Anonymous wrote:I treat others the way I would like to be treated.

That pretty much covers everything.

That's lovely. The Golden Rule.

But it could just as well be, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Or, "I want your gold, so I will kill you now."

If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I am condemning therm who claim to be following Jesus. Not needing to believe in Jesus does not equal condemning him.

Yes, but the criticism is never towards them but rather towards Jesus (imaginary god, storybook, fairy tale, sky-Daddy, etc). Why not just focus on the actions of the people? Why the hatred or hostility towards Jesus and not the men and women who warp his Word for their benefit?

Never? I think this thread disproves what you say.

Stating that we find it laughable that some people base their lives in a mythological being is criticizing those PEOPLE.

Jesus is a nice idea but I don't believe he is God. I feel no need to criticize and insult him any more than I feel the need to criticize Zeus.

Sorry, but I disagree. Criticizing people would simply be to say: That Christian lady is too stupid to know her own mind. Calling Jesus a "mythological being" (or worse sky-Daddy) criticizes/insults Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

If God's law is unchanging, why did he need to issue the new testament? What was wrong with the old testament? What about all the people who lived before the new testament was issued? what about the people who lived in the americas who didn't even get to hear about Christ's love until the spanish arrived with their guns and smallpox?

Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

Did you read the saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.”

Are you familiar with the New Testament? If you are, you'll know it's very Jesus-centered and many of His miracles and actions REVEALS many of the things discussed in the OT.

Thanks, can you answer the other questions?

Sorry about that. Is the other question: Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

If so, my answer is I don't know. I believe the principles of the Bible as it is revealed. Based on history and what Christians believe, I don't think there are any "hidden" testaments out there in the world.

What about the people who lived in the Americas before 1492? Why were they excluded from God's law, if it was so universal and enduring?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget there are literally dozens of "Bibles", and that's just in English.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

At least Muslims actually believe there text was 100% written by god. The bible is such a bizarre cut/pasted, random selection of contradicting stories, all plainly and admittedly written by human beings, assembled over centuries.

Actually, Muslims believe the Quran was "written" by Muhammad (who, BTW was illiterate and simply "recited" what he said God had told him).

If anything, dozens of people all over the world, over many centuries, writing essentially the same things is more valid to me than just one guy writing it all himself. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

On whose authority did you alter the "eternal law" of God?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

Interesting that a group of humans made this moral choice after weighing evidence. Just as secular society does with the same moral issues.

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.

Since we're rational atheists (and because it sounds like the kind of stuff we see from our religious cousins on Facebook all the time) we're going to need a cite on this one.

The atheist blogger who converted:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html

The argument from conscience:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Every culture has deviants - even atheists

I find it curious that none of these people ever seem to explain why they choose their particular god of choice. Of all the thousands and thousands of gods, and thousands of morality codes those gods have bestowed, why that one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I am condemning therm who claim to be following Jesus. Not needing to believe in Jesus does not equal condemning him.

Yes, but the criticism is never towards them but rather towards Jesus (imaginary god, storybook, fairy tale, sky-Daddy, etc). Why not just focus on the actions of the people? Why the hatred or hostility towards Jesus and not the men and women who warp his Word for their benefit?

Never? I think this thread disproves what you say.

Stating that we find it laughable that some people base their lives in a mythological being is criticizing those PEOPLE.

Jesus is a nice idea but I don't believe he is God. I feel no need to criticize and insult him any more than I feel the need to criticize Zeus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

If God's law is unchanging, why did he need to issue the new testament? What was wrong with the old testament? What about all the people who lived before the new testament was issued? what about the people who lived in the americas who didn't even get to hear about Christ's love until the spanish arrived with their guns and smallpox?

Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

Did you read the saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.”

Are you familiar with the New Testament? If you are, you'll know it's very Jesus-centered and many of His miracles and actions REVEALS many of the things discussed in the OT.

Thanks, can you answer the other questions?

Sorry about that. Is the other question: Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

If so, my answer is I don't know. I believe the principles of the Bible as it is revealed. Based on history and what Christians believe, I don't think there are any "hidden" testaments out there in the world.

Anonymous wrote:I had an interesting conversation that sparked a question that I have regarding atheism. Hopefully those who are atheists will be willing to indulge me:

-What (or who) governs how you live your life?
-What standards do you uphold (as it relates to how you live and your actions)?

I think it's a common misconception that faith is the only way to develop a moral compass. Having been on both sides of it, I feel that religion only provides guidance and reinforcement of what we know deep down to be right or wrong. Without religion, I still abhor murder, theft, infidelity, violence and the like. It's the old school of thought of "If you knew you could get away with it, would you do____?" Some people don't steal simply because they fear going to jail if they get caught. Take away the threat of prison and half may still say they wouldn't simply because it's wrong. That's how I view life. God and the afterlife aren't ultimate punishments that I worry about, yet I still feel certain things are wrong.

I try to live under the mantra of "do no harm." Also, I'm attracted to the idea of strong character. I don't want to be admired necessarily, but I do want to be well regarded. I want people to tell my children that their father is a good man. I imagine that when I die there will be no statues erected or newspaper articles written on my behalf, yet I hope to have a funeral home overflowing with people who feel that I touched them in some way or that I did something to make their lives a little better.

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.

Since we're rational atheists (and because it sounds like the kind of stuff we see from our religious cousins on Facebook all the time) we're going to need a cite on this one.

The atheist blogger who converted:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html

The argument from conscience:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget there are literally dozens of "Bibles", and that's just in English.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

At least Muslims actually believe there text was 100% written by god. The bible is such a bizarre cut/pasted, random selection of contradicting stories, all plainly and admittedly written by human beings, assembled over centuries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

If God's law is unchanging, why did he need to issue the new testament? What was wrong with the old testament? What about all the people who lived before the new testament was issued? what about the people who lived in the americas who didn't even get to hear about Christ's love until the spanish arrived with their guns and smallpox?

Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

Did you read the saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.”

Are you familiar with the New Testament? If you are, you'll know it's very Jesus-centered and many of His miracles and actions REVEALS many of the things discussed in the OT.

Thanks, can you answer the other questions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

If God's law is unchanging, why did he need to issue the new testament? What was wrong with the old testament? What about all the people who lived before the new testament was issued? what about the people who lived in the americas who didn't even get to hear about Christ's love until the spanish arrived with their guns and smallpox?

Is the New and Old testament the only source of God's law?

Did you read the saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.”

Are you familiar with the New Testament? If you are, you'll know it's very Jesus-centered and many of His miracles and actions REVEALS many of the things discussed in the OT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In your opinion, has man evolved in the last couple of thousand years? If they have, why no update?
What update are you referring to? What was added/taken away? What principles changed from what was added/taken away?

For Christians, the OT is not invalid. There is a saying: "The New Testament reveals, the Old Testament conceals.” They work together, but Christians base our lives on the teachings of Christ (hence the term Christian).

Of course we've evolving - we're evolving now, as we always have. Do you know that people in higher elevations are shorter, because oxygen is closer to the ground? The shorter they are, the more advantageous it is for their survival. All over the world, in all countries, cultures, and continents, communities that are in high elevations and mountains, have shorter people. Over the generations, our genes find ways to mutate in ways that keep us, very slowly, on the whole, adapting the environment.