Which Statement Do You Not Agree With

[perspective]

Ok and now the point of my original post. Most of you (some with mild execptions to the tenants) argeed with the moral or social principles that Christians are called to live by. So my point is to say that you really don't have problems with Christians (if they live like they claim they ought) but really you just have a problem with the authority of God, or maybe that there is right and wrong and you have to answer for that. Now, I can forsee that some will quickly respond with something about this bad thing or that bad thing that Christians do, but again I say that if a Christian lives by the statements I posted first then I don't think you can say anything bad about that. Really, it all falls back on authority under God and judgement for actions. I would like feedback on this.

NO...again, you are feeding your ideas into our views.

We simply have problems with things that are not true.

That said, there are a lot of things written in the bible that I take issue with...the things you listed just aren't in my top 10.

OK well Santa Clause is not true, but when things are not true people tend to just dismiss it and move on. If it was JUST a problem of Christianity not being true then why the proactive steps to destory it. As one famous Atheist said, " We will free the world from the rotting corps of Christianity." Strong words against something that is JUST untrue fairy tale. Or how about the head of an atheist organization who said, "I am going to give God the fight of His life." Wierd words for someone who shouldn't even believe in a God to fight with. Please don't flater yourselves that all this is about is intelect.

[Will]

While a disagree that marriage predates religion since there never was a time without religion, just a time such as now that people chose to forget it. Anyway, lets give that one to you.

There's no evidence of organized religion before Mesopotamia, about 6,000 years ago. Humans have been around for about 100,000 years. The best guesses of anthropologists and archeologists place the first worship of gods at around 12,000 years ago, with the worship of natural phenomena that were assigned personalities.

Even if that is the case marriage to the church is definitely defined as a religious ceremony in which two people are wed by an oath witnessed by God and the church. I don't think you can agrue with that. Further, the term marriage is a default religious term, heck the Catholics regard it as a sacrament. So I think you understand my point. Again if homosexuals want to get civily united by the judge at the courthouse, then I 100% think that they should have that right.

Marriage is a formal union between two (or more than two, where polygamy is legal) individuals recognized by law. That it often happens in a church is simply a reflection of the particular faiths of those two individuals, it has no necessary bearing on the definition of the ceremony. A justice can marry me and a woman without any religion involved, and it's a recognized marriage. And worse still, civil unions are not the same legally as marriage. Just today, I read a story about a lesbian woman, dying in a hospital in Florida, who's partner and adopted children were not allowed to see her before she died.

Catholics also consider ingesting of bread and wine to be a sacrament, but that doesn't mean that my ingesting of bread and wine means I'm being sanctified, it just means I'm hungry and thirsty.

Ok and now the point of my original post. Most of you (some with mild execptions to the tenants) argeed with the moral or social principles that Christians are called to live by. So my point is to say that you really don't have problems with Christians (if they live like they claim they ought) but really you just have a problem with the authority of God, or maybe that there is right and wrong and you have to answer for that. Now, I can forsee that some will quickly respond with something about this bad thing or that bad thing that Christians do, but again I say that if a Christian lives by the statements I posted first then I don't think you can say anything bad about that. Really, it all falls back on authority under God and judgement for actions. I would like feedback on this.

Unfortunately, most Christians have widely varied interpretations of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I know of some Christians that believe in a woman's right to choose, full homosexual equality, etc. and they're able to back up their positions with citations directly from the Bible. I know of some Christians that believe in the sanctity of the life of a fetus and believe that homosexuality is an abomination, and they are also able to back up their positions with citations directly from the Bible. Who's right, perspective? Well, they both are. If you've read the Bible as much as I have, you know there's a lot of information and a lot of conflicting principles. Some of the Bible was written by expansionist Israelites, some was written by persecuted minorities. Some of the Bible was written by Jews, some by Christians. Some of the Bible was written by strict misogynists, some... well actually there's not a lot of progressive stuff in the Bible about women, but that's not important.

I'm glad you've managed to boil down Christianity to a few simple principles, and the ones you've chosen lead me to believe that you live by similar principles to myself, but you aren't representing all Christians. You're just one Christian. If all Christians lived by the specific interpretations you posted, we might be in a better place, I don't know. Still, you should probably admit to yourself that you have a subjective interpretation of scripture, and that your interpretation is no more or less valid than any other interpretation, and that there are a vast array of interpretations out there, things that would fill your heart with gladness to things that would haunt you for the rest of your days. And I know it's tempting at this point to use a no true Scotsman fallacy, and claim that they're not real Christians... but they are. All you need to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Everything after that is a jumbled mess of multi-denominational interpretations.


So, to speak to what I think is your point, some Christians treat atheists just fine. Some Christians would be considered by your average atheist to be a "good person" and we'd have no quarrel or problem whatsoever with him or her. Some Christians, however, are trouble. Some seek to impose their beliefs and principles on others, and historically these types end up being in leadership positions. Think of the most famous Christian leaders today. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, and Robert Schuller come immediately to mind. Which one of these ministers would agree with you that all gay people should have civil unions? Which of these ministers could even be considered moderate? The loudest voices are usually the most extreme.  If you want to read some very scary things, read what Pat Robertson has to say about atheists. And science. Atheists can't be elected to public office in 6 states. Recent poll numbers said that a majority of Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist regardless of his or her politics. Atheists around the country are mistreated every single day. If I came out as an atheist, I'd lose my job.

[perspective]

To Will, I like you because you are genuine. I appreciate your answer.

[Sophus]

it is most illogical to be a nihilist. <--- Defend this claim.

Right, that's why the greatest thinker of the 19th century was a Nihilist....  

Morals are forged by man's ego. There is no right and wrong. What is right and wrong changes depending on the culture. You can do what our society will perceive as being right here but do it somewhere else and it could be an atrocity. There may be benevolent vs malicious intentions (keyword since it's about intent) but nothing more. Outside of the mind there is no right and wrong. This universe only knows correct and incorrect.

[Whitney]

OK well Santa Clause is not true, but when things are not true people tend to just dismiss it and move on. If it was JUST a problem of Christianity not being true then why the proactive steps to destory it. As one famous Atheist said, " We will free the world from the rotting corps of Christianity." Strong words against something that is JUST untrue fairy tale. Or how about the head of an atheist organization who said, "I am going to give God the fight of His life." Wierd words for someone who shouldn't even believe in a God to fight with. Please don't flater yourselves that all this is about is intelect.

Again, you are pushing your views of atheists onto all of us...seriously, stop.

Not all atheists are anti-christian.  Not all atheists care if Christianity exists or not.  Most atheists don't do anything to actively try to reason Christians out of their beliefs unless the Christian brings up the topic.

Your quotes are from atheists who also happen to be anti-christianity/anti-theism.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god.  In fact, in another thread someone just pointed out that there are people who call themselves Atheist Christians (feel free to look it up on wiki)

Remember, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  We don't have leaders (unless we choose to associate with an organization) and we don't all share the same views...the only thing we all agree on is that we don't believe in a god.

[perspective]

it is most illogical to be a nihilist. <--- Defend this claim.

Right, that's why the greatest thinker of the 19th century was a Nihilist....  

Morals are forged by man's ego. There is no right and wrong. What is right and wrong changes depending on the culture. You can do what our society will perceive as being right here but do it somewhere else and it could be an atrocity. There may be benevolent vs malicious intentions (keyword since it's about intent) but nothing more. Outside of the mind there is no right and wrong. This universe only knows correct and incorrect.

Sophus, let me explain why you are misguided. You have confused mores with morals. Mores are the particular expression of morals in a particular culture. Here is an example ---> In America women cover there breats because they are seen as sexually stimulating and private parts. In another culture the women expose their breats, because that culture sees breats as normal body parts for the function of feeding, But that same culture has the women cover their ankles. This is because the ankle in the culture is seen as provocative and sexual. The underlying PRINCIPLE is the same. Sexually stimulating parts are to be covered and modesty adhered to. Morals are underlying principles that may be expressed in many ways. Further, math is not "real" in the sense that we can touch math or numbers. But the principle is that 1 of something and then 2 of something makes 3 of something. In this case their is a principle to which man gave names and classifications to in order to express the facts. To say that man just made morals up is basically the same as saying that man just made math up. The principles of morals exist and man has named and classified things within these principles. To deny moral principles is to deny science and obsevation. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get freedom to deny it. Further, just because there may not be consensus on what those principles are doesn't make them not real or man made. That is a very fallacious arguement. Many in the evolution camp do not agree on the guiding principles that drive evolution. So I guess by your argument evolution must be false and not real. Its just man made reteric forged by mans ego to explain life. You can not be a nihilist because you can't absolutley claim to be someone that claims there are no absolutes. Your world View is self defeating.

[BadPoison]

I swear a kitten drowns every time you post.

[perspective]

OK well Santa Clause is not true, but when things are not true people tend to just dismiss it and move on. If it was JUST a problem of Christianity not being true then why the proactive steps to destory it. As one famous Atheist said, " We will free the world from the rotting corps of Christianity." Strong words against something that is JUST untrue fairy tale. Or how about the head of an atheist organization who said, "I am going to give God the fight of His life." Wierd words for someone who shouldn't even believe in a God to fight with. Please don't flater yourselves that all this is about is intelect.

Again, you are pushing your views of atheists onto all of us...seriously, stop.

Not all atheists are anti-christian.  Not all atheists care if Christianity exists or not.  Most atheists don't do anything to actively try to reason Christians out of their beliefs unless the Christian brings up the topic.

Your quotes are from atheists who also happen to be anti-christianity/anti-theism.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god.  In fact, in another thread someone just pointed out that there are people who call themselves Atheist Christians (feel free to look it up on wiki)

Remember, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  We don't have leaders (unless we choose to associate with an organization) and we don't all share the same views...the only thing we all agree on is that we don't believe in a god.

you are right, I blasted a little bit there. I was trying to push for honest answers. I do not mean to offend or lump all atheist together. please understand that I am just trying to pick your brains for answers.

[BadPoison]

Morals are underlying principles that may be expressed in many ways. Further, math is not "real" in the sense that we can touch math or numbers. But the principle is that 1 of something and then 2 of something makes 3 of something. In this case their is a principle to which man gave names and classifications to in order to express the facts.

Ok, I agree that we use language to give ideas names.

To say that man just made morals up is basically the same as saying that man just made math up.

I would say that we 'discovered' morals in the same way we 'discovered' mathematics. The reasons morals change in societies is because of society's have changing needs. Morals are simply the behavior that the society believes is beneficial for the whole at the time.

The principles of morals exist and man has named and classified things within these principles. To deny moral principles is to deny science and obsevation. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get freedom to deny it. Further, just because there may not be consensus on what those principles are doesn't make them not real or man made.

You say that morals exist and man has named them, then you turn around and state that they are man made. Which one is it?

That is a very fallacious arguement. Many in the evolution camp do not agree on the guiding principles that drive evolution. So I guess by your argument evolution must be false and not real. Its just man made reteric forged by mans ego to explain life.

Please explain what you mean. Are you saying that our language is limited in explaining certain ideas? If so I agree.

You can not be a nihilist because you can't absolutley claim to be someone that claims there are no absolutes. Your world View is self defeating.

Couldn't this simply be another example of language not properly being equipped to express an idea? I think so.

[perspective]

The principles of morals exist and man has named and classified things within these principles. To deny moral principles is to deny science and obsevation. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get freedom to deny it. Further, just because there may not be consensus on what those principles are doesn't make them not real or man made.

You say that morals exist and man has named them, then you turn around and state that they are man made. Which one is it?

I said that moral principles exist and man has named and classified and expressed morals through mores. Mores are man made, while Moral priciples just exist.

[Recusant]

If it was JUST a problem of Christianity not being true then why the proactive steps to destory it.

You've answered your own question here.  Obviously those who see a need to fight against Christianity, and religion in general, see it as a cause of great harm to society.
You will never see believers in Santa Claus trying to get laws passed which forbid building houses without chimneys.

 

Many in the evolution camp do not agree on the guiding principles that drive evolution

There is little dispute as to what drives evolution.  Natural selection is and has been since Darwin's time accepted as the mechanism driving evolution.  If you can find a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution, yet disputes that natural selection is the driving mechanism, please to be showing him or her.

 

You can not be a nihilist because you can't absolutley claim to be someone that claims there are no absolutes.

Who said that nihilists need recourse to absolutes of any kind?  I think you are letting your own world view (one in which absolutes of various kinds are considered elementary and necessary) cloud your thinking.

 

Mores are man made, while Moral priciples just exist.

Moral principles may very well have evolved, as part of human evolution, just as species have evolved.  If they do exist independently of a cultural setting (and I am not at all sure that they do) then there is no need to posit a supernatural origin for them.

[rlrose328]

It's only because you are a Christian that you see those as ONLY Christian concepts.  These concepts exist in any society that wants to survive.  If we kill, steal, and harm each other, we won't survive as a society.  I respect my parents because they respect me (can't be said about God who wants to punish me for merely not believing he exists).  I don't steal because I want to earn what I have.

I'm sure I'll all of this and more as I read the rest of the responses, but it really torques me when Christians take ownership of all of these concepts that existed in other belief systems (as a list of 10, no less) LONG before Christ was even on earth.  Just get over it already.

[Sophus]

Sophus, let me explain why you are misguided.

:pop:

You can not be a nihilist because you can't absolutley claim to be someone that claims there are no absolutes. Your world View is self defeating.

I never said I was an Epistemological Nihilist. I'm not. I'm an Ethical Nihilist.

[PipeBox]

. . . but really you just have a problem with the authority of God, or maybe that there is right and wrong and you have to answer for that. Now, I can forsee that some will quickly respond with something about this bad thing or that bad thing that Christians do, but again I say that if a Christian lives by the statements I posted first then I don't think you can say anything bad about that. Really, it all falls back on authority under God and judgement for actions. I would like feedback on this.

Woah.  That was a massive non sequitur.  You might as well have left off the first part of the post so you could just sweep into accusing us of wanting to quarrel with your god.  "You mostly share my morals which means that God exists and you just have a problem with his authority upholding the morals you share with me."  Did I get that about right?  It doesn't logically follow.  Are you just angry at Brahma?  I mean, you share similar morality to some Hindus, no doubt!  Heck, you share similar morality to me, so why don't we address everything with a supposition of my views, with no justification being given for you to adopt them?

Besides, how does that even work??  I'm supposed to know that God exists, but I defy him because I don't want to be judged, knowing that he'll just judge me in harsher fashion?  This is pretty much one of the most nonsensical statements ever.  Look, if your God is real, I go to hell.  I don't believe in a god because I've not seen evidence for him, reality contradicts his oft-claimed attributes, and because every last religion claims to be the One True Wayâ,,¢, or at least the Truthâ,,¢.  It's not like I have a penchant to end up in hell or hades or to be vanquished from Valhalla because I haven't been a good warrior.  If you want me to believe in your religion, substantiate it.  Having a similar morality to you doesn't count for much.  If we completely different, we wouldn't be having this conversation because one of our groups wouldn't be around to discuss it.  You want to know what all of us have in common?  We sleep.  "You're fine with drinking tea, with a few minor caveats, but you don't want to drink from the Celestial Teapot, or maybe you just don't want to be held accountable for your unwillingness to fully prepare for the Great Drinking."

I hope you see my point.
Peace, man.

[Sophus]

. . . but really you just have a problem with the authority of God, or maybe that there is right and wrong and you have to answer for that. Now, I can forsee that some will quickly respond with something about this bad thing or that bad thing that Christians do, but again I say that if a Christian lives by the statements I posted first then I don't think you can say anything bad about that. Really, it all falls back on authority under God and judgement for actions. I would like feedback on this.

Let's take a look at some of the morals in Islam:

Tolerance And Forgiveness

Be Compassionate And Merciful

The Killing Of Innocent People Is Unlawful

God Condemns Mischief

Peace And Well-Being

Now do you agree with these? If so I am going to assert that you are just denying the authority of Allah.