IceAgeCivilizations, This statement begs to be explained. Please elaborate upon these three things: 1. All people know that there is a Creator. 2. If they don't admit this, they are liars. 3. The credibility of the Bible.
Firstly, not preceeding your opinions with "I think", or "I've of the opinion that" could be deemed as a little disrespectful for the believers on these boards. Athesists claim that Christians can be preachy (and many can), but it works both ways. Tolerence of other's opinions is what matters most. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I find that a lot of criticisms from the Bible just come from a lack of understanding, and this is no exception. I'm not sure why we must expect all sacrifices to be a permanent losses. For example, many people sacrifce things for their career, whether it be friends or family. But once you reach a certain point in your job ambitions, there's really nothing stopping you from getting those things later in life. So, in that regard, some sacrifices aren't permanent. However, in this case, a loss is not what sacrifce implies. You're right; God being omniscient means he knew full well what was going to happen, which makes the crucifixtion that much more incredible. Jesus performed many miracles in his life, so you would think that he could have stopped the crucifixtion if he truly wanted to, but he didn't. He allowed himself to be brutally murdered and that was the sacrifice. Jesus' blood for the salvation of all mankind. God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit... The Trinity, or the three aspects of Himself. Jesus was God incarnate while on this planet. While Jesus is God's only begotten son, they are also one and the same. That's the best I can explain it to anyone who is not willing to open their heart and see what many Christians feel is the truth as the basis to their beliefs. Brainswashing... funny how the Bible is considered by some as "the corruption of man written dogma", while websites also written by man are considered perfectly acceptable. Christians believe that the Bible, while written by man, is the inspired world of God. Unfortunately, that claim cannot be made by man written websites which reek of conspiracy theories more than anything else.
Tolerance, yes. Respect, no. This is the LG epistemology principle isn't it? Working under the assumption that it is either true because it says so, or that some of it is allegory except the ones that are harder to disprove. I have a very good understanding of the nature of the bible and all other religious texts, thank you. All religious and cult teachings are myths borrowed from here and there, adapted and new lies are simply invented. What half truths that exist (such as the existence of Jesus, perhaps) are obviously sexed up so much so that even if the story of Jesus was based on a real person, the Bibles version of this man is invalid, meaning this person didn't exist. Would you be able to keep a straight face for example, if a Scientologist stated that your criticisms of his religion came from a lack of understanding? Motherships pending, your criticisms would be justified. Defiance isn't a new concept. People with some degree of power or fame won't act cowardly so that their ego and reputation remain intact. Also, Jesus never performed any miracles, you dunce. Suddenly Scientology seems very reasonable in comparison... Sigh, I know how you feel. I try the same thing with the celestial teapot, but nobody believes in it because Christianity and Islam are just far more rational.
it would only be Cris's opinion, if it was his subjective belief, but it not, there is no evidence for a jesus person, so I would say he's not being intolerant or preachy when stating facts. how do you think an atheist becomes an atheist, through studing the very thing you say he does'nt understand, could it be, he understands it all to well, surely you would need to be crazy to take it as complete truth. as well as david his other only begotten son, see how stupid this bible is.
ggazoo: if the opinion's are sensible, and dont expect us to believe in there fantasy sky daddies(gods) and magical comfort sons(jesus'es)if they are not trying to put forward such fantasy's as truth, then they are deserved of respect, if however they do expect us to believe in their fantasy's then they are only tolorated, ok.
I respect rational opinions. Why would I respect someones 'opinion' that someone came back to life after 3 days of being dead then go flying off into heaven? How can you possibly respect such nonsense? It's on a par with Jack and his beanstalk.
Jesus never existed, in truth neither did anyone mentioned in the bible. The entire thing is fantasy, and those unable to grasp this concept of STORYTIME are going to eventually die and realize they're so completely stupid it's funny, and then the real god will laugh at them saying "you need to return to earth now because you couldn't find yourself and had to follow a religious ideology".
That would probably be a good idea since 'god' (ie. the people who wrote his lines) tells us to do all sorts of naughty things.
If this god of yours is omnipresent, it can only be stated that this god is everywhere whether you're born once, twice or a thousand times - (ergo: inside of everyone). We should all be thankful to the snake. If it wasn't for him and his courage to go against god, we'd still have no knowledge of right and wrong. We'd still be crawling around not even aware that we were naked. Thankfully the snake stood up against the evil tyrant that would rather we be simple animals and turned us into moral humans. What exactly does the (non) death of a god accomplish? Whoopie do-da, a demi god did a magic trick, lay down for 3 days and then got up and walked around before buggering off back to his castle in the clouds. What has that accomplished exactly? How does that forgive people for sin anymore than farting Hotel California would? What exactly made this god of yours conclude that the only way to remove sin, (sin that he had created as part of man's nature), was for him to do a 3 day suicide of himself? A suicide I hasten to add that would never ever work because, according to the religious, god cannot die. Christianity is nothing but blithering idiocy from start to finish.
Are you being moral if you are acting in a certain way to either: (1) Protect your own skin from reprisal or (2) To win yourself some reward? Rhetorical question, of course this isn't moral. Not in any way whatsoever. And yet, these are the only two reasons that theists ever give us for doing good deeds. Me and my fellow secular humanists/atheists/brights do good deeds because we think that there is an Objective Moral Code that can be approximated, if not mastered. We do good deeds simply because it is better to be good than to be bad. Better for all of humanity. In an objective sense, even. Which is better? It isn't even close. Not only do theists have no monopoly on morality, they aren't even playing the same game. They are evil. Selfish. Cowardly. The opposites of moral-goodness. They need a cookie or a belt in order to behave, while atheists are the adults that understand right from wrong and are grown up enough to choose properly. My guess is that religion, if needed in any moral way, is in existence to help you evil people keep your misdeeds in check. I only wish it did a more proper job. Edit: Snakelord, I really enjoyed your post prior to this one. It is such an entertaining thing to do: phrasing simply the bizarre beliefs of the insane.
There are two distinct possibilities regarding god and morality (pretending that god exists here): 1. There exists an Objective Moral Code outside of god. God is a moral creature and chooses to adopt this moral code as his own. This makes God a good being. 2. There is no Objective Moral Code. The things that God says are good and the things that God says are bad are picked completely at random by god, without him being subject to any higher sense of rightness. If (1) is true (which most sober theists would agree with if they ever stopped to consider these two options), then we don't ever need to discuss God when it comes to morality. It exists outside of him, and we should question our moral senses to understand how God came to know right from wrong, emulating his choices. If (2) is true (this really stinks), then it means that there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is just the following of rules picked arbitrarily by a father-figure who will punish or reward us based on our ability to follow these random rules. In both cases, God has nothing to say about morality. And I do not see how a third case can logically be presented except as a slight modification of these two sets. My objective moral sense comes from my understanding of evolutionary psychology, coupled with empathy. It is a system dubbed the "Moral Sphere" by a philosopher whose name I can't recall right now. Here's how it works: The person that breaks the moral sphere is bad, the person that upholds it is good. And the moral sphere is made up of our own freedom to exist and pursue happiness. The only things that we can do wrong is to impinge on the freedom and happiness of others. This is more often stated in the various guises of the Golden Rule, a version of which every major religion seems to have. Treat others as you would like yourself to be treated. But, not in a selfish sense of reciprocity, but in an empathic sense of knowing what would harm yourself and not wishing harm on others. That is the Objective Moral Truth. The rest is the details of what each society decides is the Moral Sphere of the moment. Those particular actions are what confuse for subjective moral sense, they are nothing of the sort. The Morality comes from how you make other people feel, not what tools you use to effect this feeling.
For those who believe in god, please quit starting wars in the name of your god, quit acting like you want armagedon to happen, quit thinking that you are above others that don't believe as you do, quit posting stupidity if you can't back up your assertions! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Didn't ask anything about God, just your definition of good behaviour and its basis. The objective moral code only works in theory; in practice, people are much more complicated than a simple equation.
Not straping a bomb around myself and killing innocent people in the name of a god, would be a start! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On the right of an individual to exist without the quidance of some ancient text writen by schizoprhenics, and delusional nomads of the desert. Our moral code is not from a god, our moral code is from our drive to survive. However bring religion in to the mix, and different ideals will clash as it has for several milliniums, while the stronger trys to manipulate the weaker to changer their views, or force their idealogy on them. The ideal would be to rid of our religious rhetoric, and realize that we are of the same race, the Human race, get rid of religious bull shit, and you get rid of alot of problems! The other differences will be worked out as we go along!
One is "good" because it is a simple equation. Being "bad" is met with retribution from the group. If you can get away with it, being "bad" is sometimes beneficial. Mostly though, the equation is strongly in favor of being "good", as most humans are.
