Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, many Christians do what is pleasing to God by obeying his commandments. Has nothing to do with prayer, Bible study, etc. Just obeying his commandments. Which are really the same "laws" dictated by society.

So, they are not the same. The bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". But we don't kill witches.
Similarly:
Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19
or:
When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening

You see, there is some stuff from the bible we follow, and some we reject. Many of our laws have no basis in religion at all.

FYI: Most Christians follow the New Testament. Many things mandated in the Old Testament were done away with with Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. He made the "ultimate sacrifice" and, as such, we are no longer bound by OT laws. Jewish people, who don't believe in Jesus, follow the OT.

And this is the part that is every bit as much human interpretation as an atheist consulting their own moral sense of right v wrong.

Can you explain? I'm having trouble following.

Sure! You said you're not reliant on your own sense of morality. You just follow the Ten Commandments. Because that is God's Word. But it was pointed out to you that the OT has a long list of pre- and proscriptions. So why not follow them as we'll. to which you replied, essentially, because the Bible says we don't have to follow those anymore. But many others read the bible and come to a different interpretation. So you're no longer making a strict appeal to the word of god, but rather your interpretation of the word of god (or worse yet, a professional interpreter's translation of the word of god, that has been interpreted by some religious authority figure).

So your absolute morality is nothing more than a flawed human attempt at interpreting a holy document and deriving moral laws therefrom.

Morality has nothing to do with any particular religion. If it did, then the same concepts would not span pan-religions and every member of each religion, or perhaps each denomination would be more synonymous. However, you can have five people in the same religion, same denomination, even the same church who have different interpretations of morality. Likewise, you can easily have two people are in different churches, different denominations and perhaps even different religions who have very similar senses of morality.

Morality is individual and independent of religion. Each individual may take some of their moral code from common tenets in their religion, but each and every individual has their own moral code which they follow. Some of that code is inate, some are indoctrinated by the society in which they live (some societies are more ecumenical, some are more accepting, some are more righteous about certain beliefs, etc) some are counseled or prescribed by their church and some are adapted from teachings learned by the individual. Aetheists are influenced by all of the above except for that prescribed by an organized religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

Wow you really are being obtuse. Can you explain, from that point of view, anything that is universally good, that all people have always thought was good forever? If you can't, then the idea that someone had to decide what is good is proven to be untrue.

Murder-Why some can justify and reason why they should kill someone, murder has always been bad.
Theft-While many can justify why they stole something, stealing has always been bad.

Depends on what you refer to as "murder" - how about the death penalty? An eye for an eye? How about the death penalty for that Castro guy? Dahmer? Tsarnaev? (Sp)

My statement has no qualifiers. Murder is murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I don't interefere with the love between gay people, I don't condemn a child for being a bastard, I support the use of taxes to take care of poor people - and I reluctantly conclude that the pregnant woman has to judge whether an abortion is appropriate in her circumstances. I love the gays and the bastards and the societal "welfare queens" and "takers" and even the women who abort all equally.

My opinion as a Christian- Jesus would have supported gay marriage. He would have supported taxing the wealthy to provide for the poor. (He said so over and over again.) He loved the prostitutes, the lepers, the beggars, .....as much as he did his own disciples.

However, I do not believe he (or any other true spiritual leader) would support the rights of a women to kill her unborn. He would have reached out in love and compassion. But no way would he have condoned the act of abortion.

Yes, I know. My question wasn't really posed to solict an answer. My question was to point out the disconnect between the NT/Jesus' message, and the reality of the Christian movement in the US today. Some of my biggest bible thumping friends are so outraged, for example, about Obamacare and welfare. I don't like being taxed either but for goodness sakes, how a Christain can not see the cognitive dissonance between Christ's message and opposing Obamacare, or an alternative universal health care system, is just beyond my feeble atheist moral system.

I am not saying YOU do this. I don't know you.

My point, back to the thread, is that I get the feeling sometimes that as an "atheist" I actually come closer to emulating Christ than many of my judgy religious friends.

IMO, Christianity has lost its way and many Christians aren't really following the teaching of Jesus. Again, this is not the fault of God, it is the fault of man. I find it sad when folks condemn Jesus because of the acts of man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Don't you understand that making up an imaginary god to justify your actions does not solve your good vs. evil problem?

Do you understand that people have justified very bad things on the basis of the authority of their god?

So saying "This is good because God told me" or "this is bad because God told me" does not get us any further, because "God" tells different people different things. In the Civil War he told the south that they were right and the North that they were right. He told the Aztecs to sacrifice children and the pope to cover up child abuse and move the abusers to fresh parishes.

So how then, when different people have different conceptions of right and wrong, do we determine what is right and wrong? We as a society engage in a debate about it, and set laws according to the outcome of the debate, based on our interests as a society for maximising the common good.

You are shaping God by the action of people and that's faulty. God's principles are unchanging. He gives us free will and it is from that free will that man has warped and/or interpreted his teachings. We are the ones who emphasize what we want as it suits us. BUT, none of that changes God's Word. It is unchanging. The only thing that changes is man.

Whether you believe in it or not, think of the Bible. Is an updated version, with entirely different text, published every year to suit society and/or man?

My understanding is that there was an update a couple of thousand years ago. Can you explain why, if his principles were unchanging, he needed to bring out a new edition? In fact, in this thread we have been explicity informed that the OT, which apparently set the rules for a while, is now superceded.

I would also point out that the bible did go through a large number of changes in the first century or two after christ.

How do you know that another update won't be needed? The mormons claim that it was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

What is universal good and evil? When you say all, does that include the mentally ill? Who needs to be included?

And can you clarify: is slaughtering children good or bad? Is it universally good or bad? If it is universally bad, as you seem to imply in your fourth sentence, how come the Aztecs thought it was good?

Murder is bad. No matter what spin man puts on it. The actions of man doesn't change God's word.

Now that is laugable. The Bible has innumerable instances of murder, mass murder, some of it done BY GOD. But are you conveniently blowing off the Old Testament again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I don't interefere with the love between gay people, I don't condemn a child for being a bastard, I support the use of taxes to take care of poor people - and I reluctantly conclude that the pregnant woman has to judge whether an abortion is appropriate in her circumstances. I love the gays and the bastards and the societal "welfare queens" and "takers" and even the women who abort all equally.

My opinion as a Christian- Jesus would have supported gay marriage. He would have supported taxing the wealthy to provide for the poor. (He said so over and over again.) He loved the prostitutes, the lepers, the beggars, .....as much as he did his own disciples.

However, I do not believe he (or any other true spiritual leader) would support the rights of a women to kill her unborn. He would have reached out in love and compassion. But no way would he have condoned the act of abortion.

Well, in my opinion as a Christian, Jesus would have supported abortion but been against gay marriage. Do you see the problem now in basing laws on this stuff?

These are opinions; it's all conjecture. No one really knows what Jesus would feel/believe, but those who believe in Him find him compassionate.

My point, back to the thread, is that I get the feeling sometimes that as an "atheist" I actually come closer to emulating Christ than many of my judgy religious friends.

Totally agree with this. My very religious Southern Baptist parents HATE it when I point out that Jesus was a socialist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

What is universal good and evil? When you say all, does that include the mentally ill? Who needs to be included?

And can you clarify: is slaughtering children good or bad? Is it universally good or bad? If it is universally bad, as you seem to imply in your fourth sentence, how come the Aztecs thought it was good?

Murder is bad. No matter what spin man puts on it. The actions of man doesn't change God's word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

Wow you really are being obtuse. Can you explain, from that point of view, anything that is universally good, that all people have always thought was good forever? If you can't, then the idea that someone had to decide what is good is proven to be untrue.

Murder-Why some can justify and reason why they should kill someone, murder has always been bad.
Theft-While many can justify why they stole something, stealing has always been bad.

Depends on what you refer to as "murder" - how about the death penalty? An eye for an eye? How about the death penalty for that Castro guy? Dahmer? Tsarnaev? (Sp)

Anonymous wrote:

So I don't interefere with the love between gay people, I don't condemn a child for being a bastard, I support the use of taxes to take care of poor people - and I reluctantly conclude that the pregnant woman has to judge whether an abortion is appropriate in her circumstances. I love the gays and the bastards and the societal "welfare queens" and "takers" and even the women who abort all equally.

My opinion as a Christian- Jesus would have supported gay marriage. He would have supported taxing the wealthy to provide for the poor. (He said so over and over again.) He loved the prostitutes, the lepers, the beggars, .....as much as he did his own disciples.

However, I do not believe he (or any other true spiritual leader) would support the rights of a women to kill her unborn. He would have reached out in love and compassion. But no way would he have condoned the act of abortion.

Yes, I know. My question wasn't really posed to solict an answer. My question was to point out the disconnect between the NT/Jesus' message, and the reality of the Christian movement in the US today. Some of my biggest bible thumping friends are so outraged, for example, about Obamacare and welfare. I don't like being taxed either but for goodness sakes, how a Christain can not see the cognitive dissonance between Christ's message and opposing Obamacare, or an alternative universal health care system, is just beyond my feeble atheist moral system.

I am not saying YOU do this. I don't know you.

My point, back to the thread, is that I get the feeling sometimes that as an "atheist" I actually come closer to emulating Christ than many of my judgy religious friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

Wow you really are being obtuse. Can you explain, from that point of view, anything that is universally good, that all people have always thought was good forever? If you can't, then the idea that someone had to decide what is good is proven to be untrue.

Murder-Why some can justify and reason why they should kill someone, murder has always been bad.
Theft-While many can justify why they stole something, stealing has always been bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Don't you understand that making up an imaginary god to justify your actions does not solve your good vs. evil problem?

Do you understand that people have justified very bad things on the basis of the authority of their god?

So saying "This is good because God told me" or "this is bad because God told me" does not get us any further, because "God" tells different people different things. In the Civil War he told the south that they were right and the North that they were right. He told the Aztecs to sacrifice children and the pope to cover up child abuse and move the abusers to fresh parishes.

So how then, when different people have different conceptions of right and wrong, do we determine what is right and wrong? We as a society engage in a debate about it, and set laws according to the outcome of the debate, based on our interests as a society for maximising the common good.

You are shaping God by the action of people and that's faulty. God's principles are unchanging. He gives us free will and it is from that free will that man has warped and/or interpreted his teachings. We are the ones who emphasize what we want as it suits us. BUT, none of that changes God's Word. It is unchanging. The only thing that changes is man.

Whether you believe in it or not, think of the Bible. Is an updated version, with entirely different text, published every year to suit society and/or man?

Anonymous wrote:

So I don't interefere with the love between gay people, I don't condemn a child for being a bastard, I support the use of taxes to take care of poor people - and I reluctantly conclude that the pregnant woman has to judge whether an abortion is appropriate in her circumstances. I love the gays and the bastards and the societal "welfare queens" and "takers" and even the women who abort all equally.

My opinion as a Christian- Jesus would have supported gay marriage. He would have supported taxing the wealthy to provide for the poor. (He said so over and over again.) He loved the prostitutes, the lepers, the beggars, .....as much as he did his own disciples.

However, I do not believe he (or any other true spiritual leader) would support the rights of a women to kill her unborn. He would have reached out in love and compassion. But no way would he have condoned the act of abortion.

Well, in my opinion as a Christian, Jesus would have supported abortion but been against gay marriage. Do you see the problem now in basing laws on this stuff?

Anonymous wrote:
I'm speaking more to universal good and evil (outside of what some people think/do). From your example, the Aztecs thought it was good, other folks not so much. So that is not a good example of things changing from good to bad. It was never good. In order for it to be good, it must be considered good by all. I hope that makes sense.

What is universal good and evil? When you say all, does that include the mentally ill? Who needs to be included?

And can you clarify: is slaughtering children good or bad? Is it universally good or bad? If it is universally bad, as you seem to imply in your fourth sentence, how come the Aztecs thought it was good?