in hell for using God's name like that. I cannot speak for God but I know I would really loathe people who wanted to use me for their own benefit or to hurt other people or to try and bring themselves above others with. I would burn those people in hell. F*ck evil hypocrites. There is a fine line between not being perfect and being an all out narcissist using God to back you up and going around and treating people like hell and belittling other people when you are probably a much worse person than them. UGH:mad:

 

He is not my possession, I am his, like i said in an earlier post I learned to stop trying to conform God to myself, and to start conforming myself to him.

 

I don't know if you have read any of the bible, but if you have, does your ex "line up" with the description of a christian you see in the bible?

 

I really don't believe the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" ask yourself this. Do you think the nice, kind-hearted person who was not religious who treated others with respect, was good to others would be sent to hell while the Christian next door who treated other people like shyt and looked down others would get to go to heaven? Pfftt. Yeah right. Doesn't make sense.

 

I used to believe that I was a good person and did not deserve to go to hell, but i have seen my sins, and the pain they cause others.

 

And again not everyone who claims to be a christian actually is, Test them in accordance to the scripture.

 

Jesus himself said he will personally deny many who claim they knew him, but they don't.

[Chris777]

Originally posted by moimeme

 

Mine, too. Then again, I imagine He has compassion for those who are so blinded by their self-congratulation on owning the 'Truth' since they are actually more in need of His forgiveness because they're so deluded they can't see.

 

I don't own the truth, the truth owns me.

 

John 14:6

 

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

[Chris777]

Originally posted by faux

Ethics and morality are based upon what is deemed acceptable by society as a whole, what is correct behavior for humanity, and what is unacceptable behavior. Religion does not have to enter into this.

If you go by this, then ethics will vary based on your local.

 

and judging from our local, ethics are currently in erosion from what they were in just the recent past.

Additionally, persons who do not practice a religious faith are most likely surrounded by those who do, and understand the belief systems related to those various walks of life. Morals relate to society itself, and often reflect commonly accepted ideas of what is good and what is bad.

[

 

Their are "primative" tribes that drown their children if they are retarded, and much of the retardation results from mother/son, and brother/sister relations

 

so according to what you are saying morals can be chosen at random, and dont really matter, because after all the society chooses them .

[moimeme]

Oh I just LOVE when people take one line out of the Bible and interpret it how they wish.

 

Here's another line from a passage above:

 

'where I am going, you cannot come'

 

So if Jesus was going to heaven, that means we can't go to heaven. Oh well.

 

By the way, he also said 'YOU MUST LOVE ONE ANOTHER'. How's that working for ya?

 

Here's another one: "If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it". Not so good on that one, is he?

 

Jesus was talking to a group of guys who had just asked him how they would know what way to go to follow him - the line you quoted was his response to that group of guys, not to people in China, India, and Tibet.

[Chris777]

Originally posted by MassiveAtom

I do in fact care about all of the answers. See, I have kids and I'd like to have a good handle on what sorts of people they'll come in contact with when they begin their religious exploration. That way I can lovingly guide them through the more difficult-to-grasp parts, like how some people advocate using fear and cororal punishment in childrearing, (something I don't use so they'll never know) and how to reconcile it with their own experience.

 

Just for the record, frying eggs in a little olive oil is "Heaven" but I'd never hit my kid, just turn the handle in before she has the chance or don't leave the pan and the kid unattended.

 

It was an example, and again did you even ponder the why?

 

Fear in itself has a purpose, if a child has no concept of danger, well i hope i don't have to explain it.

 

I also previously, did not spank, and i regret it sometimes, as my child tends to be careless in situations, and or places they should not be.

(busy traffic areas for example)

[Chris777]

Is this better than a 3 page essay? (other that the first one where i responded to points lol)

 

night

[Nicholas]

Originally posted by Chris777

Got a link?

Here

did you notice the explanation for WHY as well?

I was commenting on the fact that you wrote as if your personal beliefs on corporal punishment were held by all--as if we'd all understand that you hit a child for doing something wrong. My comment implied that many people do not believe you should hit your kids, but that's less relevant, considering we have other threads where we discuss the role of corporal punishment in parenting.

it only lacks validity if You don't look deeper, than the surface, like most who call god this big ruthless cruel monster.

No, again, I completely saw "deeper", as in, I could see where you're going with the parenting examples.

 

Your implied assertion was that God is a stern, but loving parent, as communicated by a grand collaboration of Biblical authors. I think that's a very naive approach to scripture, and is nothing more than retrodiction.

but i ask that you think on this: If you believe the bible, hypothetically speaking. and its the Devils goal of existence to divert people from it. What are some of the better methods of doing just that?

I do believe in the Bible, but I am not a literalist, nor a fundamentalist.

I do not believe in the devil as a physical entity.

I'm not sure what your question is, but I'd rather no one read the Bible than people misuse it.

Moses who is attributed to writing the pentatech Was NOT present during either the creation, or the flood, yet he was chosen by god to write about them, and give a True account of them many, many years after they occured.

I do not struggle with these issues, as I'm not a literalist, nor a fundamentalist.

 

I do not believe that Moses singlehandedly wrote all versions of the Pentateuch, nor do I believe the two creation stories and one flood story are "True accounts", as in, historical passages that accurately describe real events as they happened.

Do you not suppose that it might be possible that the devil, or one of his angels, "suggested" those extant stories, and the myths, and religions at that time, so that he might discredit the bible when more "evolved" and "inteligent" people came along at a later date?

I do not suppose that is possible, no.

I also don't suppose it's possible that space aliens are fluent in tagalog, but I could be wrong.

We'll just have to see.

Is that not a matter of both your and their opinion?

Well, no. Belief in a religon is a personal matter, so your opinion on their salvation is not relevant at all. In your analogy, you had nonbelievers as drowning--as in, they're asking for help because they're in peril. I was pointing out that your analogy is flawed, because most nonbelievers are perfectly content without believing in God.

 

I think that a better analogy would have the believers being mothers suffering from munchausen's by proxy, and the nonbelievers being innocent infants subject to their wrath.

By the BIBLE STATING IT, it RULES OUT EVERY single other faith, belief, notion, religion, science, philosophy, logic, dogma, whatever.

The Bible, in no place, says that "EVERY single other faith, belief, notion, religion, science, philosophy, logic, dogma..." is "ruled out". That is your interpretation.

 

The Bible states that the only way to the Father (god) is through me (Jesus). It does not say that you have to actually deify Jesus, or even know who he is. Plenty of nonchristians work through Jesus by carrying out his ministry in their daily actions.

 

The Bible doesn't "say" anything. It is text, it cannot speak, or interpret itself. Every word you read in your english translation of millenia-old books is subject to YOUR interpretation. You read John 14:6 and interpret it to mean that only Christians will be saved. Plenty of other people, including people who devote their lives to studying religion, do not get that same interpretation from that bit of text.

 

In the end, you decide what you believe, the Bible does not make that decision for you.

I being a Christian, believe what the bible states.

The Bible says that there is indeed a firmament, despite the fact that Sputnik pretty much ruled out all chances of this being true.

 

I assert that the firmament is not real, and that the Biblical authors only mentioned a firmament because they had no idea what was up there.

 

Do you agree with me, or do you agree with the Bible? (Genesis 1:6-8, Ezekiel 1:22-26)

 

OR for that matter the abuse of the iraqui prisoners of war, was that an act of american military abuse?

 

I say judge them by their fruit for who they TRUELY are.

I'm unsure of what you meant by the rhetorical questions. Last I checked, the soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners are still American citizens. My point was that plenty of violence is carried out in the name of Christ.

 

I have compared them I have an interlinear New Testament, and am looking for the OT, in hebrew, but in my comparisons of the text, I have not noticed any major translational mishaps, in the older translations, the newer ones are far to liberal, and claim to know the "thoughts of God" when they translate, and end up making up what they think God meant, Not what the text says.

You state that the newer (English) translations are too liberal, and the older ones are more faithful to God's thoughts.

 

Do you read Hebrew? Greek?

 

If not, what qualifies you to comment on the accuracy of the translations? I'm confused.

(and before i get a reply, the old and new testaments were different covenants, and many things were tolerated during the OT such as the nations of the worlds ignorance of God that were no longer tolerated under the new covenant)

Why is it okay to rely on the old testament to condemn homosexual relations, but not when discussing dietary restrictions? I think that's hypocrisy.

Not all slave masters are wicked and evil, Christians are to be slaves of christ. It is a Perspective issue, like many women who have issue with being subordinate to their husbands,

You bring up an interesting point. It's a perspective issue. Would you say that a slave has a more reliable perspective in determining the wickedness of his or her master? How about a subordinate wife, would she have a more credible perspective in analyzing her husband's wickedness?

Jesus was peaceful, yes, but he also obeyed the laws, of the governing authorities. (even the authoroty of the heathen romans)

Jerusalem was under Roman control. Save for capital crimes, Jerusalem had judicial autonomy (which was the only way Rome could control so much territory without having to put down a weekly revolt).

 

Jesus not only broke the law in Jerusalem, but he attempted to rewrite it. He was guilty of blasphemy by Jerusalem's standards--he was not a victim.

 

Gandi refused to believe them, as apparently you and others do.

Ghandi WAS USHERED OUT OF THE CHURCH BY CHRISTIANS who refused to allow members of a lower caste inside. That's not Ghandi refusing Christ (Ghandi was an outspoken admirer of Christian teachings), that's Christians refusing Ghandi.

[MassiveAtom]

Originally posted by Chris777

It was an example, and again did you even ponder the why?

 

Fear in itself has a purpose, if a child has no concept of danger, well i hope i don't have to explain it.

 

I also previously, did not spank, and i regret it sometimes, as my child tends to be careless in situations, and or places they should not be.

(busy traffic areas for example)

 

Of course I thought about why you used that as an example. And readily understood your point. It's always refreshing to come here and pretty much be able to trust there are bright people answering the questions.

 

Fear has no place in the parent/child relationship. none. It's there inherently sometimes, but it doesn't have to be reinforced.

 

Even in the most tenuous of situations there are MORE effective ways to handle kids than hitting them. IMHO.

 

That's one way I'm certain that morality can exist outside of religious dogma and construct - raise kids with a good concept of right and wrong based on their judgement and the standards of the community in which they reside. Yeah, this is a Moral relativism argument, but it's the only way to practice tolerance.

 

Again folks, let's not get too affected by the text on the screen, and keep this lively discussion going!

[UCFKevin]

I have a few really good friends that are atheists and good people. One mustn't believe in God to be a good person, it's just a right or wrong thing, ethics, morals, etc. Be a good person. Do right to others. People believe in that, and that's fine, it's their choice.

[HokeyReligions]

Curious pattern.

 

"I don't presume to speak for God/Christ" = a basic sentiment expressed throughout this thread.

 

"God wouldn't send so-and-so to hell" "God wouldn't bring this type of person into Heaven"

 

"If you think God wouldn't allow so-and-so into Heaven then there is something wrong with your reasoning"

 

 

Are not ALL of these statements the same as speaking for God? IF there is a Heaven no one but God knows who will be accepted or rejected and to guess which person would based on an individual belief seems like trying to second guess God.

 

Isn't there something in the Bible about God knowing a man's soul and mind? Its quite possible for a person who gives every appearance of a faithful worshipper and yet their soul has not really embraced God. People think I'm Christian because of my demeanor and my compassion, etc. and I could easily fool people into accepting me as a Christian because I did it for years when I tried to fit into a church. I thought if I said it to myself often enough I would believe. But I didn't and if God is as depicted, He would know my heart and know that I do not believe. Would he let me in Heaven based on my life or my soul? Only God, if there is one, knows and anyone else second-guessing that choice would be presuming to know the mind of God. So anyone prejudging whom THEY think will go to Heaven is not wrong because it is their opinion only, based on how they interpret their faith. It doesn't mean that they speak for God or that their rules will apply to anyone else.

 

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

[MassiveAtom]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

 

 

Quite.

[moimeme]

Of course.

[Mz. Pixie]

Wow, what a thread! Some of it made my head spin because I'm not so intellectual in my religious discussions.

 

Yes, you can certainly be a good moral person without any religious values.

 

I try to practice loving all people- even the ones who have mistreated me horribly. I truly believe that many people have been turned against religion by hypocrites they have witnessed in the world or in their life- family, church etc.

 

What I try to remember is there are bad people everywhere, just like there are good people. You can have someone who is the biggest liar, cheat, or whatever who sits beside you at church just like anywhere else. That is because no one knows anyone else's heart.

 

I certainly love the people that are in my life that don't necessarily believe the way I do. At the core, however, I believe that you have to accept Christ as your personal Savior to go to Heaven. That's MY personal belief, but it doesn't mean that I don't like people who do not believe the same way I do.

 

There are many things as pertain to God that I don't believe can be explained, thus the reason it's so hard for some people to accept. There are things that we simply do not know and will not know until the appointed time. For instance, I don't know why my best friend who was a perfect Christian died from cancer the same day that a woman in my city was arrested for abusing her child. I don't know why good people die and bad people seem to be rewarded sometimes.

 

I can't explain it, I just have faith that what I believe is correct, for me.