Notices
Results 1 to 67 of 67

Thread: Christians getting thier morals from the bible...

  1. #1 Christians getting thier morals from the bible... 
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Why on earth do atheists believe this? It's not true. It often irritates me when atheists assume this. It simply shows that they do nto understand the sect that they disagree with. If a christian says his morals are found in the bible, dont listen to him. Not all Christians believe such things, don't tar them all with the same brush.



    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The issue is of course whether Christians only do good to avoid god's wrath. On this you have to agree that it very often sounds exactly like that. They even use it as scare tactic. This does not mean that Christians actually necessarily think this way, I don't believe that. We are much more alike than either side usually likes to concede. The type of Christian who incessantly evaluates everything they do or feel against "what would Jesus say/do" are very uncommon in my experience. The rest of them are basically indistinguishable from atheists most of the time.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    strawman - i don't think atheists believe that christians get their morals from the bible

    however, as in verzen's thread, it is quite common for christians to say or imply that because one doesn't believe in god, one must be immoral

    hence they seem to cloak themselves in the warm fuzzy feeling of their own morality, independent of where that morality is claimed to come from
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I agree. From the devout Christians I know, none fo them do it because they fear God's wrath. They tell me that when you come to faith you are happy to do the things God wants you to do. Fear never comes into it for them.

    But yes, the idea of christians being good only to save themselves from gods anger is another common misconception I feel.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    The argument of morals is no different from most others involving what a Christian chooses to believe or not. We have to first establish what a Christian is SUPPOSED to believe, and that of course, is the word of their god.

    Isn't a Christian by definition, one who worships and obeys their god and follows the morals god would teach? And, if so, shouldn't they then follow the bible, word for word, in order to know gods morals and obey them? The bible is the inspired word of god, is it not? Are there not passages in the bible that reflect worshiping and obeying god? What purpose would the bible serve then, if Christians didn't follow it?

    Perhaps those who would call themselves moral Christians and don't believe in following the bible aren't really Christians at all. Wannabes, maybe?

    Or, is becoming a Christian as simple a process as flipping a light switch?

    "Today I am a non-believer, but tomorrow I shall become a Christian, and will tell everyone of my divine conversion so that all will know that I am a Christian."

    "And I will be moral."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    "Today I am a non-believer, but tomorrow I shall become a Christian, and will tell everyone of my divine conversion so that all will know that I am a Christian."
    You heard it here first people... Q has now become a theist....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    "Today I am a non-believer, but tomorrow I shall become a Christian, and will tell everyone of my divine conversion so that all will know that I am a Christian."
    You heard it here first people... Q has now become a theist....
    Not until tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    We are much more alike than either side usually likes to concede.
    Yes. Dogmatic Christians sense that, though they can't too deeply reason why it is. We attribute causes differently, but the sentiment and practical action are the same.

    If a Christian and an atheist share a joint, the Christian says he laughs because "the room is funny", while the atheist says he laughs because he "feels like laughing."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    That analogy doesn't work Pong.

    The atheist would wonder why he was laughing in the first place. The christian would be laughing because he believes the room looks funny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Isn't a Christian by definition, one who worships and obeys their god and follows the morals god would teach?
    This is the thing though. I don't think "morals" are to be found in the bible. After all a good christian is likely to have pretty much identical morals to a good agnostic or atheist and they don't follow the bible do they?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The reason atheists believe that is because theists keep saying that atheists are immoral. When asked why they think that, their response is almost always, "Who or what do they get their morals from if not god? Since they don't believe in god, then they must not have any morals"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Hmmm interesting... they as christains should think that atheists get their morals from God.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    well in a twisted logic way it all fits, doesn't it ? if morals come from god, and atheists reject god, then atheists must be without morals

    that is, if you accept the initial premise that morals DO come from god, which as a rule atheists tend to deny
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    ah no, not the case. atheists have the morals, they just dont think they come from god when they do. according to the bible.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    which is i think what i said
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    oh yeah... lol

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    While theists try to explain how morals come from god and without god, there can be no morals... I am thinking of morality based on my own premise. If someone HAS to tell you to be good in order for you to be good... are you really moral? Or are you immoral?
    I do good because I know what is the right thing to do. Theists do good because they are told to be good. In essence.. I as an atheist have more morals.

    And btw, morals do come from the bible... unless for some reason they took the 10 commandments out since I last attended church......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    surely there's more to morals than a mere 10 commandments ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    ah but the ten commandments are not morals. they are instructions.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    morals are instinctive. well, mine are anyway.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If you disobey any of the 10 commandments, it could be argued that you are immoral. Since murder, stealing, etc are all against my moral code.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Then perhaps it is the commandments that are in line with morals, and not morals that are in line with the commandments?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    So morals didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Since obviously, God had to point out the obvious to people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i'm sure the 10 commandments reflect some of the morals prevalent at the time they were written
    i would, however, not treat them as an exhaustive list

    didn't the pope issue a list of new deadly sins for the modern age ? afaik they can't be found in the 10 commandments
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Further proof that god is not real. When men are altering the bible/code of conducts for their followers to follow, they are doing "god's" work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    That is not proof that god does not exist at all. Daft comment.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So morals didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Since obviously, God had to point out the obvious to people.
    If the commandments are in line with morals, then morals had to come first.

    Jeez man, I hope you're not going to behave like you did the other day with that rediculous virgin birth solution.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'm sure the 10 commandments reflect some of the morals prevalent at the time they were written
    i would, however, not treat them as an exhaustive list
    You wouldn't , neither would I. But intriguingly if we had lived then we would find the list relevant, addressing issues of the day. A law is not written otherwise. No authority stands up and commands people to stop tattooing their firstborns, or eating insects, unless these practices are already common. No nation holds dear and identifies with laws they find bizarre and exotic.

    There's a raft of laws about screwing our kin and beasts. The Old Testament lists the particular family members you can't screw. A strange proportion of attention is devoted to this, wasted to this from my point of view. Since there are plenty of moral issues not mentioned. The selection is very odd if it reflects what people thought important.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Christians getting thier morals from the bible... 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Why on earth do atheists believe this? It's not true. It often irritates me when atheists assume this. It simply shows that they do nto understand the sect that they disagree with. If a christian says his morals are found in the bible, dont listen to him. Not all Christians believe such bullshit, don't tar them all with the same brush.
    The OT is the last place I would want to get my morals from.
    It teaches a 'one god concept' with the 1st 3 commandments and punishes anyone that violates that with mass killings.
    Then to top that off, it teaches sexism (woman as sinners) and racism by
    promoting eating a fruit from a tree as sin. This is an 'insult ' to the Apes that do just that.

    So this is the last place to look for morals .

    The NT tried to replace this form of chauvinism by Christs Gospel of eliminating this chauvinism with an all loving state of mind as Christ closed out his gospels with the statement 'love your enemies'.

    But because of his teachings, the chauvinist jews had him crucified
    So, IMO, the NT is also a bad source for moral behavior because it tells us it is dangerous to oppose these chauvinists.

    However, Our US Constitution is a good source for refuting these biblical errors with its mandates to eliminate these self serving chauvinists like the kings, dictators and any other such individuals and teaches a reprentative type of government for the general population.
    It also outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' (crucifixions) and allows 'free
    speech' that Christ was killed for preaching his Gospels.
    The US C'n also outlaws sexism and racism, so it certainly is a much better source for teaching morals than the OT book of the bible

    So indirectly, you could say our C'n endorses the NT but not politically because it also endorses 'freedom' and therefore cannot endorse any one religion.
    This also outlaws the ten commandments that promotes the one god concept that eliminates these self serving self styled gods.

    But the best source for moral behavior is Nature that teaches love through its creative process between male and female.

    Another good substitute for the religions is My Brand of Socialism that promotes the main needs of the people and that ia guarantee of jobs, healthcare and pensions. Once these securities are provided, we do not need religion.

    My articles on this subject is buried in the back pages as well as Nature as GOD.
    If you choose to be a follower of Christ, make sure you do not use the crucifix or a cross as a symbol because these icons make you a 'Pilation' instead.

    Thank you.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So morals didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Since obviously, God had to point out the obvious to people.
    If the commandments are in line with morals, then morals had to come first.

    Jeez man, I hope you're not going to behave like you did the other day with that rediculous virgin birth solution.
    Sox, your logic is all screwy. If GOD had to tell people HOW TO BEHAVE then morals did not exist prior to the 10 commandments. Otherwise it would be redundant to tell someone to not kill someone when they already know that killing is bad. If you believe morals came before the 10 commandments, then again, god does not exist since man wrote down their moral and ethical code in gods name and presented it to the people saying it's gods work, but it was actually man's work. If the bible is completely BS and the entire work is a work of man, how can you SAY god exists?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    Christians use the Bible to support their morals, its a primary source
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, to me, the frustrating thing about atheist moral codes is that some atheists somehow think they had adopted "their own" moral code. That is, they feel they have independently and without any external influence come up with a moral code.

    And this just isn't the case. There is already a moral code in place and people either conform to or deviate from that moral code. If an individual decides to personally deviate from or defy the accepted moral position, it does not change the moral standard.

    There are practices for which there is not universal agreement and it is over those that controversy arises.

    You could, for example, look at the issue of abortion. Christians generally would consider this practice immoral. Yet, I suspect there are Christians who have obtained abortions. I'm not sure we could label such people as immoral while also considering people who do not believe this to be an immoral practice are not immoral if they do the same thing.

    I think the logical (and probably Christian) perspective would be that abortion cannot be both moral for some and immoral for others at the same time. It is either moral or immoral.

    If we categorize such people we find that the above people are generally called absolutists. The opposite view is that of the relativist.

    From the standpoint of a relativist, morality is the choice of the individual who is allowed to "do his own thing." I have seen on various threads on this forum people say things such as, "I can choose what is right or wrong for me."

    And, as I have often pointed out, such a treatment of moral conduct is no better than that of a sociopath. How does a sociopath decide what is right or wrong? He makes up his own mind. How does the relativist decide what is right or wrong? The same way -- he makes up his own mind. There is no morality involved for either of these people. The fact that one chooses a path which is more conforming to the norm does not make that person "more moral" than the person who chooses less conforming behavior.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    cosmo said:

    However, Our US Constitution is a good source for refuting these biblical errors with its mandates to eliminate these self serving chauvinists like the kings, dictators and any other such individuals and teaches a representative type of government for the general population.
    I have no idea what morality you will find in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not a moral code for people. It establishes a structure for government and then, in the Bill of Rights, puts constraints on what that government is allowed to do in regulating the conduct of people. It does not establish or codify any demands or restrictions on people.

    I just don't see how any of that relates to moral conduct of people.

    Cosmo also said:
    But the best source for moral behavior is Nature that teaches love through its creative process between male and female.
    What kind of idiocy is this? In nature we see animals killing other animals over such things as mating rights, territorial claims and access to existing food supplies. Meanwhile, we have people who seem to think it is a morally acceptable practice to kill babies before they are born.

    I am not sure we can ascribe the mating process of other animals as being the product of love. Mostly, it is for the purpose of satisfying the instinctive animalistic sex drive for the purpose of reproduction. Where leadership in nature is found, leadership is most often decided by who is the strongest. I just don't know where, in nature, Cosmo thinks the reproduction process teaches love. There are some animals which mate for life, but whether this is an act of love is debatable.

    and verzen said:

    If you believe morals came before the 10 commandments, then again, god does not exist since man wrote down their moral and ethical code in gods name and presented it to the people saying it's gods work, but it was actually man's work.
    By this way of thinking, can we assume that the practice of murder was legal before laws providing sanctions for murder were adopted in social groups?

    The Bible does not establish any moral conduct, but merely codifies human conduct which is pleasing or displeasing to God. Homicide was not acceptable to God long before the 10 Commandments were given. The very first murder recorded in the Bible, that of Cain slaying Abel, pretty much establishes God's rebuke of that practice. And Cain knew it was wrong even though God has said nothing about it and there was no local law against murder.

    Construing the fifth commandment to mean a proscription of all forms of taking life is silly in view of the fact that the Bible sanctions some taking of life and from which we draw our modern exception to murder such as self defense, greater good, execution and others. Those practices which are, technically, homicide, are not considered murder which is what the fifth commandment proscribes. Nor do we consider taking the life of the enemy during war as murder.

    I could agree that a moral code would have, in fact did, develop prior to the emergence of the Jewish people and he Bible. The Egyptians had rules against murder which is why Moses fled. I am not sure how this proves God does not exist. We know things are wrong by their very nature just as Cain new slaying Abel was wrong.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, to me, the frustrating thing about atheist moral codes is that some atheists somehow think they had adopted "their own" moral code. That is, they feel they have independently and without any external influence come up with a moral code.
    Then, on the flip side, we have so-called Christians who would state they get their morals from the bible, which is utter nonsense as anyone who has read the bible can plainly see their god is little more than a murderous, maniacal despot.

    And this just isn't the case. There is already a moral code in place and people either conform to or deviate from that moral code. If an individual decides to personally deviate from or defy the accepted moral position, it does not change the moral standard.
    And, when was that moral code put in place, Dayton?

    Yet, I suspect there are Christians who have obtained abortions. I'm not sure we could label such people as immoral while also considering people who do not believe this to be an immoral practice are not immoral if they do the same thing.
    We label them hypocrites, Dayton.

    I think the logical (and probably Christian) perspective would be that abortion cannot be both moral for some and immoral for others at the same time. It is either moral or immoral.
    Then, stop beating around the bush and give us the answer from the bible, Dayton? Is it moral or is it immoral?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So morals didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Since obviously, God had to point out the obvious to people.
    If the commandments are in line with morals, then morals had to come first.

    Jeez man, I hope you're not going to behave like you did the other day with that rediculous virgin birth solution.
    Sox, your logic is all screwy. If GOD had to tell people HOW TO BEHAVE then morals did not exist prior to the 10 commandments. Otherwise it would be redundant to tell someone to not kill someone when they already know that killing is bad. If you believe morals came before the 10 commandments, then again, god does not exist since man wrote down their moral and ethical code in gods name and presented it to the people saying it's gods work, but it was actually man's work. If the bible is completely BS and the entire work is a work of man, how can you SAY god exists?
    Verzen, theres so much I would like to say... can we continue this via private message?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, stop beating around the bush and give us the answer from the bible, Dayton? Is it moral or is it immoral?
    I suppose you could argue it is immoral in the eyes of God because it directly interferes with the creation of life. The same could be said of contraceptives.

    Does it mean on a human level its evil? Well thats another question entirely...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    I suppose you could argue it is immoral in the eyes of God because it directly interferes with the creation of life. The same could be said of contraceptives.
    Who are we to argue gods word? What does the bible have to say about it?

    Does it mean on a human level its evil? Well thats another question entirely...
    Can the bible provide these answers? Wouldn't it be wrong in the eyes of god to not consult the bible on such topics as good and evil?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    sox said:
    Verzen, theres so much I would like to say... can we continue this via private message?
    WHAT! and deprive the rest of us the enjoyment of such a discussion?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So morals didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Since obviously, God had to point out the obvious to people.
    If the commandments are in line with morals, then morals had to come first.

    Jeez man, I hope you're not going to behave like you did the other day with that rediculous virgin birth solution.
    Sox, your logic is all screwy. If GOD had to tell people HOW TO BEHAVE then morals did not exist prior to the 10 commandments. Otherwise it would be redundant to tell someone to not kill someone when they already know that killing is bad. If you believe morals came before the 10 commandments, then again, god does not exist since man wrote down their moral and ethical code in gods name and presented it to the people saying it's gods work, but it was actually man's work. If the bible is completely BS and the entire work is a work of man, how can you SAY god exists?
    Verzen, theres so much I would like to say... can we continue this via private message?

    Um, I guess? Well, only if it will deprive Dayton of enjoyment that is. You have to at least honor that request. =)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    lol @ dayton and verzen

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I'm not exactly sure why this is so difficult to understand or why it would generate such discussion.

    As humans beings we have customs, mores and folkways, moral codes and laws, all of which address our behaviors by restricting some and encouraging others.

    The Bible merely addresses those things from the standpoint of which behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable to God. It is not a matter of determining their source. Would we have the same levels of behavioral guides without God? Surely. Would they be the same? Probably.

    I do not see how moral standards can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. If God placed his moral standards on our hearts, they would be what they are today. If not, they would still be what they are today.

    What gives anyone the idea that morality would be different with or without God?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If God placed his moral standards on our hearts, they would be what they are today. If not, they would still be what they are today.
    Well did god not make us in his image? I take that to mean that we inherit his general perception of what is right and what is wrong, of what is beuatiful and so on.

    If god created us, but nto in his image, I think tis very possible we would have different morals.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If God placed his moral standards on our hearts, they would be what they are today. If not, they would still be what they are today.

    What gives anyone the idea that morality would be different with or without God?
    So, our moral standards are exactly the same as they were centuries ago, when god first stamped his seal of despotic behavior on mankind's heart?

    If changed since then, who changed them? If god, was he wrong to have cherished bloodshed and slavery, but now views those atrocities as immoral?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    sox said:

    Well did god not make us in his image? I take that to mean that we inherit his general perception of what is right and what is wrong, of what is beuatiful and so on.

    If god created us, but nto in his image, I think tis very possible we would have different morals.
    The first option is the one which I would believe is the case.

    I would disagree with the second observation. If that is true, then we humans are in total control and things would be no better or worse. You would have be able to say that things would be better if they were as in the first option. But the first option is the one you believe, so you can only suggest that if the second option is true, things would be worse. But if the second option is true, then things are as they are. This would also be true if God does not exist and we are products of a random process of nature. Things are as they would be. No matter what view you adopt, you have to end up that things are the way they are.

    However, I think this would be true in the first instance also. If we concede that God must allow for free will decisions and does not micro-manage the world, we must also assume that he has struck a balance between good and evil in the world. To limit evil would be to interfere too much with free will. To not interfere at all would allow evil to be the rule rather than the exception. If, God has not struck this balance, then things are still what they are.

    When you set up these "if. . .then" statements; you also have to consider the "if not . . . then" circumstance.

    My feeling is that things are they way they would be even if the opposite of whatever the circumstances are were the case. No matter which position you argue from, you must logically end up finding that things could not be better or worse if the other position were true. It always ends up being circular reasoning.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Daytonturner:

    Our C'n teaches respect for the females and the blacks by outlawing sexism and
    slavery and promoting equality.
    Don't you think this is modifying social conduct?

    And when it comes to sex, I introduced Nature because this reproductive function is the primary function of all creatures and that includes us evolved apes.
    So the moral here is to love your woman and vice versa.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    cosmo said:

    Our C'n teaches respect for the females and the blacks by outlawing sexism and slavery and promoting equality.
    I defy you to find anything in the U.S. Constitution, itself, which addresses any of this stuff. These topics are addressed in three amendments, but are not even tangently mentioned in the seven articles of the Constitution.

    I would love to know which article of the constitution or which amendment you think outlaws sexism. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the 15th Amendment prohibits excluding citizens from voting on the basis of race or color, but does not address the question of equality in other areas.

    These topics are more directly addressed in legislative measures such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or in Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education.

    The 19th Amendment grants voting privileges to women, but in no way outlaws sexism. This is the only provision which specifically addresses anything relating to gender. It hardly "teaches respect for the females."

    The 14th Amendment comes close to what you are suggesting in Section 1 which says:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    This provision does not directly grant any rights to citizens, but restricts governmental agencies from depriving citizens of certain privileges and immunities; from acting to their detriment without providing a process for the citizen to challenge such act; and requiring government to offer the same protections to all citizens.

    It would be more accurate to say that the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from some forms of racism and, perhaps, sexism in the slightest of degrees.

    My guess Cosmo, is that you are a high school student or early in college. Your knowledge, background and perspectives on many of the topics you address is woefully lacking in substance which is obvious to those who are educated and informed on them. Have you ever actually sat down and read the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Amendments? Do you understand the difference in impact between the Constitution and legislation? Have you ever read a Supreme Court case interpreting a part of the Constitution? My bet is that the answers are no, no. no.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    However, I think this would be true in the first instance also. If we concede that God must allow for free will decisions and does not micro-manage the world, we must also assume that he has struck a balance between good and evil in the world. To limit evil would be to interfere too much with free will. To not interfere at all would allow evil to be the rule rather than the exception. If, God has not struck this balance, then things are still what they are.
    God IS the evil you refer, his interference in human nature to be compassionate is our undoing. One of us has stated on occasion his sheer delight in seeing non-believers burn in hellfire for an eternity. Is that not the epitome of evil?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:

    God IS the evil you refer, his interference in human nature to be compassionate is our undoing. One of us has stated on occasion his sheer delight in seeing non-believers burn in hellfire for an eternity. Is that not the epitome of evil?
    It is interesting that you ascribe qualities to an entity which you claim does not exist. Assuming your are correct and God does not exist, to what do you ascribe the source of evil. Who decides what is evil? The majority?

    It was certainly not me who stated god experiences sheer delight in non-believers burning in hellfire for eternity.

    "[God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence." II Peter 3:9b.

    Contrary to your belief, God will not delight should you burn in hellfire for eternity.

    Do I read your statement right? That God's causing us to be compassionate is our undoing? You are suggesting that we should be cruel and ruthless? Hmmm. Even so, God will not delight should you perish.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It is interesting that you ascribe qualities to an entity which you claim does not exist. Assuming your are correct and God does not exist, to what do you ascribe the source of evil. Who decides what is evil? The majority?
    My belief or non-belief in the delusions of theists has no bearing on the extraordinary claims they make, the tenets they hold or the qualities they assign their god. The words of your beloved god are there for all to read, and critique.

    Evil is consistent with biblical gibberish and has no real bearing in nature. Often one cults evil is another cults moral values. Who among you decide what is evil?

    We could say your god is the arbiter of what is considered evil, but then, your god is a murderous despot, unlikely to offer any unbiased guidance in that area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) does not realize that his statements are self contradictory and thus illogical. It must be pure bliss to be so demented and not even realize it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    daytonturner:

    I am not a lawyer and have no need to read the C'n word for word.

    But if you understand what the 'civil' suits are for, than you should know and understand what the C'n mandates.
    Discrimination in the workplaces and educational institutions and other such public places are required to treat everyone equally.

    Nature is our Greatest Teacher that teaches no evil.
    The sacrifice of some victims for food is done to provide a burial site for the sick, lame and also to maintain a balance for the various species. This may sound cruel but the killing is also done for the purpose of survival rather a need for some other reasons that some humans do.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    cosmo said:

    I am not a lawyer and have no need to read the C'n word for word.
    Well, herein is one of your big problems in commenting on this forum. It is a good idea to know what you are talking about when you make comments. Otherwise, you are very likely to (and do) say things which show you to be uninformed and ignorant on the subject.

    Such as:

    But if you understand what the 'civil' suits are for, than you should know and understand what the C'n mandates. Discrimination in the workplaces and educational institutions and other such public places are required to treat everyone equally.
    None of these topics are addressed in the U.S. Constitution. If you were to actually read the Constitution, you would know that and would not make such a claim. It is just stupid and foolish for you to ignorantly comment on these things when you obviously know absolutely nothing about them. Personally, I doubt you know the difference between a civil matter and a criminal matter

    and also:
    Nature is our Greatest Teacher that teaches no evil. The sacrifice of some victims for food is done to provide a burial site for the sick, lame and also to maintain a balance for the various species. This may sound cruel but the killing is also done for the purpose of survival rather a need for some other reasons that some humans do.
    So what you are saying is that when other animals kill each other, it is not evil; but when humans do, it is?

    Surprise, surprise, surprise. I agree with that. However, I do not agree that is a valid teacher of good and evil.

    Not only do other animals kill for food, the also kill for power within their social group. Just last night on PBS's Nature program there was the scene of a dead primate who had been deposed from his leadership role in which the new leader had been assisted by some of the other members of the group. Does this suggest that it is OK for humans to do the same? Or do our moral standards tell us this is inappropriate behavior at the human level.

    Opinions, Cosmo, are no better than their logical and factual bases. So far what I have read of your posts on this forum, they seem to woefully lacking of both.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, herein is one of your big problems in commenting on this forum. It is a good idea to know what you are talking about when you make comments. Otherwise, you are very likely to (and do) say things which show you to be uninformed and ignorant on the subject.
    Dayton should know, he gets apprised of this on a regular basis. Funny how he never learns.

    Opinions, Cosmo, are no better than their logical and factual bases. So far what I have read of your posts on this forum, they seem to woefully lacking of both.
    Pot. Kettle. Noir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, on the flip side, we have so-called Christians who would state they get their morals from the bible, which is utter nonsense as anyone who has read the bible can plainly see their god is little more than a murderous, maniacal despot.
    Yes and no. On one hand you have the god of the OT telling his followers to slaughter everyone and take virgin girls as "plunder" to be "despoiled." On the other, you have Jesus in the NT telling everyone to love each other and turn the other cheek. The message is pretty schizophrenic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (q) said

    Dayton should know, he gets apprised of this on a regular basis. Funny how he never learns.
    You do, of course, have an example of this other than where I have disagreed with your separate realities and illogical expressions.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Yes and no. On one hand you have the god of the OT telling his followers to slaughter everyone and take virgin girls as "plunder" to be "despoiled." On the other, you have Jesus in the NT telling everyone to love each other and turn the other cheek. The message is pretty schizophrenic.
    Does this show that god has split personalities or that he and his son are actually two distinct entities, one contradicting the other? It's interesting to note that Jesus would have had only the OT for reference purposes.

    Perhaps Jesus had a real problem with this one:

    "If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth." ~ Exodus 21:23-21:27
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    It's interesting to note that Jesus would have had only the OT for reference purposes.
    According to my understanding of it, Jesus's teachings were pretty much in line with the standard teaching of Judaism at the time. He wasn't as radical as simply comparing the OT and NT might lead you to believe. But I'm probably not the person to ask if you're looking for details on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) quotes without explaining (probably because he is too pig headed to understand):
    "If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth." ~ Exodus 21:23-21:27
    What is so difficult about this? The point is not that it is required that one forfeit his life if he has taken one, but that he should not have to forfeit himself and a family member or, for that matter, two other family members. It is that he should not be required to forfeit two eyes if he has taken one eye. If he has taken a hand, his penalty is no more than a hand. It could be a finger and still comply.

    The second part of the quote shows that the most strict penalty, forfeiture of a like body part, it not necessary. The only point of these verses is that punishment for wrongdoing should not be worse than the wrongdoing itself.

    That is why our current legal system does not execute people for minor crimes. The principle that the punishment should fit the crime as established in the Old Testament is still in effect.

    Why do you find this offensive?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:
    It's interesting to note that Jesus would have had only the OT for reference purposes.
    The fact that He was God Himself does not count for anything?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Why do you find this offensive?
    What's not offensive about Bronze Age mindsets?

    But, that's not the point. See here from Scifor Refugee:

    "Jesus in the NT telling everyone to love each other and turn the other cheek"

    Jesus knew the passage from Exodus, but that passage would appear to have been abolished, yes?

    "You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." ~ Matthew 5:38–39
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Why do you find this offensive?
    What's not offensive about Bronze Age mindsets?

    But, that's not the point. See here from Scifor Refugee:

    "Jesus in the NT telling everyone to love each other and turn the other cheek"

    Jesus knew the passage from Exodus, but that passage would appear to have been abolished, yes?

    "You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." ~ Matthew 5:38–39
    Thats a fair question Q. But it is one that is really easily explained away. But i'll let dayton explain since its his arena.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The fact that He was God Himself does not count for anything?
    If he was god himself, how did mere mortal men kill him? Or, did god simply fake his death and fled the scene a few days later, giggling hysterically at the hoax?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by sox

    Thats a fair question Q. But it is one that is really easily explained away. But i'll let dayton explain since its his arena.
    I'm delighted you wished to take the time to write me and inform me you won't be participating in an easy explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by sox

    Thats a fair question Q. But it is one that is really easily explained away. But i'll let dayton explain since its his arena.
    I'm delighted you wished to take the time to write me and inform me you won't be participating in an easy explanation.
    haha the truth is, I do know. but I cant be arsed explaining... still now you shamed me!

    Right the first thing you ahve to understand is the context of the sayings.

    So lets begin with "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This was a rule that was designed to ensure that the punishment fit the crime. If someone punched you, you could punch them back. You could not beat them to a pulp. This same philosophy applied to everyday life. If someone stole your goat, you could steal one of his. You couldnt however steal 4 of his cows.

    Now "Turn the other Cheek" is slightly different. The old testament law was concerned with settling disputes. The new testament law was I believe to stop resentment growing between people.

    For example. If your neighbours wife becomes ill, you help him nurse her back to health. If at some later date your own wife becomes ill and your neighbour does not offer to help, don't hold it against him. If his wife becomes Ill again, offer the help you gave before. Do not withold it.

    See where I'm coming from?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:

    What's not offensive about Bronze Age mindsets?
    By this, are you suggesting we should go back to the practice of executing a thief who has stolen a loaf of bread to feed his family?

    Perhaps, if you were in the U.S., you would advocate for the repeal of the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment because it is a basic Bible concept.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Dayton, this proves your ignorance in the subject.

    Thieves did not get killed for stealing. They had their hand chopped off. It's difficult to steal with no hands. First offense is one hand. Second offense is the other hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    By this, are you suggesting we should go back to the practice of executing a thief who has stolen a loaf of bread to feed his family?
    Dayton, if I were to agree with you in any way, shape or form on the validity of Christianity, then I would also have to agree with the bible and whatever atrocities it offers for ethical and moral behavior.

    You are free to disagree with anything in the bible, but that does not make you free to call yourself a Christian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •