The source of morality for theists and atheists

[overtone]

 

Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled
most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary
laws in the OT that Christ overruled, so Christians don't follow those
laws either.

That ostensible interpretation of Christ's words is found among many Christian sects, yes. They don't agree on which things in the OT are the bad ones that Christ overruled, however (stoning adulterers and resting on the Sabbath have little connection with loving one's enemies, after all - the adultery or the rest itself might be more in line with Christ's direct teachings than either the stoning or the not stoning), any more than they agree on the interpretations of his discouragement of public prayer, disparagement of heterosexual marriage, dismissal of loyalty to family and friends, advocacy of dispossession and avoidance of wealth accumulation through work, and cheerful rendering of one's money to the government whose coinage it is regardless of legitimacy or purpose.

[ewmon]

ydoaPs: "I highly doubt that lightburst has ever said that they will never change their mind and that their previous posts will be word for word truth until the end of the world."

 

Ewmon: Lightburst questioned whether former statements overruled latter statements or vice versa, and I questioned lightburst's own rules of rhetoric in order to resolve his question.

 

 

 

@John Cuthber

What did Christ do when the citizens wanted to stone a prostitute? He said, "Those of you who are without sin can cast the first stones", and they left, and he told her to stop sinning.

 

 

 

Iggy: "I don't think acts of hatred should be abolished. ...

 

Christianity's reaction to rape and rapists is totally different. They see the child-raping priest and think "well, those children really aught to love their enemy". ...

 

I'm not sure why you were asking that, but there you go.

 

Ewmon: Wow, well I'll pray for you because Christ said even anger and hatred are wrong. I think most people would agree.

 

Hmm. On the one hand, I grew up Catholic and had three pedo-priests in my parish (and was present when one of them did what I later realized was trolling for vulnerable boys), but I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. Can you name any such person? But on the other hand, anger and hatred tend to destroy a person from the inside out, so the victims should eventually resolve any anger and hatred ... and just about everyone would agree, I would think.

 

Well, I asked because you seemed to be equate punishment with hatred.

 

 

 

 

 

Overtone: adultery ... might be more in line with Christ's direct teachings than ... the stoning

 

[Christ's] discouragement of public prayer,

 

[Christ's] disparagement of heterosexual marriage,

 

[Christ's] dismissal of loyalty to family and friends,

 

[Christ's] advocacy of dispossession and avoidance of wealth accumulation through work, and

 

[Christ's] cheerful rendering of one's money to the government whose coinage it is regardless of legitimacy or purpose.

 

Ewmon: No. See my response to John Cuthber in this post. In fact, he said if you break one law, you break them all, which meant that one sin is no worse than another, and thus, not to compare yourself to others, and so, think yourself "better" (and thus "okay"). Examples —" I overcharge my customers, but at least I'm not a pickpocket." ... "I'm a pickpocket, but at least I'm not a rapist." ... "I'm a rapist, but at least I'm not a murderer." ... Etc.

 

I mostly agree with your statements and have added the reasons why he said them.

 

Christ said not to be a show-off when you pray.

 

Christ meant that marriage can complicate/hinder one's spiritual life. Paul also said it's better not to marry, but to marry if you desire it.

 

Christ said that you may need to — and should — distance yourself from you family's religious practices if they interfere with your faith.

 

I'm not remembering where Christ said to give up possessions and wealth. Can you cite the passage?

 

Christ basically told them to pay their taxes. Where did Christ say "regardless of legitimacy or purpose"? Citation please. Christ meant that money was not spiritual, but an invention of the government. Many of his Jewish followers saw him as a rebel warrior leader, and they hated their subjugation to the Romans, so they wondered if he would lead a movement against paying taxes to Rome. He was a rebel leader in a spiritual sense, but not in any other way.

[Iggy]

Iggy: "I don't think acts of hatred should be abolished. ...

 

Christianity's reaction to rape and rapists is totally different. They see the child-raping priest and think "well, those children really aught to love their enemy". ...

 

I'm not sure why you were asking that, but there you go.

 

Ewmon: Wow, well I'll pray for you because Christ said even anger and hatred are wrong. I think most people would agree.

 

I feel so warm inside knowing you will pray for me, but I wish you knew your bible.

 

Jesus got angry in Mark 3:5. "He looked around at them in anger, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts". No... Jesus did not say "anger is wrong". If I were your Sunday school teacher I would tell you that the important thing is not to sin while you are angry. Paul said in so many words in Ephesians 4:26: "in your anger do not sin".

 

Your bible is full of the words "slow to anger" and "quick temper" because even its bronze age authors knew that "anger is wrong" is too silly a concept.

 

If you are going to pray for me for patronizing christian reasons, I'd rather they be actual christian reasons.

 

 

Anger is an emotion without which humans couldn't survive. Personally, I'd recommend Aristotle again on the subject:

Anybody can become angry -- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

 

Hmm. On the one hand, I grew up Catholic and had three pedo-priests in my parish (and was present when one of them did what I later realized was trolling for vulnerable boys)

 

I am sorry to hear that. I wish the church could rehabilitate itself, but that would take a degree of anger, hatred, and a willingness to be unforgiving that it lacks.

 

, but I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. Can you name any such person?

 

I didn't mean "love your enemies" as a euphemism. I mean that Catholics are taught not to hate, not to judge, not to throw the first stone, to always forgive -- and especially all of those things towards the priesthood. You are echoing those same sentiments and they are positively immoral. If the church understood that child rape is unforgivable, and it is every decent person's job to hate its practitioners, then there would be much less of a problem.

 

Take the case of Lawrence Murphy. He was a priest in Milwaukee where he tortured and raped a couple hundred kids. After it became well known what he had done, some bishops wanted him defrocked, but he wrote a letter to the pope saying "I have repented of any of my past transgressions... I want to live in the dignity of my priesthood". It was a get-out-of-jail-free card. He died with full ministerial rights.

 

He rapes 200 deaf boys, and says "I have repented and want to live in dignity". To non-Christians it is laughable, but to Vatican officials it is kryptonite. What could they do?

 

 

Well, I asked because you seemed to be equate punishment with hatred

 

I mentioned hatred because you were talking about human nature. It is difficult to use the word because you have this worldview that love is good and hate is bad. Love everyone and hate no one. It comes mainly from christianity, it is too simplistic, and I don't think it is moral or healthy.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Iggy

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs: "I highly doubt that lightburst has ever said that they will never change their mind and that their previous posts will be word for word truth until the end of the world."

 

Ewmon: Lightburst questioned whether former statements overruled latter statements or vice versa, and I questioned lightburst's own rules of rhetoric in order to resolve his question.

The point is that Jesus specifically and very explicitly said latter statements most emphatically do not overrule former statements wrt the Law. It applies until the end of the Earth. To get into the Kingdom, you must uphold the Law. And that's direct from the mouth of the son of God.

[overtone]

I mostly agree with your statements and have added the reasons why he said them.

You have added your idea of the reasons why he said them. Other Christians differ in these matters. They are matters of interpretation, and the teachings themselves do not specify how they are to be interpreted. We know this because Christians themselves, despite complete familiarity with the Bible and the teachings of Christ, nevertheless vary dramatically and conflict in their interpretations of even these simplest and best known teachings.

 

The point is that your evaluation of Biblical verses and Christ's teachings rests on principles and factors outside them, not found in the Bible or specific to Christians. If you have no source of morality outside the Bible and Christian teaching, how are you interpreting these verses?

 

 

If the church understood that child rape is unforgivable, and it is

every decent person's job to hate its practitioners, then there would be

much less of a problem.

 

Take the case of Lawrence Murphy. - - -

 

He rapes 200 deaf boys, and says "I have repented and want to live in

dignity". To non-Christians it is laughable, but to Vatican officials

it is kryptonite. What could they do?

Your false choice of gentle treatment out of love or horrible punishment out of hatred is what pinned the Church - to the extent that any such considerations were involved, in what more closely resembles a bureaucracy of the guilty covering their collective ass, and even suggests blackmail as a factor.

 

The Church could obviously have turned Murphy over to the police without failing in the duty of loving one's enemies or accepting repentence. Murphy could have been defrocked, tried, jailed - one can obnviously extend Christian love and charity to a defrocked priest serving time in a penitentiary.

 

The principle that hatred is bad motive for action, one that breeds blowback and corrupts its harborer, one that amplifies rather than discourages evil, is not challenged by the Church's failure to protect the victims and shackle the perpetrators of child rape. The effect of the common hatred of child rapists, their treatment in prison and in the community, as a factor however minor in the Church's decisions, illustrates rather than conflicts with this principle.

Edited March 5, 2013 by overtone

[ewmon]

@Iggy

Yeah, Jesus got angry. He also got angry and cleared the temple of unholy activities. Remember — Jesus is God; I'm not. He exhibited what's called a righteous anger. Christians aren't supposed to do everything Jesus did.

 

You should try resolving your anger issues. You actually can live without it.

 

Don't tell me what sentiments I'm echoing. And I'm not Catholic. I'd be the first person to drop a dime on a pedo, and I did so to a relative. I'd do it again in less than a heartbeat.

 

Again, most westerners of any faith or non-faith would agree that unresolved hatred will destroy one from the inside.

 

 

 

 

@ydoaPs

You're too late with this Christian-bashing mantra. Christ fulfilled all the law and prophets. Check my previous posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

@overtone

I didn't add. To begin with, if you want to discuss what you said in Post #51, then provide Bible citations and we'll take it from there. For example, Christ said not to go out to the street corner and pray ostentatiously like the Pharisees do. Is that what you meant by Christ's "discouragement of public prayer"? I don't recall any other such statement.

 

Your paragraph that begins with "false choice" and ends with "blackmail" makes no sense to me. Please explain more clearly.

 

Lawrence Murphy? Christ tells us to obey the civil laws. So, yeah, the Roman Catholic [Pedophile] Church is rotten from the fellow priests who knew what was happening all the way up to the Pope, and they should all be sitting in prison for the rest of their lives. Like all the employees of all the financial institutions who gave out sub-prime mortgages and wrecked the world's economy — they should all be sitting in prison for a long time. One bank employee said he approved a mortgage full well knowing that the people couldn't even make the first payment. As an engineer, if I approved sub-standard concrete or steel in a bridge project just because it was a common practice, even though I knew it was wrong and that the first car wouldn't make it across the bridge, where would I be today? Sitting in prison for a long time. And the US government is just as corrupt for not prosecuting them.

 

Action should not be delayed until, or be dependent upon, the presence of hatred. The perception of wrong should — and must — suffice. I have seen hatred destroy a person.

 

Take the local case (for me) of the murder of a kid named Shaun. His mother could work to keep his murderer in prison forever without harboring a self-destructive hatred for him. But she has harbored hatred, and it has ruined her life. She now realizes that her hatred is destroying her like a cancer. It alienated her from family and friends, it wrecked her marriage, she can't hold a job, it served no purpose, and probably most of all — it gives her no real closure. She even became angry and resentful at her community for not hating as much as she did. She has focused too much on Shaun's death (in which he obviously played a passive role), instead of focusing on his life, which was the real "him".

 

The main point here is that a person can forgive without forgetting. (You won't find "forgive and forget" in the Bible.) No one ever asked Shaun's mother to forget what happened. But her hatred has worn a rut in her brain when it comes to Shaun, and it hopefully has not overwhelmed her beautiful memories of the great kid Shaun was. Because that's what hatred does. Shaun was his life, not his death, and hatred toward his murderer can obscure this fact.

[John Cuthber]

So, Christ says that you must obey the old laws (he explicitly said he had not come to change them).

But He doesn't obey them: he confronts then (in the case of one woman who isn't stoned because there wasn't anyone "without sin" to do it).

 

He also shows anger, but says that we shouldn't.

 

This contradictory mess is certainly not the origin of anyone's morality, because they wouldn't know where to start.

Do they do what He does, or do they do what He tells them to do?

They can't do both.

[PeterJ]

I think you are misinterpreting what the sages and prophets mean by 'the Law'. Usually they would mean the same as what Buddhists, Sufis, Taoists etc mean, which is the laws of Heaven and Earth. not the law as written down by God in a notebook somewhere or in the Bible. The laws never change. Nobody can change them,

 

As for anger, there's nothing wrong with it in itself. Have you not heard of 'righteous anger'. But it should never be a loss of self-control or lead to harmful behaviour. The law does not say that sinners should be stoned. Can you imagine God writitng that down in his rulebook as he planned the universe? What an utterly ridiculous idea.

 

There would be no act or form of behaviour that is against any 'law'. It would all be dependent on motive and circumstance. We really must get rid of this idea of some bewhiskered cosmic judge sitting in judgement on us. This is naive medieval folklore, a failure to see through the simple Biblical words to what is really being said.

 

I suspect things would be a lot less confused if Jesus had taught for forty years like the Buddha, rather than just two. As it is, I'd say that a study of Buddhism is the best way to understand Jesus and the BIble. Many Christians I've spoken to have said the same. We are not simple fishermen, and Buddhism allows us to delve intellectually in a way that is difficult if we stick only to the Bible.

Edited March 11, 2013 by PeterJ

[ewmon]

@John Cuthber

 

The law and the prophets refers to the OT — the law being the Torah, and the prophets being the rest of the OT. Christ "fulfilled" the OT 2,000 years ago.

 

Christ could have stoned the prostitute.

 

Christians do what Christ tells them to do. Why would they try to do what their God does when they are not God? In the same sense, citizens don't do what their government does — they don't collect taxes, declare war, legislate, etc.

 

@PeterJ

 

It has been said that similarities exist between Jesus's teachings and eastern philosophies.

[John Cuthber]

@John Cuthber

 

The law and the prophets refers to the OT — the law being the Torah, and the prophets being the rest of the OT. Christ "fulfilled" the OT 2,000 years ago.

 

Christ could have stoned the prostitute.

 

Christians do what Christ tells them to do. Why would they try to do what their God does when they are not God? In the same sense, citizens don't do what their government does — they don't collect taxes, declare war, legislate, etc.

 

@PeterJ

 

It has been said that similarities exist between Jesus's teachings and eastern philosophies.

To be consistent, Christ should have stoned the prostitute

That's what the law said and he said that he was not there to change the law.

And I have news for you, people do collect taxes, declare wars etc. they do it by proxy, via a government. That's exactly what the government is for: to enact the will of the people. It may not always work well, but that is the whole basis of governement.

[Moontanman]

Ewmon

 

Religion, particularly the Christian religion, fails morally in an absolute way that makes the idea that Christians are moral or derive morals from something other than the culture around them as just plain wrong.

 

The idea of one punishment for all crimes is in of it's self immoral.

 

The idea that anyone can be held accountable for crimes committed by their ancestors fails miserably morally.

 

The idea that simply repenting wipes away all crimes no matter how horrific is amoral at best as well....

 

Ewmon, it may be easy for you to side step these issues but they are real and your religion fails to address them and in fact require you believe they are moral.

 

This is beside the point of the gospels being disconnected from the life of Jesus by centuries and his teachings themselves being contradictory and immoral as well...

[PeterJ]

Ewmon

 

Religion, particularly the Christian religion, fails morally in an absolute way that makes the idea that Christians are moral or derive morals from something other than the culture around them as just plain wrong.

Some argument please.

 

 

The idea that simply repenting wipes away all crimes no matter how horrific is amoral at best as well..

Repentance properly understood does away with the karmic consequnces of past actions. Any crimes still happened, and they were still crimes.

..

 

 

This is beside the point of the gospels being disconnected from the life of Jesus by centuries and his teachings themselves being contradictory and immoral as well..

Some examples of immorality and contradictoriness would be useful. Are you sure it isn't your interpretation that causes the problem,?

[Moontanman]

Some argument please.

 

I listed them and at the top of my list is one punishment for all crimes.

 

Repentance properly understood does away with the karmic consequnces of past actions. Any crimes still happened, and they were still crimes.

 

None the less you can be a serial murderer your whole life and go to heaven by repenting at the last moment, that is just as bad as one punishment for all crimes.

 

..

 

 

 

Some examples of immorality and contradictoriness would be useful. Are you sure it isn't your interpretation that causes the problem,?

 

The idea they have to be interpreted is part of the problem, but many examples have already been given, his views on slavery top most among them..

 

Also it's quite plain that theists get their morals from the culture they are brought up in not their religion because they don't obey the laws of their religion and in fact most would not be willing to do so... other than the crazy fringes...

[John Cuthber]

Some argument please.

 

 

Repentance properly understood does away with the karmic consequnces of past actions. Any crimes still happened, and they were still crimes.

..

 

 

Some examples of immorality and contradictoriness would be useful. Are you sure it isn't your interpretation that causes the problem,?

Have you read this thread?

there have been 3 pages of arguments.

Karma doesn't exist so doing away with karmic consequences has no meaning: you can't abolish something which never existed.

[PeterJ]

If you fall off a cliff you bang your head. All people who fall off cliffs get this 'punishment'. Is this unfair?

 

Forget punishment and think laws of nature. It is naive to think that someone has decided what your punishment is going to be for your errors. Okay. some religious people think of it in these terms, but such a view is not necessary. The price of a lack of virtue is a disordered soul, says Socrates. This is a better understanding. There are just causes and effects, and it is not necessary for Christians to assume otherwise.

 

Repenting in a true sense is sufficient to overcome the consequences of past actions. Seems perfectly fair to me. It's the various understandings of the word 'repentance' that causes problems if there are any. This is why I find that a study of Buddhism is very useful for unlocking the meaning of Christian teachings, which in many respects are less clear and less well developed. Jesus only had two years, and his message got lost almost immediately. Buddha had forty, and a body of monks to preserve the message intact.and to continually refine and clarify it.

 

It;s too big a topic to delve into properly now, but I would just note that the criticism here seems to be aimed at a particular interpretation of the scriptures, namely that of the critic, one that is hopefully soon to be consigned to history.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PeterJ

[Prometheus]

Karma doesn't exist so doing away with karmic consequences has no meaning: you can't abolish something which never existed.

 

Karma, at least in Buddhism, is defined as the results of actions taken by volition - nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you were thinking of karma as a mystic force?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Argument that started over definition of karma and became focused on the interpretations of the teachings of buddha have been split off to new thread in religion. This topic is on a source of morality - how it varies between theists and atheists etc. Please keep to the point - start new threads if you wish to argue a tangential point.

 

Thanks

 

[John Cuthber]

"Repenting in a true sense is sufficient to overcome the consequences of past actions."

Nonsense.

If someone steals my stuff then kills my friend, but "repents" does that bring my stuff back and reincarnate my friend?

No, of course it doesn't.

So it obviously has not overcome the effects of their actions.

I can't understand how anyone could write such obvious nonsense.

 

As for "The price of a lack of virtue is a disordered soul, says Socrates."

If you, or Socrates, want to bring a soul into the discussion then they need to define what it is and prove that it exists. And that would be a topic for another thread.

You can not simply assume the soul's existence here.

[LaurieAG]

Why limit the discussion to relatively recent history and only see half the story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

 

 

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,^[1] ethical code or morality^[2] that essentially states either of the following:

• (Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.^[1]
• (Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

 

Pop Culture

 

Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure Be excellent to each another.

Monty Pythons Meaning of Life Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

Wil Wheaton Don't be a dick.

 

1 Antiquity

1.1 Ancient Babylon

1.2 Ancient China

1.3 Ancient Egypt

1.4 Ancient Greece

1.5 Ancient Rome

1.6 Ancient India

1.6.1 Sanskrit Tradition

1.6.2 Tamil Tradition

2 Religion and philosophy

2.1 Global ethic

2.2 Bahá'í Faith

2.3 Buddhism

2.4 Christianity

2.5 Confucianism

2.6 Hinduism

2.7 Humanism

2.8 Islam

2.9 Jainism

2.10 Judaism

2.10.1 Context

2.10.2 Sources

2.11 Mohism

2.12 Platonism

2.13 Quakerism

2.14 Scientology

2.15 Sikhism

2.16 Taoism

2.17 The Way to Happiness

2.18 Wicca

2.19 Pop culture

Edited March 17, 2013 by LaurieAG

[John Cuthber]

That got a mention back in post 14, but if you blinked you would miss it.

[ewmon]

To be consistent, Christ should have stoned the prostitute

That's what the law said and he said that he was not there to change the law.

And I have news for you, people do collect taxes, declare wars etc. they do it by proxy, via a government. That's exactly what the government is for: to enact the will of the people. It may not always work well, but that is the whole basis of governement.

 

You ignore empirical data in front of you. I seem unable to help you to understand what Christ said and to see the empirical data in front of you, and this is the last time I will respond to this sad mantra chanting. What I meant was that you or I cannot personally collect takes or declare wars, and neither are the politicians obliged to act according to the desires of their constituents.

 

Ewmon

 

1. Religion, particularly the Christian religion, fails morally in an absolute way that makes the idea that Christians are moral or derive morals from something other than the culture around them as just plain wrong.

 

2. The idea of one punishment for all crimes is in of it's self immoral.

 

3. The idea that anyone can be held accountable for crimes committed by their ancestors fails miserably morally.

 

4. The idea that simply repenting wipes away all crimes no matter how horrific is amoral at best as well....

 

5. Ewmon, it may be easy for you to side step these issues but they are real and your religion fails to address them and in fact require you believe they are moral.

 

6. This is beside the point of the gospels being disconnected from the life of Jesus by centuries and his teachings themselves being contradictory and immoral as well...

 

I numbered the paragraphs in the above quote, so I could reply more easily below.

 

1. You say that Christianity derived its morality from western culture, instead of western culture deriving its morality from Christianity? So then, according to you, where did western culture derive its morality?

 

2. Immoral how? It's a matter of not allowing people to feel they are okay by comparing themselves to others. I'm a pickpocket, but at least I'm not an assailant. I'm an assailant, but at least I'm not a rapist. I'm a rapist but at least I'm not a murderer. Etc.

 

3. Where in Christianity is punishing one person for crimes committed by someone else? This concept is new to me and seriously contradictory to the Christian faith.

 

4. True, the Bible tells us that "simply repenting" is not enough.

 

5. Where have I sidestepped?

 

6a. Although the idea of centuries elapsing between Christ's life and the writing the gospels is incorrect, how close would they need to be in order to be "valid"? And is this an objective or subjective amount? Even nowadays, we get "news" that's minutes, hours and days or even months and years after the supposed event. So, are molestation claims by supposed "victims" years or even decades after the supposed crimes invalid?

 

6b. Contradictory and immoral. You didn't support your claims or give examples.

[ydoaPs]

To be consistent, Christ should have stoned the prostitute

That's what the law said and he said that he was not there to change the law.

That's actually one of the stories that we're pretty sure never actually happened as it's a later addition to a late text. So, there's no problem in the consistency there as it's just fanfic.

[immortal]

The source of morality for everyone according to atheists is evolutionary psychology.

 

"We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" - Richard Dawkins.

 

The source of morality for theists according to theists is the divine Logos.

 

 

"All this is for habitation by the Lord, whatsoever is individual universe of movement in the universal motion. By that renounced thou shouldst enjoy; lust not after any man's possession." (Isha Upanishad, verse 1)

"Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action cleaves not to a man."(Isha Upanishad, verse 2)

Which philosophy is the most reasonable and the best one to base your life upon? Surely the one which the evidence favours, who likes to end up on the wrong side.

Having lived my life based on both kind of philosophies I think neither the theists nor the atheists take their own philosophies seriously. The majority of the theists are possessive and no matter how much atheists say that they are moral they need to accept the fact of nature that their every action has a selfish component associated with it if we take their philosophy of life seriously.

I really don't think the majority of the atheists and theists think about these things in depth and then try to implement this in their way of conduct and living respectively, they are just too busy with their lives and are carried away along with time.

Jesus ben Sira, writing about 190 B.C. puts it quite bluntly, when he says:

"The wisdom of the wise depends on the opportunity of leisure;

and he who has little business may become wise.

How can he become wise who handles the plow,

and who glories in the shaft of a goad,

who drives oxen and is occupied with their work,

and whose talk is about bulls?

He sets his heart on plowing furrows,

and he is careful about fodder for the heifers.

So too is every craftsman and master workman

who labours by night as well as by day;

those who cut the signets of seals,

each is diligent in making a great variety;

he sets his heart on painting a lifelike image,

and he is careful to finish his work.

So. too is the smith sitting by the anvil,

intent upon his handiwork in iron;

the breath of the fire melts his flesh,

and he wastes away in the heat of the furnace;

he inclines his ear to the sound of the hammer,

and his eyes are upon the pattern of the object.

He sets his heart on finishing his handiwork,

and he is careful to complete its decoration.

So too is the potter sitting at his work

and turning the wheel with his feet;

he is always deeply concerned over his work,

and all his output is by number.

He moulds the clay with his arm

and makes it pliable with his feet;

he sets his heart to finish the glazing,

and he is careful to clean the furnace.

All these rely upon their hands,

and each is skilful in his own work.

Without them a city cannot be established,

and men can neither sojourn nor live there.

Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people,

nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly.

They do not sit in the judge's seat,

nor do they understand the sentence of judgment;

they cannot expound discipline or judgment,

and they are not found using proverbs.

But they keep stable the fabric of the world,

and their prayer is the practice of their trade.

On the other hand he who devotes himself

to the study of the law of the Most High

will seek out the wisdom of the ancients,

and will be concerned with prophecies;

he will preserve the discourse of notable men

and penetrate the subtleties of parables;

he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs

and be at home with the obscurities of parables.

He will serve among great men

and appear before rulers;

he will travd through the lands of foreign nations,

for he tests the good and evil among men."

(Ecclus. xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 5)

Why do theists and atheists neither seriously follow their philosophies nor allow anyone to follow one of those extreme philosophical way of life because both of the views disturbs the very fabric upon which the society is built and people doesn't want that fabric to be destroyed because everything what they thought as true is no longer the truth. The truth is bitter and we need to start swallowing it.

[ydoaPs]

@ydoaPs

You're too late with this Christian-bashing mantra. Christ fulfilled all the law and prophets. Check my previous posts.

When, exactly, did the second coming occur? When, exactly, did the world end? Because Jesus said quite explicitly when he would fulfill the Law. And that time was "when heaven and Earth pass". So, ewmon, when did that happen?

[Moontanman]

You ignore empirical data in front of you. I seem unable to help you to understand what Christ said and to see the empirical data in front of you, and this is the last time I will respond to this sad mantra chanting. What I meant was that you or I cannot personally collect takes or declare wars, and neither are the politicians obliged to act according to the desires of their constituents.

 

 

I numbered the paragraphs in the above quote, so I could reply more easily below.

 

1. You say that Christianity derived its morality from western culture, instead of western culture deriving its morality from Christianity? So then, according to you, where did western culture derive its morality?

 

Western morality is derived from law approved by the people, it's based on inherent human rights, not religion...

 

2. Immoral how? It's a matter of not allowing people to feel they are okay by comparing themselves to others. I'm a pickpocket, but at least I'm not an assailant. I'm an assailant, but at least I'm not a rapist. I'm a rapist but at least I'm not a murderer. Etc.

 

Way to side step the issue, your religion teaches we will burn in hell for ever end ever no matter how small or large our crimes are.

 

3. Where in Christianity is punishing one person for crimes committed by someone else? This concept is new to me and seriously contradictory to the Christian faith.

 

Every child according to your religion is born with original sin because adam and eve sinned...

 

4. True, the Bible tells us that "simply repenting" is not enough.

 

Where does it say this?

 

5. Where have I sidestepped?

 

You ignore the fact that your morality is not the morality the bible teaches, you side step the issue every time...

 

6a. Although the idea of centuries elapsing between Christ's life and the writing the gospels is incorrect, how close would they need to be in order to be "valid"? And is this an objective or subjective amount? Even nowadays, we get "news" that's minutes, hours and days or even months and years after the supposed event. So, are molestation claims by supposed "victims" years or even decades after the supposed crimes invalid?

 

The first mention of Christ occurred 70 or 80 years after his death, any text claiming to quote him directly is fiction. 400 years later there were 20 gospels, by popular vote it was winnowed down to the 4 we know today even though some of the deleted texts are references in the 4 left.

 

6b. Contradictory and immoral. You didn't support your claims or give examples.

 

Yes i did you are blinded by the light and can't see them... go back and reread this thread...