Christ the only Son of God walked among us

But clearly they did "know rules". The code of Hammurabi for instance being the earliest known legal code - and the predecessor to jewish and islamic legal systems. So what exactly are you saying? You also seem to imply that they didn't know right or wrong, which is clearly nonsense.

But then I am interested to see what happens. You state that they can't be punished or rewarded, so what exactly happens to these people?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dare not be the mouth of God and speak for Him and say who is personally saved or not. But to generalize, if the man truly believes, I believe he will have good favor with God. I've been on a long, tough journey myself in my life with much sin. But it is that sin that caused me to learn. If I didn't I would still be the little trouble-maker I was in my early days. I learned through mistakes and everyone has to make mistakes to learn, it's all a part of life. But I believe the ones who dare not jump in the fire as much (make trouble) as I did are still just as well off. Maybe they don't look to gamble with their life but yet they don't get the reward of the gamble which is a stronger belief in what is right and what is the wrong path. A man that's been to the deepest depths of the ocean is more well off to help someone drowning in those depths than someone who can barely swim and hasn't pushed their luck testing their skills in the water. The man has been there and is a stronger swimmer for it.

But back on topic, as I tried to elaborate, the man sinned. He learned and who knows, he could've had the intention of blessing others by helping them and rescuing them from the depths of the ocean which otherwise would've lost people who aren't strong enough to swim it and thereby saving another's life. And if he truly had that intention, only him and God know, so it is not for me to judge. Only to have hope that he can help make up for what he did in the past and not judge. By judging, it only makes him think he is not a moral character and he may want to act his part as simple psychology can tell you. It makes him less moral and of course, the judge less moral who doesn't look in the mirror.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if God can make seperate decisions on who can be saved even though they haven't gone through JC then clearly a saving mechanism exists, why then would he create the JC mechanism? In this context Christianity appears redundant and Jesus and the cruci-fiction unnecessary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SnakeLord, I was merely speaking of those who don't know God. The people in the Old Testament, in my belief, if they followed the rules in which they were given, they would be in good favor with God. As mankind has grown, so has the moral structure grown more complex and I believe Jesus was sent to elaborate on the rules. The complexities of human civilization were growing and therefore needed elaborated. Also I don't believe Jesus was perfect so I won't fall for the, "so why did Jesus seem to do this sin, or that sin" question. I believe he was just a man who had a very strong moral conscience but I won't downplay his actions, they were very honorable.

As man grew more reasonable or intelligent, and so that's when, I believe, God gave us the first rules, because we were getting to know better. And as you see, the more civilization grew, the more complex God's rules from the prophets, eg, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, and so on and the less "magical" their stories seemed.

 

So now we flip to the other side of the coin? Because these people would never have heard of a jesus they wouldn't have believed in a jesus and as such aren't going to get favour with god simply because they were born too early. Not to mention of course all those unlucky people that do truly believe, but have picked the wrong god. Oh, the hardship of being a human I guess - not like god could make it easy.

That's called maturing, and generally pretty much everyone goes through it and comes out ok on the other side - whether religious or not, christian or not. These people then that have learnt from their mistakes and become great and wonderful people are still doomed to burn.. for what exactly?

The "sin" is meaningless. As Cris pointed out, some guy can kill people all his life and then on his death bed "mature" into a "true" god believer and he's saved. The sin doesn't mean anything. On the other side you have a guy that has always done right but never believed in sky beings and so he burns. Again, sin or lack of sin becomes utterly irrelevant.

Let's talk statistics.. Right now there are a few billion people that don't believe in the christian god. Add all of those to all the people throughout the ages that have not believed in the christian god and indeed those that lived before the christian god was born. All of them are doomed to burn, whether they sinned or not. It's such an oddity that religious people don't quite understand why the non religious laugh when the religious man calls god "all loving".

There are many forms of 'saving someone's life' and yet the religious frown on the majority of them. Stem cell research for example could save so many lives - and yet those people are judged, and judged harshly by the religious.

 

Yes, I can agree somewhat Cris. I won't even call myself a Christian, I pretty much believe any religion which seems to promote peace through God such as Islam and Judaism also. I don't believe Jesus is the only way to God. But as you can see, religions are more complex as time goes on due to complexity of the civilization. And the more we follow our moral conscience into the details of how we treat our fellow humans, I think the better off we are. Jews don't have many rules to follow apparently so you may think they have it easy but it also means not having many guidelines so it's tough on them in their own right. With Christians there's plenty of rules and even moreso with Islam. The more rules you have to follow, the better your success if you follow most of them but it's also more rules you can wind up breaking. So in essence, having more rules is having more barriers. I don't even believe you have to believe in any of those to be in favor with God but I use them as a moral guidebook for my own self to judge my own actions if they're in accordance to what others think may be right but not without thinking about them and blindly jumping into it.

 

Like I said, I don't believe Jesus is the only way. And I don't like hearing Christians, Muslims, or Jews saying their way is the only way.

God is within. Not in a book. If a man has done right all his life, which no one does, but right for the most part, surely there is something in him guiding him and telling him what is right. I take it as a link to God, a moral conscience. I believe he is still in favor with God. And the man who murders who eventually turns to God, if he has done enough to bless others to counter the wrong he has done, then I can see that God would view him favorably. And perhaps not so much if he is in moral debt when he leaves this earth. To me, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, even wrong-doers believe, but how you live your life. But I believe a good strong belief promotes good, morally strong behaviour. And good behaviour can consequently endorse a belief in something telling us what we are doing is right. If I hurt someone myself such as insulting them, something in me tells me it's not for me to hurt them. I didn't make them. I don't own them. It's not for me to say who is in favor with God, I am not God. They are not mine. It's a feeling about what is right and good for everyone.

It's just my belief that something out there gave us these feelings to protect creation, perhaps the creator. I see basic wrong in harming the planet, others, or other animals when not needed, and it's not just for the good of myself. Something gave us that want to survive and the want for creation to survive. You can call it survival. Yes, but why? To survive. Yes, but why? There is no answer other than knowing we have that instinct in us that come from somewhere somehow that taught us to keep all this creation going.

 

So jesus lied? A minute ago you were telling me how honourable he was, and yet here you're implying the opposite - and indeed, his lies have gone on to deceive billions of people.

 

If you want to put it that bluntly, then yes. If an honorable man has never lied, then there is no honorable man on earth. Perhaps he believed he was the only one or it was misquoted or mistranslated. Everyone has lied and Jesus is no exception. You got to figure even as a child he told a fib and it does say the devil tested him. If Jesus had no sin or desire to, then he couldn't be tested. He was a man. Muhammed also says he is the way. Moses also said the commandments were the way, the law of the time.

I don't percieve him as a deciever. Only a man who wasn't perfect yet had a very strong moral compass. You can even ask if he existed or not, to me, it's still irrelevent. It's the message that is more important, not the messenger.

 

There's a difference between telling your wife you didn't spend the bill money on booze and deceiving billions of people into worship of you for no good reason. Many have tried such a thing and I'm quite certain would not get such a brave defence from you: (Koresh, Hubbard etc).

The message being that the only way to get to god is through him. If he didn't exist someone else has told the grandest of lies, if he did exist but was just a man then he told the grandest of lies. If he did exist and was honest then billions upon billions of people are going to burn for all eternity and the next person that claims god is all loving gets slapped silly.

 

I think if you had kids, SnakeLord, you may see it somewhat different. In the old days, people used to tell fables to kids that taught morals which people don't do so much anymore. Would you call this lying to a kid? Perhaps the bible is just a fable. A story that is taken as being true to a lot of believers over time. And it's obvious to me the contradictions in the bible or quran. We could claim all the figures in the holy texts never existed but what of the morals they teach? To me it's like reading a book and saying, 'Yes, that was a good story. The book does a teach some good lessons on how to live'. I have had my share of word battles with believers also and why I don't think the bible was the perfect word from God since it came from man but is indeed a summation of beliefs that I think are from the God I believe in.

What's scary is not only the believers who believe it word for word or very strongly, enough to hate for it, but also the non-believers who disbelieve very strongly and hate when debating. I can claim to have been on both sides. I am rather adament to those who believe one religion is the only way and all others are going to suffer a terrible aftermath. I would not believe in a God like that and would take just the opposite side of God. I believe in a God whose word is accessible to anyone of any race, creed, sex, intelligence, or any other circumstance.

Maybe I'm not the best one to refute that since I'm no typical believer. Actually, I can't really refute it since it is your opinion. I can just give my own account of how I see it. All I can say is there is no perfect religion. All of them you can find flaws in as you can humans. So you have to use your own map in your head to watch out and make judgement on all scriptures to see which ones you believe are right and which ones aren't. No one says you have to believe every bit of it word for word or none at all. Yes, it may sound dangerous, like giving the keys over to your house. Some people at that request may do something dangerous and say, "Well, I didn't believe that part of the bible so I just ignored it". But it also helps out those that think it's believe it all and every word or none. You just have to be on your gaurd and follow that moral compass and take responsibility for your own beliefs and never be a mindless drone. A man who questions whether his next step or his brother's step is safe is, in my opinion, in good favor with God.

 

Two children, third on way. Be very careful when you make such assumptions. However, in honesty I don't really see the relevance to me having kids and that if jesus said the only way to god is through him, but it's not true - then it's a lie that has deceived several billion people that truly believe/d that the only way to heaven/god is through jesus.

1) Why don't people do it so much anymore? Have they realised honesty is the best policy?

2) I see nothing wrong with story telling, but this is somewhat different given that billions of people believe this story is absolute undeniable truth. If I said to my daughter the only way to become rich and famous was to commit suicide and she believed it without any doubt - then not only would it be an extreme lie on my part, but it would also lead to disaster for her.

A tad to 'picky and choosy' for my liking. Hey look, on page 300 it says love thy neighbour. Fair enough, I can go with that - but then on page 100 it says stone naughty children to death, page 150 says stone prostitutes, fortune tellers, (I agree with that one) and unbelievers to death, on page 200 says to war non believer nations leaving none alive except for the virgin women that become your property, goes on to say that people with long hair are a disgrace, that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men and that it's quite alright to keep slaves.

Morals?

(btw, the page numbers weren't exact page numbers, but were just used to serve the point).

So what do we say of they that follow those morals?

People often confuse Huckleberry Finn as being a child's book. Indeed it is taught in many schools to youngsters. Behind all those things we associate as being for children, lurks prostitutes, conmen, alcoholic fathers, black slavery, religious intolerance etc. It is by no means a children's book. The bible a "good lesson on how to live"? No.

I couldn't agree more.

There's the funny thing though. More often than not, the unbeliever gives the benefit of the doubt, (as I have just done). Someone says "the bible is a good lesson on life", and then the unbeliever like me shows that your statement is by and large worthless. Of the nastiest texts in existence there seems to be a "good lesson on life", but it is utterly irrelevant when that same book describes and advises what the bible does. Love thy neighbour, but stone him to death if he's gay, has long hair, practices fortune telling or is an unbeliever. The 'love thy neighbour' falls into insignificance.

And there is the thing. You could look at just about any religious text in the history of man - and although in each you will find something "good to live by", they are overwhelmingly filled by god telling man to hate others, to kill and destroy, to wage war etc.

When you then go on to mention being in "good favour" with god, that would seemingly be when you follow his rules - not limited to one specific command, but indeed all of them, including killing your homosexual neighbour.

 

Yes, maybe I should've been more careful. I guess if an adult told a story to children knowing it's not true, only believing the morals of the story without telling the kid that all the characters are made up, then it would be wrong. If it was me, I'd rather teach my kids real life than stories. They have enough imagination themselves to come up with their own stories.

I say, let each be judged by his or her own actions. If they follow those rules and annoy/harm someone else, the one who is right will or should prevail through logic. The good thing about these days is the flow of information and truth, and regretfully lots of lies, but there is less hidden. We can weed out what is right and wrong more. The truth will come in words and as it spreads, so will it also, and unfortunately, mutate and be like a sickness to those who are susceptible to it. As what happened to Germany in WWII. The truth mutates to those who spread it around as the truth and their society is so sick and infested with it that they don't see the real truth. Anyhow, I'm just saying it's unfortunate people take the words of truth and mutate them which cause others to doubt it and scorn it.

In any case, in my view, circumstances make the need for more elaborate morals. I don't view the killing of anyone right in this day and age. In fact, if those in the old testament were alive today who made up the stoning rules, I would tell them it's just plain wrong. Morals have evolved just as man's understanding of the universe and human emotion has. I would not condone killing anyone and the God I believe in wouldn't tell me such a thing. As to long hair, you can't take that as literal. Where Jesus grew up, long hair was traditional. It's mainly concerned with one sex not dressing in the others' clothes. And in my beliefs, it is alright for women to teach. Also that it is best for a nation to be ruled by both sexes for it to be more balanced, IMHO. One ruled entirely by the sometimes aggressiveness and unforgiveness of the man will be imbalanced and also if ruled entirely by the more compassionate females. I think there needs to be a balance of mind and sides. To the subject of slaves, I can't speak for the slaves but of course, now, we see it as wrong. But when you are born poor and lucky to be eating in those days, you would be happy to be someone's slave because it meant a steady supplement of food and even care. We tend to think of slavery these days in our luxuries as people getting beat and forced into work. In those days, life was harder. We are pretty much beat and forced into living life and surviving and if we don't we die. Life pretty much works the same way. Any way you look at it, we're a slave to life and we can only make the best of it and survive. A lot of those people had no choice but to do what they can to get by as we do now.

And yes, behind all your words also lies some past things that children shouldn't hear or see, I'm sure, just as mine. That's life. And when speaking to children, we shouldn't let them know these things until they are ready for them. And back then, life was more "in your face", so to speak. It wasn't all dressed up and candy coated as it is now or some people try to make it. We didn't live back then so it's easy to judge and say your book isn't like the teletubbies so it's filled with evil. That's the way life was back then, and of course, it's changed now. You can call Mark Twain evil but it's not for me to judge. It was a mirror of the times.

Also you seem to have me confused with the religious people that promote their religion without thinking if it seems hateful or false. I believe as a whole most holy texts, including the three main ones, but I have my own moral codes. Actions back then that some of the cherished holy figured did would be blatantly detestable to me now. I am a realist and only love the truth, what is right, and not just believe the whole of a book because I side with one or a few scriptures or a few authors, but take it all over my own judgement as we all should. No one should read anything and just assume it is right without thinking about it. In that view, I can side with a lot of atheists, to think before you believe.

I ask you, have you sat down to think of your own religion, or your own moral code? If you are atheist, from what or where do you base your morality? Perhaps we're in the same boat. I have my own moral code and if I find a book or someone that agrees with me on that, I'm not afraid to admit it. I don't look at the bible or quran and say that's what I believe. I have my own beliefs set before I look at it so I'm not duped into being misled or if I find a scripture featuring a certain situation I haven't thought about, I think about it before I believe it.

 

Indeed, and yet to this day there are parents imprinting the belief that jesus is real and the only way to get to heaven and god upon those fragile minds.

Follow what rules? Different cultures have different ideas on what morality is, usp8riot - and indeed different rules.

Who decides what are "words of truth"? Come on, Hitler had a good enough idea - a master human race.. sounds fantastic. What if we then decide that Woody decides those "words of truth". In that instance every homosexual and abortion doctor would be killed as part of decided morality.

But what say do you have in the matter of what is moral or not? I saw that American version of Fear Factor where they had to eat a live spider. I would say that that is just "plain wrong", and yet my sense of what is moral clearly has no bearing on what they considered moral. In essence, no matter what you do is ok, because you're working to your morals - and that is seemingly all that matters unless you state there is a definitive absolute undeniable guide to what is moral and what isn't. If you were then to say that the bible, or some godly written text, is the definitive guide to what is and isn't moral, then once again we come back to stoning naughty children to death.

But the god that you believe in is of your devising, working to your moral system. That woman that stoned her sons to death a few years back was clearly working with another god and another moral system. Who are you to say her system is any worse?

It was a joke?

Women wear jeans, boxer shorts, shorts and many other 'man clothes'. Ok, few men do it vice versa, but what exactly is wrong with it? Please, do explain..

Your beliefs are therefore against the christian god's rules and clearly of no value to a few billion people, (if they claim to follow god's rules).

Twain evil? Hell no, the guy was a genius.

What is right.. to you. It doesn't mean much to someone else.

I don't have one.

Generally survival. As an example: If someone comes near me of my children I would kill them without batting an eyelid. I would see no issue in it at all. To me there is no morality other than morality of the moment. If I am poor and on the street starving, then I will steal to ensure survival without hesitation. If I have "accidentally" spent a months worth of bills on beer then I will lie to the wife to 'ensure my survival'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is no morality in the sense that people try to use it. Murder in one instance is clearly not immoral when faced with murder in another instance etc. I do what I need to do to ensure my survival and the survival of my offspring.

 

I can't expect everyone to agree with my beliefs but I don't think my morality is of my own. To me, a moral decision involves what's best for the survival of all, above my own survival. Even if I may sling a word or two in which may seem an insult to someone, I see it wrong. That seeming insult can not only debunk people's opinion of me therefore thinking less of my beliefs but isn't good for society. Yes, it's a moot subject but I try to look into details so I'm not considered offensive, which sometimes fails but we all do.

But if you hypothetically killed someone for getting near your kid or even hurt them, how would that be good? By fighting for what you think is survival, it does the contrary. It makes you filled with hate and defense and it hurts the other person. Nobody wins. In fact, they may just retaliate and hurt you or your kids just to spite that. It would be an orderless society where even our kids kids wouldn't feel safe. I wouldn't want that. I used to be pretty defensive of my children too but I realize I can't hurt someone else until I have due reason they've hurt my kid and even then it would more than likely be unlawful and I'd rather hope I could tell ask them why and resolve why they're ailing. People cause pain sometimes because they're in pain, mental or physical. I think it would be best to resolve that so as to prevent them from feeling that way or perhaps if they go to jail, to not spread a hateful attitude there. I think attitude is contagious so I think it best to promote a healthy, forgiving attitude that also seeks out to prevent someone doing wrong by helping them when they need or giving them guidance someone to lean on. Yes, I'm not naive, I know not many will take my words seriously and I wouldn't have either when I was younger, I would've seen it as "stupid" or "lame".

To me, the definition of moral is what is good for everyone. So yes, I disagree with yours. I think being part of society means some self sacrifice. I'd like to think I view anyone else's kid just as important as my own. And I think it is for the good of society that we don't see anyone as enemies or shun anyone. My kids are a part of society or will be when they grow up and I don't won't them to live in a hateful, selfish society and I don't want anyone else or their children to suffer the same. There's no such thing as a perfect society but it's good to strive for it but knowing if we screw up, we don't have to be perfect. The old me would rather fight for my own but in doing so, we fight our own later. They become a product of a selfish, hateful society. All this I see as the truth. I don't see relativistic morality. I think it is relative when it needs to be discovered but I believe it's all the same for the same situation. For example, if I were to somehow find myself with a remote tribe who had a very different moral system, it would be different. Yes, I would still hold the same value but the truth to me is the decision which causes more good than harm and to enforce my morality on them would cause more harm on me and their society than good. And also they would see my kind as mean and I would ruin it for the others. I would tell them if they asked most usually, and if they agreed, then it's fine. So in that sense, morality may seem relative to the situation but for any of the same circumstances I believe it is the same.

Well, in these times, it's a little mix and match but with traditional clothes. I don't see much of a problem with it but back then there were very broad lines of men and women's clothes. But for the most part, it really comes down to being least offensive. To not irritating anyone or any culture. And in the sense the society may harm you for being rebellious and it's inspires them to hate you and it causes you to feel sad, angry or more rebellious which isn't good for the soul. I believe in not being offensive to anyone, even in argument. And I take the bible as conveying that in that passage. Even if it may seem the way for the "wusses", it is having the view that the individual is no more important than the whole and not to cause anyone to hate you or have hate in their heart. To take responsibility for not just your actions, but the actions you could cause. You've got every right to disagree but I can't see it any other way for the health of society or the world. It's easy to pretend little decisions don't matter but we're like cells in a body to the world. If most of us go wrong, there can go the world. The planet we destroy can wind up destroying us in the long run just like cancer cells in the body. It's easy to lose track of just how an individual can help change the world with a contagion of word or actions.

 

Use 'the majority', you can hardly cover "all".

It would ensure the survival of my offspring. It gets no better than that.

I don't understand where this has come from. For the sake of it, let's use the example where some guy has broken into the house - and is quite possibly going to kill you and your family. In this instance I personally would kill the guy without hesitation - thus ensuring the survival of my family and I. Ok, I suppose it might "hurt" him, but it in no way fills me with hate and nor does it equate to "nobody winning". He dies, I survive.. survival of the fittest, I win.

Great. Guy is busy gutting your children and the best you can do is cry "why oh why, are you mentally ill? Please sit down and have a cup of tea".

To the point: In this instance murder is clearly the 'right' thing to do, (from a loving fathers perspective at least). Morality changes moment to moment.

You are the ones that strong men feed off of.

You're right. Your morality. Tell you what, define an absolute what is right and what is wrong and we'll work from there. You can't really go on to say what is "good for everyone" without having established what is right and wrong.

Ok. Now, name me one thing that is good for everyone, (in the context of morals).

I'm sorry, how is a man wearing a frilly dress.. "offensive"? What exactly are you saying? Your way is the better way? You're better than he?

Edit: From an earlier post..

You know, it has always struck me as odd as to how fearful the religious are of this being they generally claim is all loving. "I dare not". It reminds me of slaves that think the man with the whip is an asshole. "I dare not tell him that".

What's this being going to do if you do speak for him? Kick your ass? All loving.. pfft.

 

They surely did, a whole load of them christs walked among us.

click


But no one of them was ever born in Nazareth, a town which didn't even exist.

click

And furthermore "he's discipeles are as fiction" as a Jesus from Nazareth.

click

Godless

 

Suppose you were drunk one night, out of your mind, and came stumbling in my house. Should I shoot? I wouldn't be so quick to kill.

Take the same situation as a above. Except suppose your son grew up and he was drunk out of his mind or something and came in my house one night. Should I not hesitate to pull the trigger? I see us all as family and when you do, you're a lot more forgiving of others. There's rarely a matter I see in which killing someone is necessary. I would only shoot to disable if I had to. Who knows, it could be someone who forgot to take their medicine if they are mentally ill.

To me it's what is good for the survival of the majority.

Being nice, considerate, and forgiving. If I'm in a room of atheists and suppose I don't like, would it be good to throw a grenade in the room and jet out the door? If I only care about the survival of me and mine, why should I care? You can obviously see why that attitude is not good for everyone and that the attitude you have can affect negatively on society.

Yes, I'm saying it is better for society. Are you saying your way is better? Just because we have a right to do it doesn't make it right. Would you want your son going around wearing a dress? If so, would it be because it makes him happy? If it makes him happy, does it mean it's right? It doesn't make me happy all the time to hold back my temper but in a society, you have to have some sacrifice or else it's all taking and that's not what a healthy society is all about. Does someone have a right to curse in public? Yes, perhaps, but it doesn't make it right and not something I think is good for kids to hear. Any kind of excessive hate by words or action I wouldn't want my kids to see or hear. It's not a big deal but I don't see it as healthy.

Have you ever had any respect for anyone, such as a friend? Of course you know when you do you don't want to disrespect them. Out of fear of them hurting you? No, not for a real friend. It's out of respect that you don't want to disrespect them.

 

If I seemed intent on ending the life of you and your family, certainly.

Ok, as we're all "family", mind if I come round and bonk your wife?

I already explained that. When you are about to be killed, it's better to kill first and ensure your own survival.

Majority of what?

What I was saying is that morality is morality of the moment. We can certainly be nice, considerate and forgiving, but it doesn't mean much when a guy is busy suffocating your child with a plastic bag. Morality goes out of the window, survival takes over.

You're seemingly confused. I have no issue with being nice and whatever - nor would I go around lobbing grenades at religious folk, (although I've considered it). But when it becomes an issue of survival, morality means nothing.

I didn't say anything, I asked you a question. So now please explain why you think it is wrong for a man to wear a dress.

Why does what I would want have any bearing on my son wants or should do? Further to which, if I now say I'm Scottish, you're offending me and my entire culture - where men do wear 'dresses', (kilts). Of course not all the time, but it is a large part of their culture and you've just labelled it as wrong for no apparent reason.

Not if you justify why it's wrong. If my son was Scottish and wanted to remain true to his culture and wear a dress on occasion, who are you to intrude and tell gim it's wrong or right? Well?

Please, now try to show me how you can compare holding back your temper and a man wearing a dress.

So, what exactly is wrong with swear words?