How moral is a blood sacrifice as a condition for forgiveness? How moral is a conditional salvation based on faith, expecting a conviction in the absence of evidence?
An atheist pontificating about what is moral. That's rich!
No need to pontificate. The bible itself describes what is moral, even while describing its God transgressing these very same principles.....
No need...but you do it anyway and as a relativist no less!
You ignored the part where I pointed out that the bible itself defines morality. The bible itself describes the attributes of Love, and tells us that God is Love. It is there for anyone to see and read, therefore nobody needs to pontificate, only read what is there.
I’m not at all discouraged or threatened or bothered by the one-sided commentary of the atheists. Their religion and the tenets that it embraces are fine with me, and so is their proselytizing.
The original version of Christianity was vigorous. It was stronger than the steel of the Roman Empire and tougher than their nails. Against tremendous odds a small sect of Jesus’ followers defied that empire and asserted that Jesus came to replace the Jewish Temple; and over 2,000 years later, His movement is still going. So I’m not doubtful at all.
But I do think the church needs to be willing to make changes to its approach. Many people nowadays see the version of Christianity that they grew up with is not well-suited for the sociological and scientific realities of the world in which they live. Changing times calls for changing approaches, to accomplish an unchanging mission.
And pounding people over the head with the Bible is no different than a Muslim leader pounding Christians over the head with the Koran. The Koran carries zero weight with Christians, and they don’t see it as authoritative. And at least half of Americans don’t see the Bible as authoritative either. So over half of em’ aren’t gonna be reached by an approach of “the Bible teaches” or “God’s word is clear” or “the Bible says” or anything else along those lines. They’re ineffective approaches to people nowadays.
I see the New Testament…the very words of the original texts…as an inspired collection of manuscripts documenting events that really happened, as opposed to seeing the whole Bible as a spiritual book to live by. And it doesn’t undermine anything about the Bible. It actually underscores the historicity of the events in those New Testament manuscripts. That’s why I have no doubt that Christianity’s foundation are the events that inspired different writers to document insights, conversations, and events…with the pivotal event being Jesus’ resurrection.
And even though nowadays we wouldn’t know of these events had they not been documented, they were documented hundreds of years before ‘the Bible’ ever existed, and it’s the events themselves…not the record of the events…that launched Christianity. Christianity is the reason ‘the Bible’ was created.
The faith of the first-century followers of Jesus is the enduring version of the Christian faith. The one tougher than nails and harder than steel. The one rooted in events, not a book.
What do you think about that? Is there a Bible reference or reason for that answer Tyrone?
Read Matthew 13:1-23. The parable of the seeds that were sown. Only 1/4 of them reached maturity. Pretty good indication of the answer to your question.
What do you think about that? Is there a Bible reference or reason for that answer Tyrone?
Read Matthew 13:1-23. The parable of the seeds that were sown. Only 1/4 of them reached maturity. Pretty good indication of the answer to your question.
I’m not at all discouraged or threatened or bothered by the one-sided commentary of the atheists. Their religion and the tenets that it embraces are fine with me, and so is their proselytizing.
The original version of Christianity was vigorous. It was stronger than the steel of the Roman Empire and tougher than their nails. Against tremendous odds a small sect of Jesus’ followers defied that empire and asserted that Jesus came to replace the Jewish Temple; and over 2,000 years later, His movement is still going. So I’m not doubtful at all.
But I do think the church needs to be willing to make changes to its approach. Many people nowadays see the version of Christianity that they grew up with is not well-suited for the sociological and scientific realities of the world in which they live. Changing times calls for changing approaches, to accomplish an unchanging mission.
And pounding people over the head with the Bible is no different than a Muslim leader pounding Christians over the head with the Koran. The Koran carries zero weight with Christians, and they don’t see it as authoritative. And at least half of Americans don’t see the Bible as authoritative either. So over half of em’ aren’t gonna be reached by an approach of “the Bible teaches” or “God’s word is clear” or “the Bible says” or anything else along those lines. They’re ineffective approaches to people nowadays.
I see the New Testament…the very words of the original texts…as an inspired collection of manuscripts documenting events that really happened, as opposed to seeing the whole Bible as a spiritual book to live by. And it doesn’t undermine anything about the Bible. It actually underscores the historicity of the events in those New Testament manuscripts. That’s why I have no doubt that Christianity’s foundation are the events that inspired different writers to document insights, conversations, and events…with the pivotal event being Jesus’ resurrection.
And even though nowadays we wouldn’t know of these events had they not been documented, they were documented hundreds of years before ‘the Bible’ ever existed, and it’s the events themselves…not the record of the events…that launched Christianity. Christianity is the reason ‘the Bible’ was created.
The faith of the first-century followers of Jesus is the enduring version of the Christian faith. The one tougher than nails and harder than steel. The one rooted in events, not a book.
An absence or lack of religion is not a religion. You, yourself reject all religions, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, etc, except your own. Does rejecting all other religions make you religious?
Atheism is not simply disbelief in God. Atheism is most definitely a belief system, just as Christianity is a belief system. Atheism embraces its own tenets, just as Christianity embraces its own tenets.
Atheism is not simply disbelief in God. Atheism is most definitely a belief system, just as Christianity is a belief system. Atheism embraces its own tenets, just as Christianity embraces its own tenets.
If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair colour. An absence of conviction is certainly not a religion. We can lack conviction in any number of things, politics, ideologies, etc....Which doesn't make our lack of conviction a religion.
Your claim is patently absurd.
Are you religious because you are not convinced in the reality of Allah or Brahman?
Believer's mindsets are clouded by delusion - delusion being defined as persistent false belief that does not change despite evidence to the contrary, or seeing evidence for that belief that isn't actually there. And for some reason they think everybody else's mind works the same way, but they have ignore or deny facts to make it line up properly. Faith has been an acceptable form of delusion for some time now - delusion is not otherwise considered a good trait.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Some people think it’s delusional to believe that there is no God. It’s delusional to believe that the world (including humans) is nothing more than biology, chemistry, and physics. Some people think it’s delusional to believe that we don’t have a body, we are a body. It’s delusional to believe that there’s no free will. Some people thinks it’s delusional to believe that everything about the human experience is determined. It’s delusional to believe in determinism. Some people think it’s delusional to believe that something came from nothing. It’s delusional to believe that first life emerged from no life with no help.
But it’s OK with me what others choose to believe (atheists included). Why does it bother you so much that others choose to believe what they do…? Why does it bother you so much…really…?
As far as Christianity goes, the approach that resonates with me isn’t new at all. It’s modeled on the teaching of the earliest Christian evangelists…the ones who, against all adds…turned the world upside down and fired Jesus’ movement so that it garnered the attention…and ultimately…the participation of the pagan world both inside and outside the Roman Empire.
Believer's mindsets are clouded by delusion - delusion being defined as persistent false belief that does not change despite evidence to the contrary.…
Let’s see this “evidence” that God doesn’t exist…? Let’s see this “evidence” that Jesus didn’t exist…? Let’s see this “evidence” that Jesus wasn’t resurrected…?
If the one true God being banned from a nation is good I wonder when we'll start seeing the fruits of it improving our society? I always see a hint of that desire in any thread that comes up on here concerning God and the Bible. So if you have a desire to see even more of throwing God out of our nation please explain to me when we'll start seeing the good in this.
Given that there are nearly 8 billion people are on the planet, I’m going to say 4 billion of them aren’t honest Christians, or any one particular religion. Therefore, whoever has the religion thing figured out, the answer is no.
Damn, Lope!
You were quick on the draw with that one. And poignant too! Lol.
Maybe we need to send Camper a copy of that movie for him to watch.
Believer's mindsets are clouded by delusion - delusion being defined as persistent false belief that does not change despite evidence to the contrary.…
Let’s see this “evidence” that God doesn’t exist…? Let’s see this “evidence” that Jesus didn’t exist…? Let’s see this “evidence” that Jesus wasn’t resurrected…?
You should know about absence of evidence by now. The nature of justification has been explained enough times. If there is no evidence for the existence of a Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, etc, there is no reason to be convinced that any version of God exists. There are as many versions of God as there are believers in God.