@Christy, as you can see, I said the same thing you said (but with my Groucho Marx voice…)
1 Like
A tacit admission of following dogmatic beliefs is satisfactory enough.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:42, topic:35781”]
But why do you think anyone who is a Christian is going to accept the idea that morality, handed down by God, is really an arbitrary offshoot of Evolution?
[/quote]
I am asking a different question. How do you know that the commands handed down by God are moral?
Also, if you read my previous post I never said that morality is an offshoot of evolution. I said that it is an offshoot of a species capable of empathy, logic, and reason.
1 Like
I explicitly admit to following dogmatic beliefs. Does that mean you won’t keep trying to assert Atheism in a room of people who aren’t discussing proof of God?
Any Christian would tell you, that if morality isn’t from God, it’s worth a lot less to us Christians (though, no doubt, not worth less to you).
Great question! Surely there are blogs where you can discuss this point. Here on these boards, this is not a point of contention … until an Atheist walks in and throws a Holy Grenade of Antioch into the middle of the room.
Is this, by definition, trolling?
1 Like
I was struggling to come up with a response to George’s post, as the Lord’s law’s have certainly changed a lot. So thank you, Mervin, for the points you make in this post, which I had never considered but which really make a lot of sense.
1 Like
I believe that every judgement of my God is righteous and just. So if the judgement is genocide, then I accept it as righteous and just - even if I don’t understand how such a judgement is reached or why such a judgement is necessary.
That is quite astounding! I believe this position as well… and that because of our progress in our growth under the watchful eye and heart of Jesus, we can now handle the truth of Evolution, instead of the old wive’s tales about Eden.
So @Dredge,
I guess God must have been pretty surprised by how far we have progressed, right?
In Exodus, he’s telling us about this “perpetual covenant”, requiring executing people who violate the Sabbath, and then in a blink of God’s eye … we have made so much progress we don’t even have to keep Saturday as a Sabbath anymore, let alone execute anyone for not doing so.
So what was that you were saying about being able to let things that seem like absolute mandates from the Old Testament slide a little …? I’m in complete agreement with you!
As a matter of fact, I do consider immortality to be one of the essential prerequisites for meaning - but I don’t need your pity. If this life is all there is - God or no God - I would consider it so puny and meaningless as to be worthless.
And that is the single greatest argument against Christianity I’ve ever seen. If you can’t even appreciate a few score years of life, what are you going to do with a million? You’d get terribly bored, I think.
1 Like
On these points, Dredge and I agree.
Old wives tales? Our progress? Right now I’m having visions of God doing a face palm. What might be much more impressive than any actual progress is our imagined progress. Yes, Jesus has revealed, modeled, and taught a much higher bar for us to aspire toward, but to think that our actual behavior really did make the same quantum leap right behind him requires a generous helping of chutzpah with a dash of tunnel vision! That impossibly higher bar (while we are still struggling to even clear the first one) is more a stark reminder of our desperate need for God than it is any occasion for self-congratulations following self-comparison with ancient cultures.
Yes, I am glad we (most cultures) don’t put people to death or expel them any more for breaking Sabbath laws. Now we only do it because they represent possible or even imagined threats to our future economic security or moral comfort zones! How far we’ve come!
2 Likes
Did you just depict the image of God doing a face palm because of what ..I.. wrote? That’s a pip!
I was being quasi-ironic, Mervin… following you in your apologia for why the eternal commandment regarding the Sabbath was a typo - - and that it no longer applied “because of Jesus.” That’s what eternal means, right? From Eden … right up to 30 CE … because after that… there’s Jesus.
Change of tack - - to uncover the non-logic:
This is the “usual” run of justification … which I think is made even more complicated by Paul’s actions in Galatia. He gets into a full-bore speechifying mode on the topic of circumcision which, theologically speaking, can’t hold a Dixie cup of water. He literally says Christians should not get circumcised.
I wonder if my parents knew this when I was just a babe.
His logic is as faulty as if he said “Christians should not read the Old Testament!”… or “Christians should not pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!” - - because of Jesus.
Tell me true, Mervin: do you think God gets upset when a Christian has their male infant circumcised?
I think context may help you out here, George – and make no mistake … it is you that needs the help here I think, and not the Scriptures. Paul is talking to newly converted Galatians who are being influenced by (themselves newly converted) Jewish Christians who think that everybody needs to essentially become Jewish (by following the law) as a necessary condition for living in Christ. Paul will have none of it and uses strong words to get his point across. He doesn’t want them to even start going down that road (of putting law before Christ). Hence his warning that if they start down that road (say, with a very basic act like circumcision), then they have started down a much longer road of a whole plethora of laws – a burden which even the Jews themselves have struggled (and failed) to consistently follow through their own history. Paul is saying: you don’t need to be Jewish. You need to be Christians. And once you are that, that will be sufficient. You can then let Christ guide you into all the rest of how you should live now according to the higher law of love. The old way has not been abolished so much as surpassed. We read the old testament because it is now our story too – because it points to the New Testament and more importantly: to Christ himself. Since we are adopted into Christ that now becomes our story. We read it as such to know our own history and what God has done – not because we want to go back and live under the same burden of the letter of the law. Does that make sense?
And in return, perhaps you can explain to me what a ‘pip’ is.
More additions just because I can’t stop talking …
And to make sure you get the point here, George, let me spell it out for you: men get (or have their male children) circumcised for all sorts of reasons – health practices and custom being among them. Probably almost none of these are motivated by the idea that they need to do this to be Christians or to please God. (And if they were --then Paul’s warnings, as referred to above, apply to them full-force). But for all the rest – circumcision is neither here nor there religiously. Read Romans 14.
2 Likes
Now you are you trying to tell me that God didn’t tell Paul about the health benefits of circumcision?!"
In the last few days, Mervin, I really don’t know which side of the coin you are on … or if you even have a coin.
You have taken both sides, in sequence, of at least two different controversies. Aren’t you a little dizzy?
pip
A person or thing that is remarkable, wonderful, superior, etc; beaut, humdinger: His wildest dreams have to be pips ( first form 1912+, second 1942+, third 1897+)
[from a song with the term pippin, a prized kind of apple; the shift was probably fr peach as one kind of excellent fruit to pippin as another]
But in American slang = “what a beaut you are” - - usually meant sarcastically.
Yep, it’s fine.
The problem with God being the author of morality is that much of what God commands is immoral. You would have a point, possibly, if the Bible didn’t advocate genocide, slavery, and an eternal torture place that dwarfs anything the most evil human could have done.
I think this is a major mistake made by atheists - Christianity teaches that Christ came so that we may have an abundant and fulfilling life, and this is done by striving to live a good life. This good life and deeds of Christians is given added importance as it is a way for us, and for God, to judge our faith, and our deeds now, rendering us suitable for the next life that is to come. The next life is meant for individuals who are called now, and for all of those who finally understand the importance of choosing the good and avoiding evil - it is also a time when the world is healed and there is no more pain and suffering. Such a time would, I imagine, spark a period of prosperity and creativity that would keep everyone busy for many centuries.
2 Likes
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I don’t want to delve too deeply into this kind of conversation here as it could quite quickly veer off-topic from the forum’s purpose, but I’ll expand a little bit more than I did.
For anyone who hasn’t seen me say it before (it hasn’t come up lately), I’m a pantheist, not Christian (or atheist). I don’t doubt that Christianity aids many to live fulfilling and yes, good lives. At its best Christianity should never result in people making statements like the one I replied to, however. The statement that someone sees nothing of meaning or worth intrinsic to the world or their life is a little shocking and makes me worry for them. “For God so loved the world…” How can something God loved suddenly have no value just because you’re not guaranteed unlimited quantities of it? And if it has no value in a small amount, how do you figure it will be valuable multiplied by infinity?
Seems like a pretty childishly ungrateful attitude to me. I know Jesus taught giving thanks every day, for bread, the meanest of necessities. Is that just lip service, or is feeling gratitude for one’s life important to spiritual life?
I don’t think we get to take life for granted, is all I’m trying to say!
1 Like
Thanks fpr your reply - I now have a better understanding of your outlook.
1 Like
There are different forms of slavery to the horrific chattel variety that most people think of. If one joins the Australian Army, for example, one is “owned” by the government for a certain number of years. You can’t just up and leave anytime you feel like it. This system is possibly a remnant of the indentured slavery arrangements that were commonly practised in ancient times.