NationStates Jolt Archive

An Atheist and a Born-again Christian stand at the gates of heaven after a fatal car crash. God appears, and speaks first to the Atheist.
"Well, my son, it seems we have drifted apart from each other in recent years."
The Atheist looks down. "I was wrong, it seems. I didn't believe in you, and now it's obvious that you exist."
God smiled. "Perhaps with your mind you rejected me, but in your heart you knew me, just as you did my work by your hand. You have been a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin. So tell me, though my message was too diluted and my messengers were insufficient to convince you of the truth in your mortal life, do you accept now your flaws, that you are unworthy of heaven?"
The Atheist looked up. "Now that I've seen you, and know what perfection is, yes. I am not worthy. I could never be."
"And do you accept that I have died as penance for your sins?"
"Yes. And God..."
"yes, my child?"
A tear ran down the former Atheist's cheek. "I'm sorry."
God smiled. "It is forgiven. and with that he threw open the gates.
Crying tears of joy, the former Atheist walked towards them.
"Stop!" Shouted the Born-again Christian. "What do you think is going on here? He said that he didn't believe in you, and the bible says that those who don't believe burn in a lake of fire for eternity! Why isn't he burning in Hell!"
Slowly, God turned his face to the Born Again, and the look upon it made his jaw snap shut with an audible click.
"As for you, child, have you kept faith?" God's voice was cold, for he already knew the answer.
The Born Again scoffed. "Of course I did. I've been a faithful follower ever since I was a child."
God's face grew grim. "No, you have not. You have spoken my name reverently at dinner and at church, but in your every thought and deed you have rejected me. As a boy you gathered a gang of children to taunt, harass, and harm another child, driving him eventually to drug use. In your work you have exploited desperate people, and naive people, taking the fruit of their labor for them in unfair trades. You have disowned your son for loving another man, and disowned your daughter for marrying a black man. You have been a part of the wall of hate and misunderstanding that drives many of my children to suicide. You have contempt for those less fortunate than you. It is not your place to judge, only mine, and all disputes are between me and the sinner, but you have enacted judgment of your fellow humans all through your life. This man" God gestured to the reformed Atheist. "Had but drifted from me. You have left me. Now, the gates stand before you. Do you accept that you are no better than this man, than your son, than your daughter, or than any man woman or child on the earth, in my eyes, and that all are deserving of kindness and respect?"
God had no hope in his voice as he asked this.
The Born again Christian answered "Those people are sinner. I've been saved."
God's face lost none of it's resolve, though a single tear ran down his perfect cheek. "I'm sorry" he said.
He turned to the Atheist and brought him through the gates. The other man tried to follow, but the gates slammed shut, and then disappeared. The man was left completely alone, even by God.

So what is it you want us to debate/talk about?

Nice first post, welcome to the forum.

Oh, and congratulations on not using any annoying gun smilies, far too many people do so on their first post.:)

So what is it you want us to debate/talk about?
I dunno, the relevance of what I wrote, maybe? Critisism, condemnation, praise, agreement, disagreement, resons behind such. Also because I see a lot of christians using parables and I just felt like writing what I felt was a better one. (The last one I read ended with Jesus saying "We have a shelter for people like you, and that place is called Hell" And I think that's funney because I never pictured Jesus as being an asshole.)

Anyway...

An Atheist and a Born-again Christian stand at the gates of heaven after a fatal car crash. God appears, and speaks first to the Atheist.
Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?

Not quite. More like "God favors those who respect their fellow human beings, though they were wrong, over those who have contempt for their neighbors, though they may have been right. It also means that the Atheist had actually accepted God without realizing it, while the Born Again Christian had rejected God and instead worshipped at the alter of his own ego.

You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down.
Wherein did the Atheist "disobey all of God's laws, all of Mans Laws, be a complete and unforgiving Asshole to God and Man"

Cause in the story he was "a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin."

And the Born Again Christian was a "Complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man" and was cast from God's sight, living in what my interpretation of hell would be.

Did you read all of the story? I don't see how you came to these conclusions about it's moral.

Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?

no i think the point he was trying to make is that obeying god's laws is more important than faith alone.


and really, the title may say for christians and nonchristians but i think its really just for christians since nonchristians would have no interest in getting into a heaven they dont believe exists.

Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?
Even if we take that story to be gospel it does not make that point. It only says that god cares more about love and humility than about pure faith. Which is consistent with the bible. ("There is more joy ... over one sinner who [repents] than over ten rightous", "Even the demons believe...")

Not quite. More like "God favors those who respect their fellow human beings, though they were wrong, over those who have contempt for their neighbors, though they may have been right. It also means that the Atheist had actually accepted God without realizing it, while the Born Again Christian had rejected God and instead worshipped at the alter of his own ego.


Wherein did the Atheist "disobey all of God's laws, all of Mans Laws, be a complete and unforgiving Asshole to God and Man"

Cause in the story he was "a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin."

And the Born Again Christian was a "Complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man" and was cast from God's sight, living in what my interpretation of hell would be.

Did you read all of the story? I don't see how you came to these conclusions about it's moral.this one line.
The Atheist looks down. "I was wrong, it seems. I didn't believe in you, and now it's obvious that you exist."
he "Found" God after he died. thus he broke one of the important tenants. "The Way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ."

Not aruging about the born again Christian. but to say that when you stand before God and his Book, all you say is "Sorry, I now know you exist and thus will believe in you." and you will enter Heaven is against one of the conditions that God has said is the only way into heaven. By the time you stand before God, it's too late.

the Thieves who were Crusified with Jesus were, In My opinion, Saved because they did accept Jesus and God as their savior with an honest and open heart... even as they laid dying upon the Cross.

Even if we take that story to be gospel it does not make that point. It only says that god cares more about love and humility than about pure faith. Which is consistent with the bible. ("There is more joy ... over one sinner who [repents] than over ten rightous", "Even the demons believe...")
the key word there is REPENTS. that means he found God before he stood before God.


no i think the point he was trying to make is that obeying god's laws is more important than faith alone.


and really, the title may say for christians and nonchristians but i think its really just for christians since nonchristians would have no interest in getting into a heaven they dont believe exists.and isn't having faith in God, one of GOD'S LAWS?

Granted it isn't the only thing, but it is one of the important ones.

"I am the Way, The Truth, and the Light. No man may enter Heaven except through Me."

the key word there is REPENTS. that means he found God before he stood before God.

I can understand that repentance is important in that verse (I wasn't implying that god viewed sinners for smut), but is there any contradiction in saying that somebody repents after the judge has read the law to them? The "atheist" in the story was after all regretting not having believed without evidence, ie he was realising and regretting his sin.

he "Found" God after he died. thus he broke one of the important tenants. "The Way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ."

Not aruging about the born again Christian. but to say that when you stand before God and his Book, all you say is "Sorry, I now know you exist and thus will believe in you." and you will enter Heaven is against one of the conditions that God has said is the only way into heaven. By the time you stand before God, it's too late.

the Thieves who were Crusified with Jesus were, In My opinion, Saved because they did accept Jesus and God as their savior with an honest and open heart... even as they laid dying upon the Cross.
This attitude is really the whole point of my story. In the story, God is giving a last chance for acceptance and forgiveness to two sinners who did not see the light. In order to be admitted to heaven, both had to be humble enough to see truth. The Atheist accepted that he was equal to all people, that he was a sinner, and that he was saved only by god.

Really, this seems the only salvation model that fits with my ideas of morals. I don't see god sitting on his chair saying "well, no one managed to convince him before he died. I guess that's too bad."

And furthermore, God says that the Atheist has always believed in him with his heart.

I'd like to bring up that to me, all people must be a part of God, and therefore to disrespect, or reject, a person is to reject God.

As nice an idea this parable is, it's laughably inconsistent with the bible. I dont think you're talking about the same God.

the key word there is REPENTS. that means he found God before he stood before God.


and isn't having faith in God, one of GOD'S LAWS?

Granted it isn't the only thing, but it is one of the important ones.

"I am the Way, The Truth, and the Light. No man may enter Heaven except through Me."
in the parable he DID enter heaven "through me"

no one keeps all god's laws. the parable is about what laws are more important. it contends that good works are more important than faith alone.

Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?
Actually, the asshole in that story was clearly the born again. I'm not really sure how you missed that.

I'd like to bring up that to me, all people must be a part of God, and therefore to disrespect, or reject, a person is to reject God.
That one is interesting. And Jesus does say that doing something to a "smallest" human counts on the judgement day like doing it to him. That fits with what you say.

EDIT: And he also tells a story about a priest and a taxman who show similar attitudes, and concludes that the sinner who asks forgiveness is better in the eyes of god than the selfrighteous man who thinks he is better than others.

This attitude is really the whole point of my story. In the story, God is giving a last chance for acceptance and forgiveness to two sinners who did not see the light. In order to be admitted to heaven, both had to be humble enough to see truth. The Atheist accepted that he was equal to all people, that he was a sinner, and that he was saved only by god.

Really, this seems the only salvation model that fits with my ideas of morals. I don't see god sitting on his chair saying "well, no one managed to convince him before he died. I guess that's too bad."

And furthermore, God says that the Atheist has always believed in him with his heart.

I'd like to bring up that to me, all people must be a part of God, and therefore to disrespect, or reject, a person is to reject God.I can't speak for all Athiest, but if The Athiest "Belived in him in his heart" then he's not an Athiest.

Agnostic maybe, or perhaps a "Lost Sheep." but still you have him "Finding God" after the Athiest Died. In order to have God in your Heart, then You have to Accept him as your Savior before you stand before him. that would make your Athiest in the story, a Believer and one of the Faithful. Not an Athiest.

I can't speak for all Athiest, but if The Athiest "Belived in him in his heart" then he's not an Athiest.

Agnostic maybe, or perhaps a "Lost Sheep." but still you have him "Finding God" after the Athiest Died. In order to have God in your Heart, then You have to Accept him as your Savior before you stand before him. that would make your Athiest in the story, a Believer and one of the Faithful. Not an Athiest.
Or perhaps we need to accept that behaving in a moral manner need not be dependant on whether we accept a God or not. The one who accepted God was immoral. The one who did not accept God was moral. What is more imporatant? A lifetime of good actions or a lifetime of vice and cruelty, with the 'get out of jail free card' of claiming yourself to be a Christian?

Or perhaps we need to accept that behaving in a moral manner need not be dependant on whether we accept a God or not. The one who accepted God was immoral. The one who did not accept God was moral. What is more imporatant? A lifetime of good actions or a lifetime of vice and cruelty, with the 'get out of jail free card' of claiming yourself to be a Christian?
In terms of morality that most would accept, the good actions are superior to believing in God. If, however, you were to, say, read the bible, you would realise that this is the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that it doesnt matter what you do so long as you repent and believe in God. This parable is saying that it doesnt matter if you repent and believe in God so long as your actions are good.

In terms of morality that most would accept, the good actions are superior to believing in God. If, however, you were to, say, read the bible, you would realise that this is the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that it doesnt matter what you do so long as you repent and believe in God. This parable is saying that it doesnt matter if you repent and believe in God so long as your actions are good.
I'm going to bow out. I can't stand religious discussions and I shouldn't have been drawin in to this in the first place:D

or indeed that god can decide who he lets into heaven. its up to him, not us. if he doesnt want a self stasified prig who "has accepted jesus christ as his personal lord and savior" and instead takes a nice guy who never believed at all, thats his business. we are his servants, he isnt ours.

Not quite. More like "God favors those who respect their fellow human beings, though they were wrong, over those who have contempt for their neighbors, though they may have been right. It also means that the Atheist had actually accepted God without realizing it, while the Born Again Christian had rejected God and instead worshipped at the alter of his own ego.


The Bible has exactly the same story in it. The Tax collecter and the pharase. Except yours has several flaws.

One - The Athiest would not be saved on the merit of a confession AFTER he dies. If he ignored God in word and dead his entire life then he would not be saved

Two - Your implying (you may not intend to but you are) that Christians are defined by their own procaliamtion. They arnt. Christians are defined by God. We can say we are Christians, but that doesnt make us them. Christians are Christians because they have done three things
1) Accepted they are sinners and apoligiesed sincerely to God for what they have done
2) Ask God to forgive them through Jesus's death on the cross
3) Attempt to live the life that Jesus has laid out for them
Only God can be a judge of whether we have done those things

Three - It implies that people can be saved through works. The Bible states that that is impossible. We would have to be without sin to work our way into heaven

in the parable he DID enter heaven "through me"

no one keeps all god's laws. the parable is about what laws are more important. it contends that good works are more important than faith alone.
if you read the Parable presented, he has the Athiest (someone who does not believe in a Higher being) standing before God. If the Athiest did and truly believe in God "In his Heart" then he wasn't an Athiest.

if he was an Athiest, then he did not accept Jesus and God as his savior. thus he didn't belive in God and did not hold faith.

Or do you agree that Faith is not needed at all.

or indeed that god can decide who he lets into heaven. its up to him, not us. if he doesnt want a self stasified prig who "has accepted jesus christ as his personal lord and savior" and instead takes a nice guy who never believed at all, thats his business. we are his servants, he isnt ours.
You are assuming that God shares your moral code. Read the bible and you will realise that he does not.

In terms of morality that most would accept, the good actions are superior to believing in God. If, however, you were to, say, read the bible, you would realise that this is the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that it doesnt matter what you do so long as you repent and believe in God. This parable is saying that it doesnt matter if you repent and believe in God so long as your actions are good.

except for deathbed conversions the bible makes it clear that you are expected to behave in a certain manner in order to actually get into heaven.

as far as i can see, god woulda bounced both of them.

In terms of morality that most would accept, the good actions are superior to believing in God. If, however, you were to, say, read the bible, you would realise that this is the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that it doesnt matter what you do so long as you repent and believe in God. This parable is saying that it doesnt matter if you repent and believe in God so long as your actions are good.

Thats completely wrong

Have you read James. He talks about there how you cannot just believe in God. The Devil believes in God. That alone isn't enough. If you believe in God, that he is is the creator of the universe, the most powerful and amazing being in the universe (In short everything the Bible says about him) and that he loves you like his own child, then the logical next step is to obey his commands if you truely love him back. Belief has consequences. If you believe for example that socialism is a better ideology than conservatism then you wont complain when you may have a higher tax rate in your country.

if you read the Parable presented, he has the Athiest (someone who does not believe in a Higher being) standing before God. If the Athiest did and truly believe in God "In his Heart" then he wasn't an Athiest.

if he was an Athiest, then he did not accept Jesus and God as his savior. thus he didn't belive in God and did not hold faith.

Or do you agree that Faith is not needed at all.
He was an atheist before he died, but changed when he saw god. At least that's how I read the story. Otherwise the term "former atheist" wouldn't fit.

technically... if the "Born Again Christian" did live a life of Immorality and cruelty without repent nor desire to better him/herself. Then he/she is as guilty as the Athiest who does great and wonderful things but never accepted Jesus and God into his heart.
I could never accept a belief system that puts 'accepting God' on equal footing with leading a good life.

I could never accept a belief system that puts 'accepting God' on equal footing with leading a good life.

In Christianity, leading a good life is a logical consequence of accepting God. The two are not seperate.

You are assuming that God shares your moral code. Read the bible and you will realise that he does not.
you are assuming that god is both bound by the bible and by your interpretation of it.

except for deathbed conversions the bible makes it clear that you are expected to behave in a certain manner in order to actually get into heaven.

as far as i can see, god woulda bounced both of them.
and that Deathbed Conversion has to be Honest, not a "well, since I am dying anyway..."

And I agree with the last line. both should've been bounced.

In Christianity, leading a good life is a logical consequence of accepting God. The two are not seperate.
And as an atheist, leading a good life is a logical consequence of believing that's the right thing to do. But logical consequence or not...there are plenty of people who accept god that do not lead good lives.

Thats completely wrong

Have you read James. He talks about there how you cannot just believe in God. The Devil believes in God. That alone isn't enough.
The Devil is not a man, he is a fallen angel, so the analogy is irrelevent. The Devil obviously believed in God as he was God's right hand man (so to speak) before he offended Him and had conversed with Him on many occassions. Have you read the bit of Revelations where God explains how non-believers will be burnt alive for eternity in a boiling lake of sulphur?

If you believe in God, that he is is the creator of the universe, the most powerful and amazing being in the universe (In short everything the Bible says about him) and that he loves you like his own child, then the logical next step is to obey his commands if you truely love him back. Belief has consequences. If you believe for example that socialism is a better ideology than conservatism then you wont complain when you may have a higher tax rate in your country.
It doesnt matter if you dont obey his commandments so long as you repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. There would probably have been problems with someone who continually breached the commandments and whose requests for forgiveness were insincere, as did the believer in the parable, I would agree, but that does not change the fact that the person who did not believe in God would not have been granted entry to heaven. JuNii is correct.

luke 16: 19-31
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

And as an atheist, leading a good life is a logical consequence of believing that's the right thing to do. But logical consequence or not...there are plenty of people who accept god that do not lead good lives.

Indeed, but they themselves are not properly leading the Christian life, as ascribed in the Bible. The diffrence however is whether they are repentent and actually trying, and whether they are strugling against the sinful nature that the Bible talks about but loosing the struggle

He was an atheist before he died, but changed when he saw god. At least that's how I read the story. Otherwise the term "former atheist" wouldn't fit.
which is my problem with the first post.

to stand before God and say "ok, now that I can see you, I will now believe in you" and that makes it ok is wrong.

also the fact that he didn't believe in God yet had God in his heart? that's a contradiction. To have God in your Heart is to invite HIM in. To Invite HIM in, you must believe. thus not an Athiest.

which is my problem with the first post.

to stand before God and say "ok, now that I can see you, I will now believe in you" and that makes it ok is wrong.

also the fact that he didn't believe in God yet had God in his heart? that's a contradiction. To have God in your Heart is to invite HIM in. To Invite HIM in, you must believe. thus not an Athiest.
I saw that line of having God in his heart meant that he had good in his heart. Not necessarily that he subconciously believed in God. Is your Christian God so jealous and attention hungry that he would seriously consider an evil heart (who had accepted him) and a good heart (who had rejected him) as equal?

The Devil is not a man, he is a fallen angel, so the analogy is irrelevent. The Devil obviously believed in God as he was God's right hand man (so to speak) before he offended Him and had conversed with Him on many occassions. Have you read the bit of Revelations where God explains how non-believers will be burnt alive for eternity in a boiling lake of sulphur?

Thats my point. Belief in God is not enough. I believe that cars exist. That doesnt mean I can legally drive one (yet).


It doesnt matter if you dont obey his commandments so long as you repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. There would probably have been problems with someone who continually breached the commandments and whose requests for forgiveness were insincere, as did the believer in the parable, I would agree, but that does not change the fact that the person who did not believe in God would not have been granted entry to heaven. JuNii is correct.

I agree that someone who doesnt obey God can ultimately be saved. But God can judge people much better than we can. If somone is sincerely trying to lead the Christian life but failing, that is diffrent from someone who professes to be a Christian, but that belief has no affect on their life. To be a Christian, the belief in the truth of the Bible must affect your life and shape it to some extent towards the way that the Bible says it should be shaped

The Devil is not a man, he is a fallen angel, so the analogy is irrelevent.
James uses it as an analogy to show that faith is not enough to save you. Faith doesn't count unless you at least try to do some other things (ask some christian what).


which is my problem with the first post.

to stand before God and say "ok, now that I can see you, I will now believe in you" and that makes it ok is wrong.

also the fact that he didn't believe in God yet had God in his heart? that's a contradiction. To have God in your Heart is to invite HIM in. To Invite HIM in, you must believe. thus not an Athiest.
As I read the story, the point is that he regrets his rational thinking (in addition to believing when the judgement is passed and having done good deeds before).

And as an atheist, leading a good life is a logical consequence of believing that's the right thing to do.

Why do good? Because its good. Why is it good? Because it is.

Thats circular logic. C.S.Lewis explored this himself in "Mere Christianity" if you look at selfishness for instance. He offered the question "Why be selfless". The answer is normally that it benefits other people. But benefiting other people is just what being selfless means. So it comes down to "Be selfless becasuse you should be selfless. Why be selfless? Because you should. Why should you? Because you should" Its circular. I'm not advocating being selfish, I'm just showing you the reason why the idea of leading a good life because "Its the right thing to do" doesnt make sense.

Why do good? Because its good. Why is it good? Because it is. It makes just as much sense as 'be good because some imaginary person in the sky says you should'. I'm sorry, but the Bible did not corner the market on 'what is good'. You can be good without ever reading it. And you can be a disgusting and cruel human even if you do read it. I'm not particularly confused about my life, or my actions, or whether I do good or not. Yet I reject religion, I reject the notion of a higher power, and I reject the Bible as anything but an interesting story.

Why do good? Because its good. Why is it good? Because it is.

Thats circular logic. C.S.Lewis explored this himself in "Mere Christianity" if you look at selfishness for instance. He offered the question "Why be selfless". The answer is normally that it benefits other people. But benefiting other people is just what being selfless means. So it comes down to "Be selfless becasuse you should be selfless. Why be selfless? Because you should. Why should you? Because you should" Its circular. I'm not advocating being selfish, I'm just showing you the reason why the idea of leading a good life because "Its the right thing to do" doesnt make sense.
I guess you have left the original story now.

You should do good things because they are good. It sounds circular only because it is so obvious.

Not being able to do the right thing unless you are threatened with hell just means that you lack moral fibre and are as bad as a comletely amoral person.

I guess you have left the original story now.

You should do good things because they are good. It sounds circular only because it is so obvious.

Not being able to do the right thing unless you are threatened with hell just means that you lack moral fibre and are as bad as a comletely amoral person.
Immoral. Amoral means neither good nor bad.

James uses it as an analogy to show that faith is not enough to save you. Faith doesn't count unless you at least try to do some other things (ask some christian what).Faith isn't the only thing but it is still one of the things needed.

As I read the story, the point is that he regrets his rational thinking (in addition to believing when the judgement is passed and having done good deeds before).and regret them he should/can, but the fact that he found God only when he stood in HIS presence shouldn't make the difference. Had he found God before he stood before HIM, would be acceptable. but to say Ok, now that I can see you, I'll now believe in you" is not faith.

I saw that line of having God in his heart meant that he had good in his heart. Not necessarily that he subconciously believed in God. Is your Christian God so jealous and attention hungry that he would seriously consider an evil heart (who had accepted him) and a good heart (who had rejected him) as equal?
HE set the conditions. HE will abide by them.

and yes, the Hypocrit (the evil heart who proclaims him/herself a Christian) and the heart of an Unbeliever would be the same to HIM. they are both hearts closed to HIM.

Why do good? Because its good. Why is it good? Because it is.

Thats circular logic. C.S.Lewis explored this himself in "Mere Christianity" if you look at selfishness for instance. He offered the question "Why be selfless". The answer is normally that it benefits other people. But benefiting other people is just what being selfless means. So it comes down to "Be selfless becasuse you should be selfless. Why be selfless? Because you should. Why should you? Because you should" Its circular. I'm not advocating being selfish, I'm just showing you the reason why the idea of leading a good life because "Its the right thing to do" doesnt make sense.
you mean you should only be selfless if you would NEVER think it was a good idea if god didnt command you to do such an counterintuitive thing?

sometimes cs lewis is such an ass.

Immoral. Amoral means neither good nor bad.
I meant amoral, as in lacking morals, if he does any good that's just coincidence.

A few points I'd like to make.
1: The Atheist did not ascend to heaven because of his works. God just cited his works as evidence.
2: When God says that the Atheist believes in him in his heart, he basically equates that with being a good person. The Atheist affectively did what he did because in his heart he believed in God, even if in his mind he did not.
3: God offered Salvation to both parties, but the Born Again could not accept it because of his contempt for his fellow human beings.
4: God knew that the Atheist would have been a Christian had he met a convincing enough messenger.
5: God does not sit on his throne and play a cosmic guessing game. It is not "Is the one true god behind this door, or that one?" Here God reveals the truth to those who die, and those willing to accept it go to heaven.
6: The Atheist does not just say "I'm sorry" and get in. He regretted his sins, asked for salvation, and accepted that all people are equal in the eyes of God, and that he was unworthy of heaven. That is not an easy thing to do. God accepts repentance whether it is five seconds before you die, or five seconds after.

HE set the conditions. HE will abide by them.

and yes, the Hypocrit (the evil heart who proclaims him/herself a Christian) and the heart of an Unbeliever would be the same to HIM. they are both hearts closed to HIM.
So your actions only matter if you are a Christian? If the atheist was a terrible person, he'd have gotten the boot just the same as if he'd been good? Bah. Why bother. Gods. :rolleyes:

Faith isn't the only thing but it is still one of the things needed.
Yes. That passage would just show why the christian in the original story failed.

and regret them he should/can, but the fact that he found God only when he stood in HIS presence shouldn't make the difference. Had he found God before he stood before HIM, would be acceptable. but to say Ok, now that I can see you, I'll now believe in you" is not faith.
Now you use your morals to set up additional criteria. Where in the bible or the top post do you find support for that?

and yes, the Hypocrit (the evil heart who proclaims him/herself a Christian) and the heart of an Unbeliever would be the same to HIM. they are both hearts closed to HIM.
Maybe not hypocrit. Maybe just not the right faith (misunderstood christianity) and refused to repent even when he stood before god.

Allright, I'll bite.

You can believe whatever made up hogwash you want, but according to the Bible, the only way to heaven is through Jesus, and I'm assuming it is the one God of the Christian Bible in the story, no?

With the athiest in the story, it doesn't matter how "good" you are in life. Even Mother Teresa, like all of us, deserved to burn in hell. Again, according the Bible. Nothing you do on earth can possibly compare to the perfection of God.

As for the Christian in the story, he was wrong about his daughter's marriage, making fun of people, etc. Didn't sound very Christian at all, did he?

Wait, a story in which the Christians are hypocrites?! Well I'll be! Never seen that before! :rolleyes:
People like the one who came up with the story (christians = hypocrites types) always set up this straw man image of them and easily knocks it down.

A few points I'd like to make.
1: The Atheist did not ascend to heaven because of his works. God just cited his works as evidence.accepted and not argued by me.
2: When God says that the Atheist believes in him in his heart, he basically equates that with being a good person. The Atheist affectively did what he did because in his heart he believed in God, even if in his mind he did not. God needs to be invited into your heart. thus if God is in the athiest heart, then he wasn't an Athiest. he had faith.
3: God offered Salvation to both parties, but the Born Again could not accept it because of his contempt for his fellow human beings. accepted and not argued
4: God knew that the Atheist would have been a Christian had he met a convincing enough messenger. if the Athiest didn't believe in GOD, then he did not have faith, thus GOD really wasn't in the Athiest's Heart.
5: God does not sit on his throne and play a cosmic guessing game. It is not "Is the one true god behind this door, or that one?" Here God reveals the truth to those who die,Correct. the Devil mucks up the waters and makes it hard to hold faith. and those willing to accept it go to heaven. wrong,
luke 16: 19-31
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "the Rich man was shown the Truth, he accepted it but was still punnished.

6: The Atheist does not just say "I'm sorry" and get in. He regretted his sins, asked for salvation, and accepted that all people are equal in the eyes of God, and that he was unworthy of heaven. That is not an easy thing to do. God accepts repentance whether it is five seconds before you die, or five seconds after.so did the rich man. the point is that both did so after they died.

Can you show me where it says that God will accept your repentance after you leave the mortal coil?

Seems to be a Catholic vs. Protestant thing. Catholics believe that one should carry out God's work on earth, but Protestants tend to believe that only faith is necessary. It could be an interesting theological debate.

The born again is not all christians. The Atheist is not all Atheists. The only part of the story that's not entirely biblical, (though not refuted in the bible explicitly) is God giving both parties a last chance to repent.

And since God effectively is Jesus, that's how the Atheist went to heaven, through Jesus, since God said "And do you accept that I have died as penance for your sins?" This is a reference to Jesus dying on the cross.

So it's not God looking at works, or making an acception, it's him giving one last chance to truly repent.

A few points I'd like to make.
1: The Atheist did not ascend to heaven because of his works. God just cited his works as evidence.
2: When God says that the Atheist believes in him in his heart, he basically equates that with being a good person. The Atheist affectively did what he did because in his heart he believed in God, even if in his mind he did not.
3: God offered Salvation to both parties, but the Born Again could not accept it because of his contempt for his fellow human beings.
4: God knew that the Atheist would have been a Christian had he met a convincing enough messenger.
5: God does not sit on his throne and play a cosmic guessing game. It is not "Is the one true god behind this door, or that one?" Here God reveals the truth to those who die, and those willing to accept it go to heaven.
6: The Atheist does not just say "I'm sorry" and get in. He regretted his sins, asked for salvation, and accepted that all people are equal in the eyes of God, and that he was unworthy of heaven. That is not an easy thing to do. God accepts repentance whether it is five seconds before you die, or five seconds after.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/175/249/1600/orly.jpg

The bolded parts, you just pulled out of your arse. If it makes sense to me, it must make sense to God too! Who needs the bible if I got my own mind?

People like the one who came up with the story (christians = hypocrites types) always set up this straw man image of them and easily knocks it down.
Yes, because Christians could never be hypocrites? Everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof is capabale of hypcrisy. I'm just amazed, as someone who has rejected the idea of a God, that your religion would focus on belief above action.

Seems to be a Catholic vs. Protestant thing. Catholics believe that one should carry out God's work on earth, but Protestants tend to believe that only faith is necessary. It could be an interesting theological debate.
Ay...it says something about the slowness of the forum today that I'm sticking around in a topic I despise...

I was under the impression that Catholics believe you can sin, and get away with it as long as you confess and repent...but that Protestants don't necessarily believe in confession and repetance alone as a way to make your sins right with God?

Can you show me where it says that God will accept your repentance after you leave the mortal coil?


Your entire arguement supposes your interpretation of Scripture to be the correct one. Can you prove that it is? I can admit that the way I interpret things may not be correct, although I believe it is. Can you say the same?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/175/249/1600/orly.jpg

The bolded parts, you just pulled out of your arse. If it makes sense to me, it must make sense to God too! Who needs the bible if I got my own mind?
I never claimed that God revealed the way he thought to me over brunch. I never presented this as the universal truth that must be accepted. This is just my interpretation of it. This is how I see things. If you don't agree, then fine, it's an (arguably) free country.

The bolded parts all refer to the God in the story, who may or may not be the same God who runs things here on earth.

And why are there so many different denominations of Christianity? Do each of these different denominations disagree? How can there be that much variation in something that everyone says is so straight forward (read the Bible and you'll understand blah blah blah...clearly not everyone reads it the same way. Not even close.)

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/175/249/1600/orly.jpg

The bolded parts, you just pulled out of your arse. If it makes sense to me, it must make sense to God too! Who needs the bible if I got my own mind?
The whole situation with being judged one at a time outside a gate is not in the bible. Every word in that story comes from somewhere else. How did you choose what part to attack?

Yes, because Christians could never be hypocrites? Everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof is capabale of hypcrisy. I'm just amazed, as someone who has rejected the idea of a God, that your religion would focus on belief above action.
To simply get to heaven, yes, all you need to do is believe that Christ died for your sins. That's it.

However, the Bible also says that "faith without action is dead", and "storing up treasures in heaven". So actions also are important.

I don't know why people argue about the Bible with people who -actually- -know- it. I mean, I try not to argue about the Koran with Muslims, even though I can google quotes all day, because I have no clue about the religion.

Now you use your morals to set up additional criteria. Where in the bible or the top post do you find support for that?
In John 14
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Okay, so we agree, this a made up version of God, and not the God of the B-I-B-L-E? You can believe it if you want, I'm just saying it does not mesh with the traditional, more scripturally based God that many know and love. :)

To simply get to heaven, yes, all you need to do is believe that Christ died for your sins. That's it.

However, the Bible also says that "faith without action is dead", and "storing up treasures in heaven". So actions also are important.

I don't know why people argue about the Bible with people who -actually- -know- it. I mean, I try not to argue about the Koran with Muslims, even though I can google quotes all day, because I have no clue about the religion.
Do you see me arguing the Bible? No. And I'm asking questions because I want to know the answers. I don't have a clue about the religion.

Your entire arguement supposes your interpretation of Scripture to be the correct one. Can you prove that it is? I can admit that the way I interpret things may not be correct, although I believe it is. Can you say the same?I supposed nothing. I just asked where he learned that?
Can you show me the scripture where it may imply that repentance and accepting of Jesus and God as your savior after death is acceptable?

Ay...it says something about the slowness of the forum today that I'm sticking around in a topic I despise...

I was under the impression that Catholics believe you can sin, and get away with it as long as you confess and repent...but that Protestants don't necessarily believe in confession and repetance alone as a way to make your sins right with God?


Actually, what I, as a Catholic believe is that yes, of course one must have faith; one must believe but "The demons believe also. And tremble" (James 2:19). One's works should be a reflection of one's faith. Both are necessary. Anyone can profess faith. But do their actions show it? IMO, the evangelical interpretation is an open invitation to hypocracy.

To simply get to heaven, yes, all you need to do is believe that Christ died for your sins. That's it.

Like I'd wanna spend eternity in their company when they've set the bar so incredibly low.

Pass-ola.

In John 14
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
What is this supposed to mean? Seemingly the atheist in the story had kept the physical part of the commands, since god counted his actions in his favour. And he came in "through Jesus", by accepting Jesus sacrifice and praying for forgiveness for the sin of critical thinking. Perfectly according to the rules.

Like I'd wanna spend eternity in their company when they've set the bar so incredibly low.

Pass-ola.
Thank you for articulating what I could not find the words for.

The whole situation with being judged one at a time outside a gate is not in the bible. Every word in that story comes from somewhere else. How did you choose what part to attack?
where did
Here God reveals the truth to those who die, and those willing to accept it go to heaven. and
God accepts repentance whether it is five seconds before you die, or five seconds after.come from then.

(Curious as to where that came from.)

Like I'd wanna spend eternity in their company when they've set the bar so incredibly low.

Pass-ola.
You mean, God actually wants people to come to heaven and NOT burn in hell? NO WAI! You mean him sending his perfect son to earth to die actually meant something? Wow.

where did
and
come from then.

(Curious as to where that came from.)
Lol I know where they came from. ;)

I already answered this. They come from my own interpretation, and are NOT explicitly stated in the bible, but so far as I have seen neither can they be explicitly refuted. Some people say that at the time of death God stops the clock and says "Oh well, too late now" while others hold that he doesn't. Neither of these interpretations seem to be explicitly accepted or denied.

The God in the story might be the God of the bible, the God who runs things. He might not. I don't claim divine influence. All I'm saying is that this way of looking at it makes sense to me.

You mean, God actually wants people to come to heaven and NOT burn in hell? NO WAI! You mean him sending his perfect son to earth to die actually meant something? Wow.
When the only way in is believing in God...and who cares whether you were a total bastard your whole life, then that is what 'setting the bar so low' means.

What is this supposed to mean? Seemingly the atheist in the story had kept the physical part of the commands, since god counted his actions in his favour. And he came in "through Jesus", by accepting Jesus sacrifice and praying for forgiveness for the sin of critical thinking. Perfectly according to the rules.HE DIDN'T accept Jesus.

In the parable, he admits to not accepting Christ.

or is Crest falls saying that Athiesm is nothing but Christians who don't realize they're Christians.

if "The Athiest" had God in his heart. then he wasn't an Athiest. pure and simple. You cannot have God in your Heart and Not know it.

The action of Accepting Christ into your heart is a concience one. A choice one makes. "The Athiest" never made that Choice.

You mean, God actually wants people to come to heaven and NOT burn in hell? NO WAI! You mean him sending his perfect son to earth to die actually meant something? Wow.
Wrong on both counts.There's something (well, two things, really) you'll need to apply to my statement: wit, and something else called subtlety. Unfortunately, you'll have to use non-Biblical publications to learn what those words mean, as the King James Bible is sadly lacking in both areas.

Three cheers for secular thought.

Hip-hip-hooray!

Hip-hip- ahhh, you get the picture.

if "The Athiest" had God in his heart. then he wasn't an Athiest. pure and simple. You cannot have God in your Heart and Not know it.
And people accuse me of pulling things out of MY ass?

In the parable he admits to not having accepted Jesus, and god says "Now might be a good time" and he does. He repents through Jesus, though after he has died. Can you show me scripture that explicitly contradicts this interpretation, that God can ask someone to repent after death, and it counts just as much as if their friend had asked them to on thier deathbed? Do you have anything to stand against it besides "he didn't accept Jesus" when in the end he did, and that was obviously illustrated as one of the requirements for getting into heaven.

Of course there being gates, and a line, and God having a face, and the souls being corporeal, are all in the interest of metaphor, so that we can relate to the story as humans.

I already answered this. They come from my own interpretation, and are NOT explicitly stated in the bible, but so far as I have seen neither can they be explicitly refuted. Some people say that at the time of death God stops the clock and says "Oh well, too late now" while others hold that he doesn't. Neither of these interpretations seem to be explicitly accepted or denied.

The God in the story might be the God of the bible, the God who runs things. He might not. I don't claim divine influence. All I'm saying is that this way of looking at it makes sense to me.
thanks for the honest answer. :)

When the only way in is believing in God...and who cares whether you were a total bastard your whole life, then that is what 'setting the bar so low' means.
IF you accept Christ into your heart, and know that he died for YOUR sins, there are things that you'd want to do. Namely, not being a bastard.

And people accuse me of pulling things out of MY ass?

In the parable he admits to not having accepted Jesus, and god says "Now might be a good time" and he does. He repents through Jesus, though after he has died. Can you show me scripture that explicitly contradicts this interpretation, that God can ask someone to repent after death, and it counts just as much as if their friend had asked them to on thier deathbed? Do you have anything to stand against it besides "he didn't accept Jesus" when in the end he did, and that was obviously illustrated as one of the requirements for getting into heaven.

Of course there being gates, and a line, and God having a face, and the souls being corporeal, are all in the interest of metaphor, so that we can relate to the story as humans.
Look at post #51.

this one line.

he "Found" God after he died. thus he broke one of the important tenants. "The Way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ."

Not aruging about the born again Christian. but to say that when you stand before God and his Book, all you say is "Sorry, I now know you exist and thus will believe in you." and you will enter Heaven is against one of the conditions that God has said is the only way into heaven. By the time you stand before God, it's too late.

the Thieves who were Crusified with Jesus were, In My opinion, Saved because they did accept Jesus and God as their savior with an honest and open heart... even as they laid dying upon the Cross.

Tenets.

'Tenants' of a faith would be people who lived there.

In the story, God has brought the Atheist and the Saved before himself. He chooses to judge these two face-to-face, perhaps.

In the story, the Atheist accepts salvation, once he appreciates the reality of it. In the story, the Saved disallows 'god' the right to choose.

Does this mean the Atheist was saved by something other than Christ? Only if you believe that Christ and God are not one.

And, before you calim that it is 'impossible', I suggest you meditate on the assertion that, with God, ALL things are possible.

And, before you try to bind what God can, and cannot do, by your reference to the scripture, I suggest that you meditate on the fact that Jesus is supposed to have rejected the teachings of 'learned men of the faith'.

The story of Jesus tells us to reject the strict adherence to written laws, to refuse to accept the laws, as dictated TO us by other men, and to form a personal relationship with our god.

You are placing a book, in the hands of mortal men, above the ineffibility of God.

I wish people would disavow themselves of this notion of Heaven as some sort of resort hotel of the afterlife, with God as manager, who's a real stickler for advance bookings.

Christ isn't a frickin' travel agent, dude.

Look at post #51.

luke 16: 19-31
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

That piece of scripture never really says that the rich man repented, or that he did not believe in God in life, or that he was like the Atheist in any way. It never really seems to give the reason that the rich man went to hell, though it seems to imply that it was for allowing Lazarus to be poor and miserable, and not providing him with food and charity.

Tenets.

'Tenants' of a faith would be people who lived there.

In the story, God has brought the Atheist and the Saved before himself. He chooses to judge these two face-to-face, perhaps.

In the story, the Atheist accepts salvation, once he appreciates the reality of it. In the story, the Saved disallows 'god' the right to choose.

Does this mean the Atheist was saved by something other than Christ? Only if you believe that Christ and God are not one.

And, before you calim that it is 'impossible', I suggest you meditate on the assertion that, with God, ALL things are possible.

And, before you try to bind what God can, and cannot do, by your reference to the scripture, I suggest that you meditate on the fact that Jesus is supposed to have rejected the teachings of 'learned men of the faith'.

The story of Jesus tells us to reject the strict adherence to written laws, to refuse to accept the laws, as dictated TO us by other men, and to form a personal relationship with our god.

You are placing a book, in the hands of mortal men, above the ineffibility of God.
I agree. God is whatever we want him to be. There is no need for the Bible at all.

i dont see where y'all get off limiting god to what is written in the bible, as if a book written in dribs and drabs over a thousand years or so and codified by committee should be the end all and be all of what god is. its a deification of the bible.

if you want to go to heaven, your best bet is christianity. there it is pretty well laid out. god wants you to love your fellow man, come to his as a child. forgive whenever it is asked of you, take care of the poor, the sick, the homeless,the imprisoned, etc. follow the teachings of jesus and you have your best chance to make it.

but that doesnt mean that GOD is bound by a book. if he wants some stone cold atheist in heaven, thats his business. who are YOU to say what god can and cannot do? really, we are HIs servants, he is not ours, we are bound to do what he wants, he is not bound by our limited understanding of the universe.

And people accuse me of pulling things out of MY ass?
nah, you just lowered the bar to a point never seen before. ;)

That piece of scripture never really says that the rich man repented, or that he did not believe in God in life, or that he was like the Atheist in any way. It never really seems to give the reason that the rich man went to hell, though it seems to imply that it was for allowing Lazarus to be poor and miserable, and not providing him with food and charity.
You think he didn't want to? Obviously he never had a chance to repent.

It is not in there, though, and is my interpritation. So, whatev.

As nice an idea this parable is, it's laughably inconsistent with the bible. I dont think you're talking about the same God.

Well, the bible is inconsistent with the bible. Certain parts were written at different times by different people who didn't know each other, then it was translated a bunch of times and in some versions edited.

i dont see where y'all get off limiting god to what is written in the bible, as if a book written in dribs and drabs over a thousand years or so and codified by committee should be the end all and be all of what god is. its a deification of the bible.

if you want to go to heaven, your best bet is christianity. there it is pretty well laid out. god wants you to love your fellow man, come to his as a child. forgive whenever it is asked of you, take care of the poor, the sick, the homeless,the imprisoned, etc. follow the teachings of jesus and you have your best chance to make it.

but that doesnt mean that GOD is bound by a book. if he wants some stone cold atheist in heaven, thats his business. who are YOU to say what god can and cannot do? really, we are HIs servants, he is not ours, we are bound to do what he wants, he is not bound by our limited understanding of the universe.
I agree. God is whatever we want him to be. There is no need for the Bible at all.
12345

Well, the bible is inconsistent with the bible. Certain parts were written at different times by different people who didn't know each other, then it was translated a bunch of times and in some versions edited.
This is a whole 'nother debate.

Short and sweet: The Bible is all we got.

You are placing a book, in the hands of mortal men, above the ineffibility of God.no, I am placing a book written by many, some who have walked with the prophets, some being prophets themselves. over a parable written by a person who says it's his interpretation (and admits it's without Divine Providence) of who and what God is.

This is a whole 'nother debate.

Short and sweet: The Bible is all we got.
and Prayer, mustn't forget prayer. :)

IF you accept Christ into your heart, and know that he died for YOUR sins, there are things that you'd want to do. Namely, not being a bastard.

By that definition, very few have ever accepted Christ. How many people in this world commit the most heinous acts because they sincerely believe that their "personal relationship" with God not only allows, but demands that they do so? These people are not, in the strictest sense of the word hypocrites -- they're actually sincere. But does that make it ok?

Originally Posted by 5iam
I agree. God is whatever we want him to be. There is no need for the Bible at all.


the early christians didnt have the new testament eh? they lived in communities. got visited once or twice by preachers, maybe had a followup letter or 2.

they seem to have done just fine.

By that definition, very few have ever accepted Christ. How many people in this world commit the most heinous acts because they sincerely believe that their "personal relationship" with God not only allows, but demands that they do so? These people are not, in the strictest sense of the word hypocrites -- they're actually sincere. But does that make it ok?
If by "heinous acts" you mean not accepting homosexuality and abortion without question as being just fine and dandy, then yes, I would agree.

I assume "heinous acts" as being terrorism, murder, beatings, etc.

By that definition, very few have ever accepted Christ. How many people in this world commit the most heinous acts because they sincerely believe that their "personal relationship" with God not only allows, but demands that they do so? These people are not, in the strictest sense of the word hypocrites -- they're actually sincere. But does that make it ok?
We cannot judge them, and we shouldn't judge anyone. for that is between them and God, as it always has been and how it always should be.

IF you accept Christ into your heart, and know that he died for YOUR sins, there are things that you'd want to do. Namely, not being a bastard.
But according to you (or your religion or whatever), even if that person didn't choose to not be a bastard, he or she would still get into heaven just with their belief in God. Meaning, faith is mandatory, but being good is not.

may I take this post to say I am glad that this thread has gone so far with very little in the way of Flamebait and Trolling (in my opinion anyway.) :D

Congrats to all of you.

Keep in mind also that this story is an illustration of one of the ways God could be, rather than the way I believe he is. And, since no one has shown explicit scripture that make it impossible (Something like "And god said unto moses/ that all those who have not found him by their last breath/ will find themselves in hell" or similer.) Then it remains as a valid interpretation as far as the bible is concerned.
I'm agnostic, so for all I know, God could be a 13 year old Black and White player.

Originally Posted by 5iam
I agree. God is whatever we want him to be. There is no need for the Bible at all.


the early christians didnt have the new testament eh? they lived in communities. got visited once or twice by preachers, maybe had a followup letter or 2.

they seem to have done just fine.
Sure they did. Took maybe thirty years for all the New testament books to be written.

And those letters? They were from APOSTLES, the people who actually wrote the new testament, and were personally annionted/blessed (maybe the wrong word here) by Jesus Christ himself.

We cannot judge them, and we shouldn't judge anyone. for that is between them and God, as it always has been and how it always should be.
amen to that.....

Okay, so we agree, this a made up version of God, and not the God of the B-I-B-L-E? You can believe it if you want, I'm just saying it does not mesh with the traditional, more scripturally based God that many know and love. :)

While others despise him. For me, God as portrayed in the first post is a far more decent creature than the repulsive thing you seem to worship.

Is there no Christian sect that believes God is simply a father who likes his kids to grow up and be something without him constantly peeking over their shoulder ? A Father who actually loves and respects His kids ?

You think he didn't want to? Obviously he never had a chance to repent.

It is not in there, though, and is my interpritation. So, whatev.


If he never had the chance to repent, he had no way to be saved. He had no free will. Or else what good is free will without the opportunity to exercise it?

But according to you (or your religion or whatever), even if that person didn't choose to not be a bastard, he or she would still get into heaven just with their belief in God. Meaning, faith is mandatory, but being good is not.
if you read back, many people said you also need to be repentant. Both go hand in hand. Others say Being Good is all it takes, which is wrong.

Being Good is part of being Faithful. Of course realize, that God has asked his followers to do some pretty not-nice things from time to time. so the best and only Judge of character is God. not us.

(Which is one reason why I'm glad you kinda stayed on this thread and not just 'Give up' on it.) :)

Keep in mind also that this story is an illustration of one of the ways God could be, rather than the way I believe he is. And, since no one has shown explicit scripture that make it impossible (Something like "And god said unto moses/ that all those who have not found him by their last breath/ will find themselves in hell" or similer.) Then it remains as a valid interpretation as far as the bible is concerned.
I'm agnostic, so for all I know, God could be a 13 year old Black and White player.
I understand your point. I do not understand why you take something which, you say, is niether supported nor (you say) denied, and take it as the truth.

If he never had the chance to repent after he died
sorry, fixed. :)

Sure they did. Took maybe thirty years for all the New testament books to be written.

And those letters? They were from APOSTLES, the people who actually wrote the new testament, and were personally annionted/blessed (maybe the wrong word here) by Jesus Christ himself.


well except for st paul who received a direct revelation from god. (kinda like joseph smith.)

While others despise him. For me, God as portrayed in the first post is a far more decent creature than the repulsive thing you seem to worship. Ouch.

Is there no Christian sect that believes God is simply a father who likes his kids to grow up and be something without him constantly peeking over their shoulder ? A Father who actually loves and respects His kids ?
Again, you can believe what you want to believe.

I understand your point. I do not understand why you take something which, you say, is niether supported nor (you say) denied, and take it as the truth.
I do not take it as the truth. I never said that I did. In fact, I said "Keep in mind also that this story is an illustration of one of the ways God could be, rather than the way I believe he is." I am presenting a possibility, one which would be acceptable to me morally, as it does not involve Ghandi going to hell for being unconvinced. I am agnostic. To me this story is no more true than any other religious point of view. It's just one that I find morally acceptable.
I am not a biblical scholar, so I don't claim expertise, but thus far no one has presented a line of scripture that explicitly contradicts this interpretation. It's been tradition to assume that your dying moment is your last chance to repent, but it is never explicitly stated.
Like the Atheist in the story, I may be wrong.

While others despise him. For me, God as portrayed in the first post is a far more decent creature than the repulsive thing you seem to worship.

Is there no Christian sect that believes God is simply a father who likes his kids to grow up and be something without him constantly peeking over their shoulder ? A Father who actually loves and respects His kids ?
I believe God is a Father who wants his Kids to grow up right and true. Thus he will guide us and teach us however, and whenever possible. He allows us to make choices and will watch us fail. However, should we ask for help, he will help us, like any Father should do. He will Guide us and teach us as Fathers should their children.

Haven't your father asked you to do something you didn't want to? Forced you to do your homework or get grounded? Yell at you when you do something wrong? Teach you and help you when you need it?

I would this God than one who will emotionlessly watch you without caring weither you are good or bad, live or die.

no, I am placing a book written by many, some who have walked with the prophets, some being prophets themselves. over a parable written by a person who says it's his interpretation (and admits it's without Divine Providence) of who and what God is.

And there is the problem.

When you deify a book, you place the importance of words above the importance of inspiration.

You place agreement over discernment.

The parable is just a parable... you don't have to accept it. I do not recall seeing anyone claim this particular one to be divinely inspired.

Then again, of course, the Lord DOES move in mysterious ways... so, who is to say it is NOT divinely inspired?

Well that first post is right in 1 point:
- Some atheists are better peolpe then some christians. But I always thought this was kind of obvious...
And the bad part of this post is trying to make atheists feel better by saying they may be saved... Do whatever you want and in the end you will be forgiven. That's not the way it works...

Haven't your father asked you to do something you didn't want to? Forced you to do your homework or get grounded? Yell at you when you do something wrong?

Not since I was 12, no.

Teach you and help you when you need it?
Certainly. But thats what mouths are for: I asked his advice. He did not stalk me 24/7 to offer me unasked advice trying to control my life.

Not since I was 12, no.


Certainly. But thats what mouths are for: I asked his advice. He did not stalk me 24/7 to offer me unasked advice trying to control my life.
Then I feel sorry for you, for not having a Dad when you needed it most.

Well that first post is right in 1 point:
- Some atheists are better peolpe then some christians. But I always thought this was kind of obvious...
And the bad part of this post is trying to make atheists feel better by saying they may be saved... Do whatever you want and in the end you will be forgiven. That's not the way it works...
I already dealt with this point. The only difference between this and a deathbed conversion/repentence is that the Atheist repented after he died. God accepted the Atheist because his actions showed that he believed in him in his heart, if not in his mind, and because he was willing to accept God and accept his salvation. This is gods way of making sure that hell isn't populated by every poor smuck who failed to figure it out by the day they died.

Well that first post is right in 1 point:
- Some atheists are better peolpe then some christians. But I always thought this was kind of obvious...
And the bad part of this post is trying to make atheists feel better by saying they may be saved... Do whatever you want and in the end you will be forgiven. That's not the way it works...

I find it curious that so many people believe they can speak with SUCH assurance, about something which, ultimately must remain in the hands of God.

Yeah the atheist repents and the Christian doesn't... are you sure that makes sense? Why wouldn't the Christian repent?

I find it curious that so many people believe they can speak with SUCH assurance, about something which, ultimately must remain in the hands of God.


shush you heathen....

Then I feel sorry for you, for not having a Dad when you needed it most.

*raises eyebrow*

Would you still need your dads supervison when you turn 40 ? Do you still *want* your dad peeking when you are together with your girlfriend ? Everytime you are sad ?
Or do you believe that at some point a man/woman should be able to stand on his/her own ?

I find it curious that so many people believe they can speak with SUCH assurance, about something which, ultimately must remain in the hands of God.

I speak from the view of my religion, I'm a Catholic, stuff like this is in the bible so I'm pretty sure...

And there is the problem.

When you deify a book, you place the importance of words above the importance of inspiration.

You place agreement over discernment.

The parable is just a parable... you don't have to accept it. I do not recall seeing anyone claim this particular one to be divinely inspired.

Then again, of course, the Lord DOES move in mysterious ways... so, who is to say it is NOT divinely inspired?not deifying a book, but considering the source.

Crest Falls admits not having Divine Providence and admit's it's his/her own personal views and interpretation. Something I've accepted and thus not arguing for nor against it.

I have, as many others, Taken his 'Parable' seriously and examined it seriously and I, for one, honestly questioned it and accepted his answers he has given. Any "truth" behind the parable is something that, God Wiling, will be revealed to me by God through Prayer. thus I am not judging it. just questioned it.

*raises eyebrow*

Would you still need your dads supervison when you turn 40 ? Do you still *want* your dad peeking when you are together with your girlfriend ? Everytime you are sad ?
Or do you believe that at some point a man/woman should be able to stand on his/her own ?
if my father has insights to problems I face when I'm 40, then yes, I will ask for advice, or if my father sees me making mistakes when I am 40, then yes, I would rather his unasked for input than not receive it.

Would you not want to correct your son/daughter if they're making a mistake... no matter what age they are?

shush you heathen....

That's "Godless" heathen, thank you... ;)

I speak from the view of my religion, I'm a Catholic, stuff like this is in the bible so I'm pretty sure...

And, there you go again.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the infinite and limitless, can REALLY be defined by mere words written in mortal hand?

(Here's a question for you... how do you KNOW that the Bible wasn't written by Satan?)

Yeah the atheist repents and the Christian doesn't... are you sure that makes sense? Why wouldn't the Christian repent?
He wouldn't repent because he couldn't accept that he wasn't better than the Atheist, and his Son, and his Daughter. His contempt for his fellow man overrode his humility. Christianity to him was just another "reason why I am better than everyone else."
I have met people like this. I also know that not all christians are like this (and a majority are not) but quite a few are.

*raises eyebrow*

Would you still need your dads supervison when you turn 40 ? Do you still *want* your dad peeking when you are together with your girlfriend ? Everytime you are sad ?
Or do you believe that at some point a man/woman should be able to stand on his/her own ?
I just couldn't imagine not having a dad to go to during my teenage years.

He wouldn't repent because he couldn't accept that he wasn't better than the Atheist, and his Son, and his Daughter. His contempt for his fellow man overrode his humility. Christianity to him was just another "reason why I am better than everyone else."
I have met people like this. I also know that not all christians are like this (and a majority are not) but quite a few are.

Ok I agree, some Christians are like this, but this is not what Christianity teaches...

not deifying a book, but considering the source.

Crest Falls admits not having Divine Providence and admit's it's his/her own personal views and interpretation. Something I've accepted and thus not arguing for nor against it.

I have, as many others, Taken his 'Parable' seriously and examined it seriously and I, for one, honestly questioned it and accepted his answers he has given. Any "truth" behind the parable is something that, God Wiling, will be revealed to me by God through Prayer. thus I am not judging it. just questioned it.

You are not considering the source, that's the problem.

You are taken it as read, that each chapter of the Bible MUST be written by whoever has their name on top of it, effectively. You talk of books written by prophets, for example.

And yet, it takes only the most cursory examination (which, unfortunately is STILL more than many Christians ever make) to see that the Pentatauch books, while are all ascribed to Moses, cannot have been written by him. (Just for example).

What you are doing, is setting a 'special exception' for this book... and I have to suspect you don't even realise you do it.

If there is a God, he is NOT going to be limited to expressions that can be constructed in the (rather limited) English language.

And, there you go again.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the infinite and limitless, can REALLY be defined by mere words written in mortal hand?

(Here's a question for you... how do you KNOW that the Bible wasn't written by Satan?)
you realize by that you also include all science books for they attempt to do just that. explain everything in simple words, numbers all written and formulated by Mortal hands.

and if you read the bible, you know it wasn't written by Satan.

And, there you go again.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the infinite and limitless, can REALLY be defined by mere words written in mortal hand?

(Here's a question for you... how do you KNOW that the Bible wasn't written by Satan?)
There is a book (trilogy), forget it's name, in which God is evil, and wants to send everybody to hell as well as make their life miserable with the "Bible". Some teenagers find this out and go on a journey to destroy God.

Point is, it's a ridiculous argument that won't go anywhere.

How do you know it's not Satan talking to you when you pray? Maybe there is no god, you never know. As humans, we know nothing. That's why there is faith.

And, there you go again.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the infinite and limitless, can REALLY be defined by mere words written in mortal hand?

(Here's a question for you... how do you KNOW that the Bible wasn't written by Satan?)

It can't entirely be written in mortal hand but it can give us guidelines to how we should behave and how it is forbidden to behave...
Satan is an evil beeing why would he want people to follow the path of love?

You are not considering the source, that's the problem.

You are taken it as read, that each chapter of the Bible MUST be written by whoever has their name on top of it, effectively. You talk of books written by prophets, for example.

And yet, it takes only the most cursory examination (which, unfortunately is STILL more than many Christians ever make) to see that the Pentatauch books, while are all ascribed to Moses, cannot have been written by him. (Just for example).

What you are doing, is setting a 'special exception' for this book... and I have to suspect you don't even realise you do it.

If there is a God, he is NOT going to be limited to expressions that can be constructed in the (rather limited) English language.I have considered the sources.

I've considered the WORDs written both in the book and in my heart.

You are trying to continue an argument that ended pages ago. Feel free to continue it with someone else.

It can't entirely be written in mortal hand but it can give us guidelines to how we should behave and how it is forbidden to behave...
Satan is an evil beeing why would he want people to follow the path of love?


There's actually more hatred, violence and injustice in the Bible than love, peace, and brotherhood.

You've probably only read the old testament...

you realize by that you also include all science books for they attempt to do just that. explain everything in simple words, numbers all written and formulated by Mortal hands.

If you ever get into physics you realize that all of science theory is, to a greater or lesser degree, incorrect, with things like the fact that we have quantum mechanics, which can describe the tiniest particle, and we have relativity, which can describe the greatest astral bodies, but niether theory can adaquately describe a duck. So yeah, science books are included. The universe doesn't "know" that things fall on earth at an approximate rate of 32 feet per second per second. Speed is just a concept we apply to what we see.

If you ever get into physics you realize that all of science theory is, to a greater or lesser degree, incorrect, with things like the fact that we have quantum mechanics, which can describe the tiniest particle, and we have relativity, which can describe the greatest astral bodies, but niether theory can adaquately describe a duck. So yeah, science books are included. The universe doesn't "know" that things fall on earth at an approximate rate of 32 feet per second per second. Speed is just a concept we apply to what we see.agreed (and for the sake of others) not arguing. :D

you realize by that you also include all science books for they attempt to do just that. explain everything in simple words, numbers all written and formulated by Mortal hands.

and if you read the bible, you know it wasn't written by Satan.

Science books do not claim to explain everything. They certainly do not claim to be divinely inspired.

Your parallel is not parallel.

On the other point - I disagree. You might BELIEVE it was not written by Satan... but he is, after all, supposed to be a great liar.

He could have crafted a text in which he portrays himself as the good guy (even calls himself 'god' and 'jehovah' in his writing)... and his opponent as the bad guy (who he calls 'the devil' in his text).

How do you KNOW that Satan didn't write the bible?

And please don't anyone shame me for my vague and shoddy understanding of physics. I'm just a lameman.

And please don't anyone shame me for my vague and shoddy understanding of physics. I'm just a lameman.
don't you mean LAYMAN? ;)

It can't entirely be written in mortal hand but it can give us guidelines to how we should behave and how it is forbidden to behave...
Satan is an evil beeing why would he want people to follow the path of love?

You only assume that Satan is an evil being, however, because that is what you found in the book...

How do you know THAT Satan is the 'real' Satan?

Why would Satan want people to folow 'the path of love'? Like... not tolerating a Canaanite to live, for example? Or dashing the heads of babies against rocks? Or running ploughs over the bodies of your victims?

Or - since the Old Testament God can be described as fairly vindictive, violent, and evil - maybe this New Testament is the work of Satan... and the violent God is the real one, but this 'love' god, is a fabrication.

I have considered the sources.

I've considered the WORDs written both in the book and in my heart.

You are trying to continue an argument that ended pages ago. Feel free to continue it with someone else.

I'll take this as an admission that there is nothing but 'blind faith' at work, and thus you refuse to even look at other possibilities.

This argument didn't end pages ago.... you have never taken part in the debate at all. You have just clamped your hands over your ears and yelled "Because I don't want it to be so".

don't you mean LAYMAN? ;)
yes and no...;)

I'll take this as an admission that there is nothing but 'blind faith' at work, and thus you refuse to even look at other possibilities.

This argument didn't end pages ago.... you have never taken part in the debate at all. You have just clamped your hands over your ears and yelled "Because I don't want it to be so".
the argument over the "Validity" of Crests Fall's Parable ended with me saying "Thank You for your Honest Answer"

and if you want to take that as an Addmission of Blind Faith, then that is YOUR interpretation.

I don't think he's arguing about the validity of my parable, I think he's arguing about the validity of the Bible itself.
I think he wants you to come up with arguments for why the bible is valid.

Why would the atheist want to enter a place that doesn't exist?

From the point of view of the atheist, it became apparent that heaven DID in fact exist, something he'd been wrong about all his life. He wanted to enter it because... well... wouldn't you?
Even with the extremely mild version of hell in the parable, heaven seems an infinitely nicer place.

From the point of view of the atheist, it became apparent that heaven DID in fact exist, something he'd been wrong about all his life. He wanted to enter it because... well... wouldn't you?
Even with the extremely mild version of hell in the parable, heaven seems an infinitely nicer place.
Never mind. You missed my point.

Could you try pitching it again then, please? I'll swing better this time, I promise!

As an athiest I'd like to say that the bible would be better if it included that parable.

Even after the addition of said parrable the Bible would still be a control divice.

Could you try pitching it again then, please? I'll swing better this time, I promise!
Just that an atheist does not believe in the existance of God. An atheist does not believe in heaven or hell. Even if, after death, the atheist were to be presented with a vision of God and heaven, the atheist would more likely question his own death and/or the vision, than immediately assume it to be true. And why would an atheist want to enter a place that he believes does not exist? Sure in the story the atheist converts. But then he is no longer an atheist. Had he remained an atheist, he wouldn't have cared one way or the other, because despite the vision, he would not believe that either God or heaven existed.

I don't think he's arguing about the validity of my parable, I think he's arguing about the validity of the Bible itself.
I think he wants you to come up with arguments for why the bible is valid.
he started by comparing you with the authors of the bible saying your parable could be as valid as theirs.
I responded that it was possible and it is something I am thinking about.
then he started attacking the validity of the bible. while others joined in, I attempted not to. for it wasn't my argument.

as for the Vailidity of the Bible, it is (in my opinion) a guideline as to how one should live. not a history book. an aide that with prayer, will guide one through life.

So yes, Grave n idle, it does come down to Faith. Knowing what God wants of me, Knowing what God reveals to me, and growing and learning from each trial and tribulation. Faith in God, the Lord Father who has some plan for me, some goal that I am to fulfill. It may not be in the grand scheme like his son, or Prophets, but his will be done.

you may call it "Blind Faith" but there is nothing blind about it to me. You may spring out other examples of "Bad Christians" but it's not for me to judge, but for God. I have my views on Homosexuality, War, and even "The Seperation of Church and State" but those are my views. I will stand where God wants me to stand, and right now, I see myself in the center. perfectly divided on those issues.

and I do pray for guidence, every day.

Like Sinuhue I too tended to avoid religious argument threads but I find to do so I don't learn anything except how to run away. you cannot show conviction, fully convey any feelings through the typed word, yet almost every third thread is someone trying. some do so eliquently, while others use a big hammer, but they make their attempts and they make their Faith known.

Some have been hurt by faith, other lost theirs, for them, I can only offer prayers at this time.

Some ridicule me for having as you say, "Blind Faith" and at one point I too doubted. Untill God made his presence known to me in ways that I could not deny.

So I read the bible, I pray, and God guides me. That is why the Bible is Valid to me.

In the parable I use the phrase "former atheist" to show his conversion, but then I use Atheist again later, because It is easier to write and say.
So you are correct, once the Atheist accepted what he was experiencing as truth, he was no longer an Atheist, but had become a Christian.

Just to be a stickler...

This technically - purely techinically - isn't a parable at all, because a parable is a mundane story with a divine meaning, where this is clearly a divine story with a divine meaning.

That said, as far as Christianity is concerned, I'm fairly certain good deeds and bad deeds aren't the issue. The idea with Christianity is that ultimately, everyone is imperfect - the idea that good actions neutralize bad actions is a karmic ideal that is not in the Abrahamic religions. The arguement, "I lived a good life and am therefore qualified" is invalid because "Good" is not good enough - Heaven, and God within, are perfect - adding any imperfection to perfection renders the entirity imperfect, thus negating the point of heaven.

The reason knowing Christ, apparently, fixes this is that, in the same way one can erase a pencil mark with an eraser, Christ makes you, for all intents and purposes, perfect, and the actions you have commited wrongly - numerous or not - are negated.

Understand, however, that the bible seems to teach that there is some other method for dealing with those who have not been exposed to his word. Just what qualifies as "exposed" to his word is not addressed, so we can't say this Athiest wouldn't get such treatment - if he had been genuinely sheltered from the Word through his life, I find this to be a likely scenario.

There is no section in the bible detailing what happens to people who simply never had the chance to know. It would be irrelelvent - The Book of Doofus, Chapter 1 verse 1: "And here, concerning those who will never read this text I am writing..."... Pointless.

So this might be a correct scenario, while it's not TECHNICALLY a parable. God is Just - perhaps the Athiest would be saved by virtue of his ignorance to the Word. And there's more than one warning from Christ to fake Christians.

Also, this is my first post, so in that proud tradition...

:sniper:

Just that an atheist does not believe in the existance of God. An atheist does not believe in heaven or hell. Even if, after death, the atheist were to be presented with a vision of God and heaven, the atheist would more likely question his own death and/or the vision, than immediately assume it to be true. And why would an atheist want to enter a place that he believes does not exist? Sure in the story the atheist converts. But then he is no longer an atheist. Had he remained an atheist, he wouldn't have cared one way or the other, because despite the vision, he would not believe that either God or heaven existed.(Honest Question here) Are you saying that a True Athiest, when confronted by God, (assuming HIS sheer Presence makes Who HE is a given.) will still question the exsistance of God and all that is Associated with God?

Just that an atheist does not believe in the existance of God. An atheist does not believe in heaven or hell. Even if, after death, the atheist were to be presented with a vision of God and heaven, the atheist would more likely question his own death and/or the vision, than immediately assume it to be true. And why would an atheist want to enter a place that he believes does not exist? Sure in the story the atheist converts. But then he is no longer an atheist. Had he remained an atheist, he wouldn't have cared one way or the other, because despite the vision, he would not believe that either God or heaven existed.

The parable doesn't say the Atheist chose to go to heaven. The parable says there is a crash, and the Atheist and the Believer both find themselves there.

One assumes this is through divine intervention, rather than because they will themselves there.

I think one of the assumptions in the story is that there is something ABOUT the vision of god that they see, that is SO convincing, that the Atheist realises he is, indeed, in the hands of an almighty God.

Most Atheists lack strong conviction about the existence/non-existence of God... and most admit that they WOULD believe in a 'god' if there were good evidence.

Indeed, Atheism is just the path that involves less leaps of faith.

On the other hand, if the average Atheist actually came face-to-face with a real and 'living' god, the roles would be reversed... the presnece of a discernable deity would then involve less leaps of faith.

So - our Atheist is translated mystically (we assume) to the presence of a 'real' God, and instantly realises the 'error of his ways', and converts. And, of course, having 'realised the truth', our ex-Atheist now wishes to enter 'heaven' for fellowship with his new-found God.

Just to be a stickler...

This technically - purely techinically - isn't a parable at all, because a parable is a mundane story with a divine meaning, where this is clearly a divine story with a divine meaning.

That said, as far as Christianity is concerned, I'm fairly certain good deeds and bad deeds aren't the issue. The idea with Christianity is that ultimately, everyone is imperfect - the idea that good actions neutralize bad actions is a karmic ideal that is not in the Abrahamic religions. The arguement, "I lived a good life and am therefore qualified" is invalid because "Good" is not good enough - Heaven, and God within, are perfect - adding any imperfection to perfection renders the entirity imperfect, thus negating the point of heaven.

The reason knowing Christ, apparently, fixes this is that, in the same way one can erase a pencil mark with an eraser, Christ makes you, for all intents and purposes, perfect, and the actions you have commited wrongly - numerous or not - are negated.

Understand, however, that the bible seems to teach that there is some other method for dealing with those who have not been exposed to his word. Just what qualifies as "exposed" to his word is not addressed, so we can't say this Athiest wouldn't get such treatment - if he had been genuinely sheltered from the Word through his life, I find this to be a likely scenario.

There is no section in the bible detailing what happens to people who simply never had the chance to know. It would be irrelelvent - The Book of Doofus, Chapter 1 verse 1: "And here, concerning those who will never read this text I am writing..."... Pointless.

So this might be a correct scenario, while it's not TECHNICALLY a parable. God is Just - perhaps the Athiest would be saved by virtue of his ignorance to the Word. And there's more than one warning from Christ to fake Christians.

Also, this is my first post, so in that proud tradition...

:sniper:
I concur. We must remember that God is just.

The parable doesn't say the Atheist chose to go to heaven. The parable says there is a crash, and the Atheist and the Believer both find themselves there.

One assumes this is through divine intervention, rather than because they will themselves there.

I think one of the assumptions in the story is that there is something ABOUT the vision of god that they see, that is SO convincing, that the Atheist realises he is, indeed, in the hands of an almighty God.

Most Atheists lack strong conviction about the existence/non-existence of God... and most admit that they WOULD believe in a 'god' if there were good evidence.

Indeed, Atheism is just the path that involves less leaps of faith.

On the other hand, if the average Atheist actually came face-to-face with a real and 'living' god, the roles would be reversed... the presnece of a discernable deity would then involve less leaps of faith.

So - our Atheist is translated mystically (we assume) to the presence of a 'real' God, and instantly realises the 'error of his ways', and converts. And, of course, having 'realised the truth', our ex-Atheist now wishes to enter 'heaven' for fellowship with his new-found God.that makes sense.

tho the Idea of Athiesm involving any sort of leap/step/stumble of Faith I find hard to believe, but since I'm not Athiest, I can't say for sure.

Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?

lmao

Rule #1 for getting into heaven, according to the Bible:

Believe that Jesus christ was the Son of God... died for the sins of the world... and is the only one through whom salvation may be found.

The choice must be made ON EARTH to follow Christ... according to the bible.

But that was a nice fuzzy story. Too bad it's not biblical.

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

You don't get to heaven if you did not believe on earth... that's the whole point of having a heaven and a hell... anyone can say "yessir, I believe in you NOW THAT I SEE YOU..." ... the saved are set apart by believing without a tangible God there to make it such an obvious choice... again, Biblically speaking (i'm not making this up... I know it sounds harsh.)

But that was a nice fuzzy story. Too bad it's not biblical.

If you can find the verse that says "Those who never had sufficient opportunity to know Christ will go to hell" I'll eat my computer.

This technically - purely techinically - isn't a parable at all, because a parable is a mundane story with a divine meaning, where this is clearly a divine story with a divine meaning.
Something I didn't know. So what would I call it then?

That said, as far as Christianity is concerned, I'm fairly certain good deeds and bad deeds aren't the issue. The idea with Christianity is that ultimately, everyone is imperfect - the idea that good actions neutralize bad actions is a karmic ideal that is not in the Abrahamic religions. The arguement, "I lived a good life and am therefore qualified" is invalid because "Good" is not good enough - Heaven, and God within, are perfect - adding any imperfection to perfection renders the entirity imperfect, thus negating the point of heaven.
God in the story wasn't citing the deeds as jutifying it themselves, but instead as evidence that the Atheist was really a believer in his heart. God doesn't just let him in after that, he makes the Atheist accept that he is unworthy and accept his forgiveness for his sins.

The Atheist isnt saved because of his ignorance, he is saved the same way anyone is, God just gives him one last chance to accept him.

Also, this is my first post, so in that proud tradition...
:sniper:
:gundge: Eat biorifle, Biznatch!

that makes sense.

tho the Idea of Athiesm involving any sort of leap/step/stumble of Faith I find hard to believe, but since I'm not Athiest, I can't say for sure.That's the idea - it's a lack of faith due to not having evidence, not because he specifically 'rejected' anything (do you positively 'reject' everything that cannot be proven objectively?) Presented with the evidence, there's no reason he wouldn't believe.

If you can find the verse that says "Those who never had sufficient opportunity to know Christ will go to hell" I'll eat my computer.

read The Great Commission -- Jesus sending the disciples out to preach the Good News.

...also Paul's books. gotta go.

Happy New Year.

The choice must be made ON EARTH to follow Christ... according to the bible.
Show me verse that says this, and I'll accept that the story isn't biblically valid.

Something I didn't know. So what would I call it then?

Let's go with parable. It's just easier, but watch your mailbox for a Papal Copyright Infringement Indictment.

God in the story wasn't citing the deeds as jutifying it themselves, but instead as evidence that the Atheist was really a believer in his heart. God doesn't just let him in after that, he makes the Atheist accept that he is unworthy and accept his forgiveness for his sins.

The Atheist isnt saved because of his ignorance, he is saved the same way anyone is, God just gives him one last chance to accept him.

Indeed - My reference to deeds not being justification was a general rebuttal to the numerous posts in this thread to that effect.

In your parable, yes; that is certainly how things go, as you have described and you are the author of this story. To make it biblical however, in my humble opinion, I must make the assumption that the athiest had never had the exposure to true Christianty, saving Christianity, that constitutes "Sufficient exposure", at which point the athiest would have stopped lacking evidence and had been, in fact, denying evidence.

In my opinion.

read The Great Commission -- Jesus sending the disciples out to preach the Good News.

...also Paul's books. gotta go.

Happy New Year.

I've read them, and I'm not minimizing the importance of evangelism - God clearly wants everyone to hear about the whole Jesus bit; that's never been in question. But the idea that God nukes the souls of isolated or sheltered people is ridiculous - it paints an unmerciful, unjust God, which is not the God of the bible. As I've said, there's no verse addressing what happens to these people appart from a sliver of romans that mentions that the moral code is written on their hearts. If said athiest never had the chance to know, this might well happen - if he had the world of opportunity and rejected, then I'm afraid this is where the story, and the biblical story diverge.

In your parable, yes; that is certainly how things go, as you have described and you are the author of this story. To make it biblical however, in my humble opinion, I must make the assumption that the athiest had never had the exposure to true Christianty, saving Christianity, that constitutes "Sufficient exposure", at which point the athiest would have stopped lacking evidence and had been, in fact, denying evidence.

In my opinion.
Can you use the bible to support that opinion?

He wasn't necessarily denying evidence, just coming to the wrong conclusion. If one man tells me the earth is flat, and the other tells me it is round, and I test this by placing a marble on the earth and seeing if it rolls, and it doesn't, I may conclude that it is flat. I am wrong, but I am not denying evidence.

I don't think that God really wants us to be Cosmic Detectives. He just wants us to accept his forgiveness.
Supposing he exists and all.

now that i am back from visiting with family....

i feel that y'all have missed the point of the parable.

its not "do atheists get into heaven?". that is a decision left to god. no atheist would care about the answer and no christian would take the risk of leading a non-christian life just to test it out

the POINT is what happens to the self professed christian. HE DOESNT GET IN. that is what a good christian needs to contemplate. the atheist is just a convenient "least of my brothers" (as is lazarus).

so you ask yourself why a good christian man doesnt get into heaven, what his error was, and if YOU might be making that same mistake.

not unlike the story of the proud man who went into the temple to pray. he walked right up to the altar and thanked god for making him the cool guy his is. the OTHER man crawled in the door, threw himself on the floor and grovelled in front of god because he knew he was a miserable sinner. the second man walked away satisfied, the first unsatisfied.

Can you use the bible to support that opinion?

He wasn't necessarily denying evidence, just coming to the wrong conclusion. If one man tells me the earth is flat, and the other tells me it is round, and I test this by placing a marble on the earth and seeing if it rolls, and it doesn't, I may conclude that it is flat. I am wrong, but I am not denying evidence.

I don't think that God really wants us to be Cosmic Detectives. He just wants us to accept his forgiveness.
Supposing he exists and all.

If we are supposing that, on this hypothetical, that the Christian god exists, and that the bible is what it says and says what it is, then there is enough evidence on hand to conclude that there is an omnipotent creator, one who fits with the Bible's portrayal. This is what the bible says - We cannot say "There is not enough evidence for someone to see the bible is right" because the bible says there is enough evidence to see it is right - that is, it is either right, and evident about this - or it is wrong.

It's not about cosmic detective work, I think - it's about accepting, or rejecting, that which is presented to you - and if Christianity is biblically correct, then that which is presented is enough. If it is incorrect, then it will not be enough.

...there is enough evidence on hand to conclude that there is an omnipotent creator...
Omnipotence is a logical impossibility.

God may be very powerful, but nothing can be omnipotent.

I see... so the story is built on the promise that some higher being is megalomaniacal enough to play "God" as it thinks the humans are stupid enough not to notice it is no god.
Ok, that aside, let's look at the morale of the story...

Moral of the story:
All religious fanatics will go to hell. This applies pretty much to the entire religious right in the US since they all do stuff God accused the Christian of and the likes.

Nice :D

Right I've only read the first post so I don't know what's currently being discussed. I'm just giving my own response.

As a Christian, and I'm sure you were hoping some Christians to reply, I'm sad that you have such a negative attitude towards Christians. Maybe this is from your own personal experience of Christians, and I can't argue about that, it's true that there are bad Christians and indeed none of them are perfect, and if some claim to be, then they're contradicting their own religion. But your view is very, well, for lack of a better word, idealistic. A person can be 'good', and a Christian can be 'bad', but the fact of the matter is that God lay down clear guidelines as to who will and will not go to heaven. He offers people the chance to repent: if they choose not to then it is their own choice and they must live with the consequences.

When you die that's it. There's no more chances to repent. Everyone who dies will face God and be ashamed. Even Christians. Sure non-believers will believe then. But didn't Jesus say 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'? Of course you'll believe: but it'll have been too late.

Is it fair? Not by many people's standards, but is it fair to him that we sin? No. It's our fault. I can tell that you're a passionate atheist, your world view is probably along the lones of, enjoy life, there's no heaven or God (and even if there is as long as I don't do anything too bad, I'll be okay). I can relate with that. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably be that way too. But I'm not. I'm sure that God operates on a one on one level anyway. There wouldn't be anybody else who would dare argue God's sentence. No person, no 'self-righteous Christian', by your view would answer back.

On a worldly level your story works, and it was a pretty good story in a literary and philosophical sense, you clearly thought about it and planned it. But this is, in the end, just another of the many daily threads started to flame and fault Christians. The fact that so many atheists start these threads (seriously how many Christians start 'why do you hate me?' or 'Jesus Saves' threads? - not that many by my experience, they often just reply to anti-christian threads) is further proof that satan is driving them to do it, subconsiously. I'm not complaining (okay maybe I'm contradicting myself, but it's not like I said stop posting these things!), the Bible states that people will oppose Christians, and it's something that we must face. I'd just like to know why you wrote this. To have a great name for yourself among atheists (the majority of posters it seems) on this site, because you probably succeeded at that.

Wow this is really long. Longest post I've ever done, I'm sure. Sorry if this post was a waste of time to read!

I guess you have left the original story now.

You should do good things because they are good. It sounds circular only because it is so obvious.

It IS circular and does not answer my question. Why should we do good things? Because they are good. Why are they good? Because they are. That is not an answer. Christianity explains that we only get our perception of good and evil from God. Without God and humans deciding what is good and evil for ourselves, then logically, canabalism is ok, if we all decide it. If good and evil only come from our own understanding, and nothing else, then its just majority opinion. Not right or wrong


Not being able to do the right thing unless you are threatened with hell just means that you lack moral fibre and are as bad as a comletely amoral person.

Christianity is not about threatening you with hell. If you think that, you havent understood it properly.

that makes sense.

tho the Idea of Athiesm involving any sort of leap/step/stumble of Faith I find hard to believe, but since I'm not Athiest, I can't say for sure.

Well, I'm using the term 'leap of faith'... to describe that process where you take an assumption as read. It is a 'leap of faith'... but not necessarily a leap of faith... if you get what I mean.

Way to have an utter lack of theological understanding, OP. lol
Fact is, no matter what you do, you’re going to screw up, and one screw up, without accepting jesus before death, is all it takes. That’s why I don’t care about shit anymore.

[QUOTE=Adriatitca]It IS circular and does not answer my question. Why should we do good things? Because they are good. Why are they good? Because they are. That is not an answer. Christianity explains that we only get our perception of good and evil from God. Without God and humans deciding what is good and evil for ourselves, then logically, canabalism is ok, if we all decide it. If good and evil only come from our own understanding, and nothing else, then its just majority opinion. Not right or wrong

I'm perfectly fine with majority opinion diciding right and wrong. Seems a lot better than a book of superstitions.

And I think the parable that started this thread should be added to the Bible.

Crest Falls 1:1An Atheist and a Born-again Christian stand at the gates of heaven after a fatal car crash. God appears, and speaks first to the Atheist.
"Well, my son, it seems we have drifted apart from each other in recent years."
2:1The Atheist looks down. "I was wrong, it seems. I didn't believe in you, and now it's obvious that you exist."
3:1God smiled. "Perhaps with your mind you rejected me, but in your heart you knew me, just as you did my work by your hand. You have been a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin. So tell me, though my message was too diluted and my messengers were insufficient to convince you of the truth in your mortal life, do you accept now your flaws, that you are unworthy of heaven?"
4:1The Atheist looked up. "Now that I've seen you, and know what perfection is, yes. I am not worthy. I could never be."
5:1"And do you accept that I have died as penance for your sins?"
6:1"Yes. And God..."
7:1"yes, my child?"
8:1A tear ran down the former Atheist's cheek. "I'm sorry."
God smiled. "It is forgiven. and with that he threw open the gates.
Crying tears of joy, the former Atheist walked towards them.
"Stop!" Shouted the Born-again Christian. "What do you think is going on here? He said that he didn't believe in you, and the bible says that those who don't believe burn in a lake of fire for eternity! Why isn't he burning in Hell!"
9:1Slowly, God turned his face to the Born Again, and the look upon it made his jaw snap shut with an audible click.
10:1"As for you, child, have you kept faith?" God's voice was cold, for he already knew the answer.
11:1The Born Again scoffed. "Of course I did. I've been a faithful follower ever since I was a child."
12:1God's face grew grim. "No, you have not. You have spoken my name reverently at dinner and at church, but in your every thought and deed you have rejected me. As a boy you gathered a gang of children to taunt, harass, and harm another child, driving him eventually to drug use. In your work you have exploited desperate people, and naive people, taking the fruit of their labor for them in unfair trades. You have disowned your son for loving another man, and disowned your daughter for marrying a black man. You have been a part of the wall of hate and misunderstanding that drives many of my children to suicide. You have contempt for those less fortunate than you. It is not your place to judge, only mine, and all disputes are between me and the sinner, but you have enacted judgment of your fellow humans all through your life. This man" God gestured to the reformed Atheist. "Had but drifted from me. You have left me. Now, the gates stand before you. Do you accept that you are no better than this man, than your son, than your daughter, or than any man woman or child on the earth, in my eyes, and that all are deserving of kindness and respect?"
13:1God had no hope in his voice as he asked this.
The Born again Christian answered "Those people are sinner. I've been saved."
God's face lost none of it's resolve, though a single tear ran down his perfect cheek. "I'm sorry" he said.
14:1He turned to the Atheist and brought him through the gates. The other man tried to follow, but the gates slammed shut, and then disappeared. The man was left completely alone, even by God.

Than we can say it is so in the Bible. Look right there Crest Falls Chapter 1 Verse 1. Ha told ya.

You are assuming that God shares your moral code. Read the bible and you will realise that he does not.

Well, God didn't write the Bible, last time I checked.

Way to have an utter lack of theological understanding, OP. lol
Fact is, no matter what you do, you’re going to screw up, and one screw up, without accepting jesus before death, is all it takes. That’s why I don’t care about shit anymore.

Interesting that you feel you can claim that another person can have 'an utter lack of theological understanding'... but don't (seem to) realise that the same commentary can be made about yourself.

You ASSUME that what you know is right.

But, unless you've died and been received into the Kingdom of Heaven, you are just guessing like all the rest of us.

Omnipotence is a logical impossibility.

God may be very powerful, but nothing can be omnipotent.

Logic is a creation bound by the English language and the human mind.

Omnipotence can exist, we just dont understand it

I'm perfectly fine with majority opinion diciding right and wrong. Seems a lot better than a book of superstitions.

That doesnt answer my point. Morality without a God is circular and illogical


And I think the parable that started this thread should be added to the Bible.

It IS in the bible. Not in that exact form, but the story of the pharasee and the tax collector converys the same message

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

That doesnt answer my point. Morality without a God is circular and illogical


Why?

Morality doesn't 'need' a 'god', any more than the creation of the world does.

Your chosen religious perspective obviously skews your view of this, but that is not the same as it being 'fact'.

So - why is morality without god "circular and illogical"?

Why?

Morality doesn't 'need' a 'god', any more than the creation of the world does.

Your chosen religious perspective obviously skews your view of this, but that is not the same as it being 'fact'.

So - why is morality without god "circular and illogical"?

Answer this question

Why be selfless

The answer is because it benefits others. But by definition benefiting others means being selfless. So thats circular. We think its right to be selfless because we should be selfless. The moral idea has no origin point.

Morallity also needs a bench mark, else it is just arbitary. If it is arbitary then all morality is is majority opinion and no more valuable than the opinion that canabalism is right and good.

you mean you should only be selfless if you would NEVER think it was a good idea if god didnt command you to do such an counterintuitive thing?

sometimes cs lewis is such an ass.

No. I'm saying that selflessness is not a rational idea. It doesnt make sense if you attempt to apply logical thought to it. Thus the reason we value it has to come from somewhere else. Obviously Chrisitans and non Christians alike are capable of being selfless and selfish so it doesnt come from our beliefs. Logic dictates therefore that as a race, it must have come from our origins. Our origins are from God. Who created us. It is logical when you put him into the equation. Why? Well when god designed us, he made us so that we should live a particular way. The way that is outlined for us in the Bible. Humans work their best when they are doing what they are designed to do. Part of that design is the knowledge within us of what is right and wrong, and the desire to act upon it. We dont always follow that desire but we do have it. All humans have it. Its part of the meaning of being made in Gods image.

*yawn*

*yawn*

If your board with it why did you post? Your only bumping the thread

Moral of the story: Do what ever you want, to whom ever you want. You can disobey all of God's laws, All of Man's Laws, be a complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man, for when you meet God, you can say "I'm Sorry" and everything will be ok, after all, even God doesn't follow the rules HE sets down. :rolleyes:

Is that the point you're trying to make?

C'mon, JuNii, you know better than that. Shame on you for demagoguery.

No. I'm saying that selflessness is not a rational idea. It doesnt make sense if you attempt to apply logical thought to it. Thus the reason we value it has to come from somewhere else. Obviously Chrisitans and non Christians alike are capable of being selfless and selfish so it doesnt come from our beliefs. Logic dictates therefore that as a race, it must have come from our origins. Our origins are from God. Who created us. It is logical when you put him into the equation. Why? Well when god designed us, he made us so that we should live a particular way. The way that is outlined for us in the Bible. Humans work their best when they are doing what they are designed to do. Part of that design is the knowledge within us of what is right and wrong, and the desire to act upon it. We dont always follow that desire but we do have it. All humans have it. Its part of the meaning of being made in Gods image.

Um. Your logic is too bizarre to unravel.

But how do you explain selflessness in pre-Biblical eras?

No. I'm saying that selflessness is not a rational idea. It doesnt make sense if you attempt to apply logical thought to it. Thus the reason we value it has to come from somewhere else. Obviously Chrisitans and non Christians alike are capable of being selfless and selfish so it doesnt come from our beliefs. Logic dictates therefore that as a race, it must have come from our origins. Our origins are from God. Who created us. It is logical when you put him into the equation. Why? Well when god designed us, he made us so that we should live a particular way. The way that is outlined for us in the Bible. Humans work their best when they are doing what they are designed to do. Part of that design is the knowledge within us of what is right and wrong, and the desire to act upon it. We dont always follow that desire but we do have it. All humans have it. Its part of the meaning of being made in Gods image.

a) You assume that there is a god, then proceed to construct a logic that uses god, instead of having a logic that justifies a god.

b) You assume that humans know what is right and wrong. But those are subjective terms; In time and place, morality as proven to be totally relative. Does this mean we were created by many gods, each with one concept of morality? Does it mean that some of us do not know what right and wrong are?

Um. Your logic is too bizarre to unravel.

But how do you explain selflessness in pre-Biblical eras?

Since the Bible covers all history (IE from Adam and Eve till now) there are no pre biblical eras.

If you misunderstand my way of saying "the way outlined in the Bible". I dont mean we need the Bible to tell us how to be good. People who havent read the Bible know that its wrong to steal and kill etc. What I am saying is the fact that it is wrong to steal and kill and the fact that its right to be selfless are part of our design by God. God designed us to work best when leading life in a certian way. He also designed us to know what that way is. He outlines this way in the Bible also, to help guide us. We need the Bible to understand God and to confirm whether we are thinking in line with him, but morality comes not from reading the Bible, but from the image of God that we are made in

Since the Bible covers all history (IE from Adam and Eve till now) there are no pre biblical eras.

If you misunderstand my way of saying "the way outlined in the Bible". I dont mean we need the Bible to tell us how to be good. People who havent read the Bible know that its wrong to steal and kill etc. What I am saying is the fact that it is wrong to steal and kill and the fact that its right to be selfless are part of our design by God. God designed us to work best when leading life in a certian way. He also designed us to know what that way is. He outlines this way in the Bible also, to help guide us. We need the Bible to understand God and to confirm whether we are thinking in line with him, but morality comes not from reading the Bible, but from the image of God that we are made in

- In primitive societies were there is no concept of propriety, people do not "know" that stealing is wrong. Put them in a modern society, and they grab everyone's things, without realizing it is "wrong".

- The aztecs for example, considered that sacrificing people to the gods was actually a favor they did, has those that were sacrificed would go to their "heaven". For them, in those cercumstancies, killing was good.

a) You assume that there is a god, then proceed to construct a logic that uses god, instead of having a logic that justifies a god.

No I didnt. You didnt look at what I said earlier. Selflessness is not a rational concept. Why? Well ask the question why be selfless. The answer people normally come up with is that it benefits society or it benefits other people. But since benefiting other people is what it means to be selfless, then thats a circular arguement. We should be selfless because we should be selfless. Doesnt make sense. Thats where the post you replied to comes in.


b) You assume that humans know what is right and wrong. But those are subjective terms; In time and place, morality as proven to be totally relative. Does this mean we were created by many gods, each with one concept of morality? Does it mean that some of us do not know what right and wrong are?

Morallity IS universal. There are cultrual diffrences, but can you imagine a culture that valued cowardace, or praised betrayal. If morallity is reletive then ask this. If the Germans had won World war II would that have made it right for them to continue conquering the world or for them to wipe out all non Aryans in the world.

You could also say that morality can be made from the fact that doing things that harm the society you live in ultimately does not help you at all. Murdering, etc, does not help society, and by extension, yourself. Rational beings might *just* be able to understand that. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, eh?

Since the Bible covers all history (IE from Adam and Eve till now) there are no pre biblical eras.

If you misunderstand my way of saying "the way outlined in the Bible". I dont mean we need the Bible to tell us how to be good. People who havent read the Bible know that its wrong to steal and kill etc. What I am saying is the fact that it is wrong to steal and kill and the fact that its right to be selfless are part of our design by God. God designed us to work best when leading life in a certian way. He also designed us to know what that way is. He outlines this way in the Bible also, to help guide us. We need the Bible to understand God and to confirm whether we are thinking in line with him, but morality comes not from reading the Bible, but from the image of God that we are made in

Obviously the majority of human history preceeds the existence of the Bible. :rolleyes:

Speaking of circular logic ... you argue that only God can make us selfless, but because there are selfless people that have never heard of God, you say that is because they were made in God's image. And how do we know? Because they are selfless.

The merry-go-round goes round and round.

Further you assume that the good humans do is attributable to God, but not the evil that humans do. Very convenient.

Obviously the majority of human history preceeds the existence of the Bible. :rolleyes:

Speaking of circular logic ... you argue that only God can make us selfless, but because there are selfless people that have never heard of God, you say that is because they were made in God's image. And how do we know? Because they are selfless.

The merry-go-round goes round and round.
"you spin me right round baby right round, like a record ...."

Morallity IS universal. There are cultrual diffrences, but can you imagine a culture that valued cowardace, or praised betrayal. If morallity is reletive then ask this. If the Germans had won World war II would that have made it right for them to continue conquering the world or for them to wipe out all non Aryans in the world.

If germany had won WW2, and conquered the world, the "good" would be the nazi ideals and the "bad" would be democracy. The question isnt if I know think that the Nazis were good, but if, should they had won, I would consider them to be good. And likely, I would consider Nazi ideals to be good. Just like I consider monogamy "good". I do it due to historical and cultural accidents, and had those not occured, I would likely sport Poligamy.

C'mon, JuNii, you know better than that. Shame on you for demagoguery.I'll assume you didn't read the other posts when you posted this one. :D

Um. Your logic is too bizarre to unravel.

But how do you explain selflessness in pre-Biblical eras?
Pre-Biblical? or Pre-Religion?

Eye for an eye, and Might makes right were the two trends in those days.

Pre-Biblical? or Pre-Religion?

Eye for an eye, and Might makes right were the two trends in those days.

Um. I think you will find that most of human history is prior to the publishing of the Bible. Nonetheless, cultures that had nothing like Christianity have had morals and selflessness.

Right I've only read the first post so I don't know what's currently being discussed. I'm just giving my own response.

Then I get the feeling I will repeat myself in my rebuttle.


As a Christian, and I'm sure you were hoping some Christians to reply, I'm sad that you have such a negative attitude towards Christians. Maybe this is from your own personal experience of Christians, and I can't argue about that

The born again in the story does not represent all christians, or most christians, or christianity as a whole. He represents a small group of christians who are incredibly judgemental. I've met good christians and bad christians, and am not generalizing.

it's true that there are bad Christians and indeed none of them are perfect, and if some claim to be, then they're contradicting their own religion. But your view is very, well, for lack of a better word, idealistic.
An Idealistic view of religion? who would have thought that a possibility

A person can be 'good', and a Christian can be 'bad', but the fact of the matter is that God lay down clear guidelines as to who will and will not go to heaven. He offers people the chance to repent: if they choose not to then it is their own choice and they must live with the consequences.
The point of the parable was that he was offering a chance to repent. The Atheist's good deeds did not get him a free ticket into heaven. The born again's bad deeds did not keep him from heaven. The Atheist accepts God's offer and repents. The Born Again cannot bring himself to, because he is filled with his own self importance and contempt for humanity.

When you die that's it. There's no more chances to repent.
Prove it with scripture. No one else has so far. Prove that my story is biblically invalid.

Everyone who dies will face God and be ashamed. Even Christians. Sure non-believers will believe then. But didn't Jesus say 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'? Of course you'll believe: but it'll have been too late.
Many of the prophets have seen plenty, and they were not damned to hell. Paul did not believe until God graced him with a revelation, and he certainly would have gone to heaven.

Is it fair? Not by many people's standards, but is it fair to him that we sin? No. It's our fault.
I understand that. But it is not only unfair, it is unjust for God to sit back and let people swim or drown in this ocean of ideas when only one idea, inseperable from the rest, will save them.

I can tell that you're a passionate atheist, your world view is probably along the lones of, enjoy life, there's no heaven or God (and even if there is as long as I don't do anything too bad, I'll be okay).
Now you are generalizing. You don't know anything about me. I am an agnostic, and firmly believe that God may exist. But I won't go with pascals wager and lie to myself, and I feel that I cannot have faith without a reason.
I can relate with that. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably be that way too. But I'm not. I'm sure that God operates on a one on one level anyway. There wouldn't be anybody else who would dare argue God's sentence. No person, no 'self-righteous Christian', by your view would answer back.
It's a story. It's not meant to be literal. And neither you nor I know how anyone would react in God's presence.

On a worldly level your story works, and it was a pretty good story in a literary and philosophical sense, you clearly thought about it and planned it.
Thanks.

But this is, in the end, just another of the many daily threads started to flame and fault Christians.
That was not it's purpose. This was in the end, just a possibility that occured to me, that should be shared, and the best way I could think of was with a metaphorical story. I did not post this to say "Take that" at christians, as I grew out of that phase around age 14.

The fact that so many atheists start these threads (seriously how many Christians start 'why do you hate me?' or 'Jesus Saves' threads? - not that many by my experience, they often just reply to anti-christian threads) You must not have been here very long if you missed the great flamewars of Jesus Saves and Commando3. (And yes, I was another nation before, but I stopped coming for a while.

is further proof that satan is driving them to do it, subconsiously.
So the DEVIL made me write my story? Wow...

I'm not complaining (okay maybe I'm contradicting myself, but it's not like I said stop posting these things!), the Bible states that people will oppose Christians, and it's something that we must face.
People have and will oppose any belief system that they do not agree with. However, opposition is not persecution. You must face opposition to your beliefs just like anyone else.
I'd just like to know why you wrote this. To have a great name for yourself among atheists (the majority of posters it seems) on this site, because you probably succeeded at that.
And I'm sure you wrote this post to be the David to my Goliath, striking me down in the name of christianity and good?
Don't kid yourself. I wrote it because it came to me, and I needed to express it. Then I looked at it and thought "This is something I should post on nationsates. I bet people would rack up quite a page count discussing this."

Wow this is really long. Longest post I've ever done, I'm sure. Sorry if this post was a waste of time to read!
Just next time, if you're going to write something this long, make sure that it isn't half composed of already answered questions.

And also the morality argument is another part of the Chicken-and-egg debate that goes on with God and the Universe. If morality cannot exist in a vacuum (and must be created by God) then why can God exist in a vacuum?
And the answer to why I do selfless things? Because it feels good. Because not doing selfless things makes me feel guilty. Because society expects me to be selfless to a lesser or greater degree. Whether these are designed by God or programmed by the winding path of evolution I do not know. But I (and most people) are not robots who ask of every action "how will this directly benefit me?" We are irrational.

Answer this question

Why be selfless

The answer is because it benefits others. But by definition benefiting others means being selfless. So thats circular. We think its right to be selfless because we should be selfless. The moral idea has no origin point.

Morallity also needs a bench mark, else it is just arbitary. If it is arbitary then all morality is is majority opinion and no more valuable than the opinion that canabalism is right and good.

Your logic is flawed.

You could argue that a reason to be selfless is because it benefits others... but that is not the ONLY reason to be selfless.

Similarly, benefiting others does not AUTOMATICALLY equate to being selfless... one has only to look at the Legal profession to see this truth.

Thus - you perceive a 'morality without god' as circular ONLY because you choose to see it that way.

Regarding the majority-rules interpretation of morality... perhaps you are right.. but that doesn't make it illogical. If one looks at the morality of the God of the Old Testament, the 'morality' is very capricious... the morality of the Hebrews very much fits in with the morality of the majority, of the time... even down to things we now consider OBVIOUSLY immoral, like the keeping of slaves.

I do not accept that 'arbitrary morality' is a bad, or illogical thing. I do not accept morality NEEDS a benchmark.

Your logic is flawed.

You could argue that a reason to be selfless is because it benefits others... but that is not the ONLY reason to be selfless.

Similarly, benefiting others does not AUTOMATICALLY equate to being selfless... one has only to look at the Legal profession to see this truth.

Thus - you perceive a 'morality without god' as circular ONLY because you choose to see it that way.

Regarding the majority-rules interpretation of morality... perhaps you are right.. but that doesn't make it illogical. If one looks at the morality of the God of the Old Testament, the 'morality' is very capricious... the morality of the Hebrews very much fits in with the morality of the majority, of the time... even down to things we now consider OBVIOUSLY immoral, like the keeping of slaves.

I do not accept that 'arbitrary morality' is a bad, or illogical thing. I do not accept morality NEEDS a benchmark.

Sorry, but this seems contradictory. If morality needs no benchmark, then how can you judge anything to be immoral (especially when you use 'we')? Do you say that slavery is immoral solely because you believe it is, or because 'we' do, or by some other standard?

Sorry, but this seems contradictory. If morality needs no benchmark, then how can you judge anything to be immoral (especially when you use 'we')? Do you say that slavery is immoral solely because you believe it is, or because 'we' do, or by some other standard?

The two things are hardly contradictory.

If you accept that morality can be arbitrary... then you can accept that what is considered 'moral' by the majority of people, sets what is accepted as 'moral' for a culture, for a time.

In western culture, at this time... the majority viewpoint is that slavery is bad. Thus, the current morality dictates that slavery is bad.

So - when I say 'we'... I mean, the collective.

When I say I see no need for a benchmark, I am not necessarily referring to the majority viewpoint. I accept this. However, I can speak fairly confidently about what I need... and I see no need for a benchmark.

A benchmark isn't needed for a 'relative' morality. It is implicit in the mechanism, because the collective IS the benchmark.

Um. I think you will find that most of human history is prior to the publishing of the Bible. Nonetheless, cultures that had nothing like Christianity have had morals and selflessness.
Pre Biblical is Before the writing of the Bible.
Pre Religion is before any form of Religion.

Realize that there are Religions that do Pre date Chrisitianity as well as the publishing of the bible.

Can show any records of Selflessness and Morals that are not baised on any form of Religion, Christian or otherwise?

Can show any records of Selflessness and Morals that are not baised on any form of Religion, Christian or otherwise?

The simple fact that there are 'selfless' and 'moral' Atheists...?

The simple fact that there are 'selfless' and 'moral' Atheists...?
Was there any before the Bible was published or any form of Organized Religion formed?

and remember, in this parable, the "Athiest" did have God in his heart even tho "he didn't know it."

Pre Biblical is Before the writing of the Bible.
Pre Religion is before any form of Religion.

Realize that there are Religions that do Pre date Chrisitianity as well as the publishing of the bible.

Can show any records of Selflessness and Morals that are not baised on any form of Religion, Christian or otherwise?

Bogus question and you know it.

You can't treat all religions as the same. Unless you are quite the heretic the Popul Vuh is nothing like Christianity. Neither is Shintoism or Taoism.

Why do you (and most Christians) try this bait-and-switch when it is so obviously faulty?

Was there any before the Bible was published or any form of Organized Religion formed?

Yes and probably. You point to a civilization without a Christian religion and I'll point to the existence of moral in that civilization.

and remember, in this parable, the "Athiest" did have God in his heart even tho "he didn't know it."

And that proves ....

(Plus I thought that was the part of the parable you were ignoring.)

Yes and probably. You point to a civilization without a Christian religion and I'll point to the existence of moral in that civilization.Ancient Aztec Civilization.


And that proves ....

(Plus I thought that was the part of the parable you were ignoring.)
No, that was what I was arguing about. that a "True Athiest" cannot have God in his/her heart since to do so is to openingly and willingly invite HIM in. The Parable made it seem that Deed without Faith is what's needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. and that point was argued out to my satisfaction with Crest Falls.

Bogus question and you know it.

You can't treat all religions as the same. Unless you are quite the heretic the Popul Vuh is nothing like Christianity. Neither is Shintoism or Taoism.

Why do you (and most Christians) try this bait-and-switch when it is so obviously faulty?Not a bogus question. People have claimed that you don't need religion to form morals. I ask for any proof of morals being formed without Religion. and Laws are not Morals.

I've never argued that "Morals" is a "Christian thang". But I do believe Religion (any and all forms) do play a part in forming of "Morals" in any society: Past, Present and Future.

Ancient Aztec Civilization.

REad the Popul Vuh. Ancient Aztec civilization had its own system of morals -- rules against murder, ect.

Not a bogus question. People have claimed that you don't need religion to form morals. I ask for any proof of morals being formed without Religion. and Laws are not Morals.

I've never argued that "Morals" is a "Christian thang". But I do believe Religion (any and all forms) do play a part in forming of "Morals" in any society: Past, Present and Future.

No, you asked for proof that morals pre-dated religion. There have been athiestic systems of morals since the dawn of time.

Religion can and usually does play a part in forming the morals of a society. So? That does not prove it is a necessary part.

Again, aren't you being heretical in just lumping all "religion" together as if they were the same? The Popul Vuh is very different from Socrates which is very different from Shintoism which is very different from Confuscism which is ....

REad the Popul Vuh. Ancient Aztec civilization had its own system of morals -- rules against murder, ect.and isn't it basied off of their religion?

and isn't it basied off of their religion?

Not sure. Not relevant.

As I explained you can't equate all "religion." If you do then athiests have "religion." By your definition, any system of morals is by defintion a "religion."

No, you asked for proof that morals pre-dated religion. There have been athiestic systems of morals since the dawn of time.but you're quantifying Religion to only mean Christian. I mean All Religion.

Religion can and usually does play a part in forming the morals of a society. So? That does not prove it is a necessary part.can you show an example/proof of an civilization that formed morals (again not laws) to being good that has not been touched by any form of Religion?

Again, aren't you being heretical in just lumping all "religion" together as if they were the same? The Popul Vuh is very different from Socrates which is very different from Shintoism which is very different from Confuscism which is ....but Religion is Religion. You are limiting Religion to only Christianity. what about Islam? the Jewish Faith? Yes, Buddism, Shintoism, Taoism, can be considered Religion. then there are the Ancient Religions of the Roman/Greek/Norse Mythologies. are they not also Religions?

Ancient Aztec Civilization.This (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aztec.htm#H6) work? Besides, the laws of a place are by default based on their morals! How else are you supposed to decide what is 'right'?


that a "True Athiest" cannot have God in his/her heart since to do so is to openingly and willingly invite HIM in. IDK about that. It seems to me that an atheist does not actually object or refute anything about any religion. It's just he doesn't have any objective reason to believe in them. Given sufficient evidence, he'd convert; there would be no reason not to. Being fundamentally good does not require knowledge of a particular faith IMO...

but you're quantifying Religion to only mean Christian. I mean All Religion.

can you show an example/proof of an civilization that formed morals (again not laws) to being good that has not been touched by any form of Religion?

but Religion is Religion. You are limiting Religion to only Christianity. what about Islam? the Jewish Faith? Yes, Buddism, Shintoism, Taoism, can be considered Religion. then there are the Ancient Religions of the Roman/Greek/Norse Mythologies. are they not also Religions?

Now you are playing semantics. You have made the term "religion" to mean any system of belief -- which would include athiesm and any system of morals.

Of course you can't have a system of morals without a system of morals.

But you have yet to prove that you must have a religion in order to have a system of morals.

Not sure. Not relevant.

As I explained you can't equate all "religion." If you do then athiests have "religion." By your definition, any system of morals is by defintion a "religion."
but by your definition, Christianity is the only Religion ever and you know that's not true.

Religion helps form morals both good and bad. society can filter them, define them and then claim it's not baised on religion, but Morals did get their start with someone saying "don't do this for the [Great eye in the sky] is always watching."

The two things are hardly contradictory.

If you accept that morality can be arbitrary... then you can accept that what is considered 'moral' by the majority of people, sets what is accepted as 'moral' for a culture, for a time.

In western culture, at this time... the majority viewpoint is that slavery is bad. Thus, the current morality dictates that slavery is bad.

So - when I say 'we'... I mean, the collective.

When I say I see no need for a benchmark, I am not necessarily referring to the majority viewpoint. I accept this. However, I can speak fairly confidently about what I need... and I see no need for a benchmark.

A benchmark isn't needed for a 'relative' morality. It is implicit in the mechanism, because the collective IS the benchmark.

I'm confused. If you were born and lived in a time period in which slavery was considered morally acceptable, you would consider it morally acceptable? Or, alternatively, if you somehow were transported back in time to a period in which slavery was morally acceptable, and trapped there, would you consider it morally acceptable then?

but by your definition, Christianity is the only Religion ever and you know that's not true.

I never said or implied any such thing. Nice strawman.

Religion helps form morals both good and bad. society can filter them, define them and then claim it's not baised on religion, but Morals did get their start with someone saying "don't do this for the [Great eye in the sky] is always watching."

1. Prove it.

2. And yet most moral philosophies do not rely on "the Great eye in the sky"

Now you are playing semantics. You have made the term "religion" to mean any system of belief -- which would include athiesm and any system of morals.isn't that what the Definition of Religion is? not just Christianity but all systems of belief?

But you have yet to prove that you must have a religion in order to have a system of morals.and you, to prove that one can form Morals without the influence of Religion. (yes, I still feel that Athiesm is a Form of Religion.)

a point that, Like the exsistance of God (any and all) is nearly impossible to prove/disprove, so I would rather just say we agree to disagree and to move on.

what say you cat-tribe.

I'm confused. If you were born and lived in a time period in which slavery was considered morally acceptable, you would consider it morally acceptable? Almost certaintly that would be the case.

Or, alternatively, if you somehow were transported back in time to a period in which slavery was morally acceptable, and trapped there, would you consider it morally acceptable then?You'd still have your conditioning from the society you grew up in, i.e, it's not acceptable. Shouldn't that be obvious?

I'm confused. If you were born and lived in a time period in which slavery was considered morally acceptable, you would consider it morally acceptable? Or, alternatively, if you somehow were transported back in time to a period in which slavery was morally acceptable, and trapped there, would you consider it morally acceptable then?
most people who live in a slaveholding society consider it to be perfectly moral. no matter what their religion.

in the old south, certain bible passages were used to justify the owning of slaves. the majority of people in the south, especially those who were in slave holding families, had no moral problem with it.

but now and then a person in such a society will come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong all on his own without any intervention of common religious thought. he thinks it out for himself. he makes his own moral standard that fits his own understanding of what is right and wrong.

I never said or implied any such thing. Nice strawman.proof? right here.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10195454&postcount=207
Originally Posted by JuNii
Was there any before the Bible was published or any form of Organized Religion formed?Yes and probably. You point to a civilization without a Christian religion and I'll point to the existence of moral in that civilization.
I asked for one before any form of Organized religion and you redefined it to Christian Religion.
and there's this post. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10192206&postcount=198
where I ask if you wanted Pre Bibical or Pre Religion. you answered with Um. I think you will find that most of human history is prior to the publishing of the Bible. Nonetheless, cultures that had nothing like Christianity have had morals and selflessness.again you are discounting all civilizations that did not have christianity but did have their own religions and their morals.

1. Prove it.60 years ago, to have sex with the same sex was considered Immoral. 150 years ago, to consider a black man equal with white man, and women to be equal with men, were considered Immoral thoughts. but now society has created laws that are in place to "Filter" out such beliefs and society is 'conforming', slowly, but they are conforming.

2. And yet most moral philosophies do not rely on "the Great eye in the sky"like...

Almost certaintly that would be the case.

You'd still have your conditioning from the society you grew up in, i.e, it's not acceptable. Shouldn't that be obvious?

Following that reasoning, would not morality be solely dependent on your upbringing and not at all on free will? I.e. "morality" is only what you are told is right and wrong.


most people who live in a slaveholding society consider it to be perfectly moral. no matter what their religion.

in the old south, certain bible passages were used to justify the owning of slaves. the majority of people in the south, especially those who were in slave holding families, had no moral problem with it.

but now and then a person in such a society will come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong all on his own without any intervention of common religious thought. he thinks it out for himself. he makes his own moral standard that fits his own understanding of what is right and wrong.


I suppose that does happen. But the point of my question was to determine where this individual's moral standard came from. How does he "think it out for himself"? What standard does he use to compare the situation to?

but now and then a person in such a society will come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong all on his own without any intervention of common religious thought. he thinks it out for himself. he makes his own moral standard that fits his own understanding of what is right and wrong.Exactly like this?

2. That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. - Baptist Faith and Message (2000)
(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baptist_Faith_and_Message_%282000%29)
So... that says you can justify anything (anything!) if you can somehow connect it to the Bible?

Following that reasoning, would not morality be solely dependent on your upbringing and not at all on free will? I.e. "morality" is only what you are told is right and wrong.No, not soley based on society. I don't think only what my parents thought (good thing too! :)). Why is that? I am a different person.

Btw, I haven't actually found anyone that can prove that free will exists anyway. I've tried. :(

Or perhaps we need to accept that behaving in a moral manner need not be dependant on whether we accept a God or not. The one who accepted God was immoral. The one who did not accept God was moral. What is more imporatant? A lifetime of good actions or a lifetime of vice and cruelty, with the 'get out of jail free card' of claiming yourself to be a Christian?

Well, I'd take the view that the important phrase their is 'Claiming'. A Christian who recognises their faith and does everything to please God would not live like that Christian.

No, not soley based on society. I don't think only what my parents thought (good thing too! :)). Why is that? I am a different person.

Then what is it based on, if not society? You say because you are different; does that mean that everyone has a unique moral code? Or is it some combination of the two?

Then what is it based on, if not society? You say because you are different; does that mean that everyone has a unique moral code? Or is it some combination of the two?Does seem that way, eh? A large part of morality is dictated by society, but we are free to choose what we belive. In Europe the Catholic Church was the only game in town for a long time until the Protestants came along - obviously they weren't being mainstream for the time. I personally don't use file sharing because I think it's stealing (against my moral code), but others I know have absolutely no qualms about it. The Baptist Faith and Message explicitly states that you're free to choose anything you want to believe regarding, well, anything, if it does not conflict with the Bible.

There's some reason to believe that people don't hold the same opinions on morality, don't you think?

I personally don't use file sharing because I think it's stealing (against my moral code), but others I know have absolutely no qualms about it.

Aha. YOUR moral code. How did you derive your moral code? Why is stealing against it?

Aha. YOUR moral code. How did you derive your moral code? Why is stealing against it?Several reasons.
My parents taught me it was; (society)
The RIAA has made it clear they don't like it; :D (society)
I recognize that the solution to my problems with the music industry is not to take without paying, but not to take or pay at all. A thing called a boycott. I also attempt to change laws through writing my representatives to favor my views. (society)
It is a violation of the rights (constitutional & by specific law) of others, even if I think they're scumbags. (society)
I also realize that just because I really dislike them, it doesn't give me any right to do something illegal back to them.

Was there any before the Bible was published or any form of Organized Religion formed?


I'd imagine so, yes.

Especially since the bible being 'published' has been a fairly recent event.

But, examining archeological data... there were ecords of Mesopotamian civilisations with 'moral' codes, while the Hebrews were still wandering around the desert...

and remember, in this parable, the "Athiest" did have God in his heart even tho "he didn't know it."

Depends how you read that... the Atheist was always 'true to god'... but he never 'believed in him'.

You can claim that morality MUST centre around religion, but I think you'd find it hard to prove it to be so.

I'm confused. If you were born and lived in a time period in which slavery was considered morally acceptable, you would consider it morally acceptable? Or, alternatively, if you somehow were transported back in time to a period in which slavery was morally acceptable, and trapped there, would you consider it morally acceptable then?

How is this confusing?

If one looks back just a few hundred years, much of the 'civilised' world still DID keep slaves. It was, indeed, considered 'morally acceptable'.

Did the slaves LIKE it? Hell no, I'd guess... but that isn't the point... personal preference has little to do with morality, of necessity.

If I were to be transferred back in time, would I consider slavery 'morally acceptable'? I very much doubt it... since I have been raised in a civilisation, and a culture, that considers it to be morally 'bad'.

On the other hand - let's look at animal experimentation:

At the moment, many people consider it to, at least, not be IMMORAL... but the trend is towards a greater sensitivity for the quality of life of the animal.

Thus, in a few years, maybe a generation or so... it seems likely that it will be considered 'morally unacceptable' to experiment on animals.

So you can see.... morality really IS shaped by the culture.

Several reasons.
My parents taught me it was;

You just said that your parents did not determine your own moral code:


I don't think only what my parents thought (good thing too! ). Why is that? I am a different person.


The RIAA has made it clear they don't like it; :D
I recognize that the solution to my problems with the music industry is not to take without paying, but not to take or pay at all. I also attempt to change laws through writing my representatives to favor my views.

Here you're just being practical. That doesn't appear to have anything to do with morality.


It is a violation of the rights (constitutional & by specific law) of others, even if I think they're scumbags.

Here we go. A violation of someone else's rights in wrong. Yet does law equal morality? When the constitution was originally written, there was a clause permitting slavery. Certain laws have been considered unjust in the past. Are you saying that your morality is defined by the law alone? Or do the laws protecting people's rights simply conform to your standards of morality?

How is this confusing?

If one looks back just a few hundred years, much of the 'civilised' world still DID keep slaves. It was, indeed, considered 'morally acceptable'.

Did the slaves LIKE it? Hell no, I'd guess... but that isn't the point... personal preference has little to do with morality, of necessity.

If I were to be transferred back in time, would I consider slavery 'morally acceptable'? I very much doubt it... since I have been raised in a civilisation, and a culture, that considers it to be morally 'bad'.

But what of your morals? Are they defined only by what the people around you tell you when you are being raised? If that's true, then you don't actually have a moral code, because when you must pass a moral judgement on anything, that judgement doesn't come from you.

When you encounter a situation that requires moral judgement, how do you react?

You just said that your parents did not determine your own moral code:There is the word in there, 'only'. It does allow exceptions, you know. :)

Here you're just being practical. That doesn't appear to have anything to do with morality.If something wasn't practical, people wouldn't feel they have to dream up morality to justify it. The example with the slaveowners in the US especially; their morality was based on their economic reasons and predjudices, made to justify themselves. :)

Here we go. A violation of someone else's rights in wrong. Yet does law equal morality? When the constitution was originally written, there was a clause permitting slavery. Certain laws have been considered unjust in the past. Are you saying that your morality is defined by the law alone? Or do the laws protecting people's rights simply conform to your standards of morality?The laws conform to my standards of morality because I was raised in this country and share many of the ideas that led to the laws being enacted. I also value personal freedom, but you cannot restrict it to just one segment of the population and still guarantee it for yourself. (a very selfish view, I suppose, but that's what we're talking about, right?) Therefore, freedom for everyone and have a nice life. :)

Following that reasoning, would not morality be solely dependent on your upbringing and not at all on free will? I.e. "morality" is only what you are told is right and wrong.


It is not ONLY what you are told... it relies on other input, also.

"Free will" only 'matters' if you assume omnipotent gods, anyway... it is irrelevent in the big picture.


I suppose that does happen. But the point of my question was to determine where this individual's moral standard came from. How does he "think it out for himself"? What standard does he use to compare the situation to?

How about empathy? I got in fights at school, as a very young boy, because there was ill feeling towards Pakistani citizens where I lived. How did this affect 'white anglo me'?

My first day at school, I met a Pakistani boy, and talked to him, as I did with many other children that day. And, when another child decided to give this boy a 'hard time', I was instantly aware that I really wouldn't like to be that Pakistani boy, right then... to be being victimised purely because of something he could not control, and did not decide.

My 'moral standard', that day, was permanently 'shaped', by the simple fact that I could empathise / sympathise with another individual.

There is the word in there, 'only'. It does allow exceptions, you know. :)

Apparently. But how do you determine what those exceptions are? When is it ok to use your parent's morals instead of your own, and when is it not?


If something wasn't practical, people wouldn't feel they have to dream up morality to justify it. The example with the slaveowners in the US especially; their morality was based on their economic reasons and predjudices, made to justify themselves. :)

Is your morality practical? If it truly was, then you would have no objections to stealing music if you were sure that you could escape punishment by the RIAA.


The laws conform to my standards of morality because I was raised in this country and share many of the ideas that led to the laws being enacted.

Then your morality conforms to the law, and not the other way around.


I also value personal freedom, but you cannot restrict it to just one segment of the population and still guarantee it for yourself. (a very selfish view, I suppose, but that's what we're talking about, right?) Therefore, freedom for everyone and have a nice life. :)

Sure, but the law upholds freedom for everyone. Why should you care if anyone besides you gets it or not? Why shouldn't you steal if it gives you what you want?

Also: you give several reasons for your moral decision. But if only one of those reasons were taken away (e.g. the RIAA did not prosecute file-sharers), would you still believe that file-sharing was wrong?

It is not ONLY what you are told... it relies on other input, also.

"Free will" only 'matters' if you assume omnipotent gods, anyway... it is irrelevent in the big picture.



How about empathy? I got in fights at school, as a very young boy, because there was ill feeling towards Pakistani citizens where I lived. How did this affect 'white anglo me'?

My first day at school, I met a Pakistani boy, and talked to him, as I did with many other children that day. And, when another child decided to give this boy a 'hard time', I was instantly aware that I really wouldn't like to be that Pakistani boy, right then... to be being victimised purely because of something he could not control, and did not decide.

My 'moral standard', that day, was permanently 'shaped', by the simple fact that I could empathise / sympathise with another individual.

So is your morality based on caring about what happens to others, or what people tell you? Or both? What if they are in contradiction?

Apparently. But how do you determine what those exceptions are? When is it ok to use your parent's morals instead of your own, and when is it not?When I think it's wrong. If your looking for absolute value judgments, based on objectivity, you're not going to find them anywhere.

Is your morality practical? If it truly was, then you would have no objections to stealing music if you were sure that you could escape punishment by the RIAA.It is, partially. I gave a reason that showed historically that the same idea applies to others and not just myself.

Then your morality conforms to the law, and not the other way around.Simply a way of looking at it. The moral came before the law, and caused it to be an issue. Lawmakers then enforced the moral by creating a law. I suppose you couldn't tell after the fact though.

Sure, but the law upholds freedom for everyone. Why should you care if anyone besides you gets it or not?Because there is historical reason to believe that depriving others of rights that you want to hold is *not* a good idea.

Why shouldn't you steal if it gives you what you want?The Big Picture, that's what I look at. If everyone stole, then no one would get anything. I will not steal. It's self destructive, and in my specific, selfish interests not to steal.

Also: you give several reasons for your moral decision. But if only one of those reasons were taken away (e.g. the RIAA did not prosecute file-sharers), would you still believe that file-sharing was wrong?Yup. Say you murder someone but no one prosecutes you. Would it still be against the law? Check. Does that law represent a right I'd like to have for myself? Check. Does enforcing that law make it more likely I'll have that right (to not being murdered) in the future? Check!

I think I'll prosecute you if no one else does.

When I think it's wrong.

Then you are not acting on your parents' morality at all. In every situation, just like the file-sharing issue, you evaulate it based upon YOUR morality. You only use your parents' when they happen to be the same. The key here is that you are judging your parents' morality. How are you judging it? With your own.


If your looking for absolute value judgments, based on objectivity, you're not going to find them anywhere.

Nonsense. Objective morals do exist.


It is, partially. I gave a reason that showed historically that the same idea applies to others and not just myself.

So if something is not practical, then it is not moral? When you say it is "partly" something, then that means that when that part is taken away, the result is less than the original whole (i.e. not morally right).


Simply a way of looking at it. The moral came before the law, and caused it to be an issue. Lawmakers then enforced the moral by creating a law. I suppose you couldn't tell after the fact though.

So your morals come from the objective standards that the laws are based upon, not the laws themsleves?


Because there is historical reason to believe that depriving others of rights that you want to hold is *not* a good idea.

The Big Picture, that's what I look at. If everyone stole, then no one would get anything. I will not steal. It's self destructive, and in my specific, selfish interests not to steal.

That's not true. In the Big Picture, it does not matter if you steal or not. You stealing will not make everyone steal. People shoplift and file-share all the time; yet do their actions make everyone follow suit? No. Compare it to voting; if you voted in that last United States presidential election, your vote does not matter. The outcome would be the same no matter which candidate you voted for (unless the swing state that you belonged to determined the outcome of the electoral vote, and the state's vote was determined by exactly one vote, a statistical near-impossibility).


Yup. Say you murder someone but no one prosecutes you. Would it still be against the law? Check. Does that law represent a right I'd like to have for myself? Check. Does enforcing that law make it more likely I'll have that right (to not being murdered) in the future? Check!

I think I'll prosecute you if no one else does.

I think you missed the point. The missing factor does not necessarily have to be the prosecution. Say your parents believed that it was ok to commit X crime. Since you stated your parents' moral teachings as one of your reasons, would that make it ok to commit X?

So is your morality based on caring about what happens to others, or what people tell you? Or both? What if they are in contradiction?

Didn't you read it?

Quite clearly, the 'accepted' morality was that it was okay to victimise someone based on their specific ethnicity. Quite clearly, my empathy allowed me to see that 'morality' differently.

They were contradictory - and empathy trumps 'accepted' morality.

Nonsense. Objective morals do exist.


Big claim.

Stated as fact.

One MUST assume, therefore, that you have uncontestable proof to support it?

Show me an 'objective moral'?

Didn't you read it?

Quite clearly, the 'accepted' morality was that it was okay to victimise someone based on their specific ethnicity. Quite clearly, my empathy allowed me to see that 'morality' differently.

They were contradictory - and empathy trumps 'accepted' morality.

Then you agree that 'accepted' morality is irrelevent to moral choice.

Big claim.

Stated as fact.

One MUST assume, therefore, that you have uncontestable proof to support it?

Show me an 'objective moral'?

It is immoral to harm others without their consent.

Then you agree that 'accepted' morality is irrelevent to moral choice.

If you wish to place that (unjustified) interpretation on my words, so be it.

Accepted morality is, perhaps, the basis for what we perceive as a 'moral code'... but it is not the only (or even, the strongest) factor.

Quite clearly, empathy has some impact... and, as more people in a culture are sensitive to the 'empathic' morality, so the 'moral code' of the culture is skewed by that profile.

Until, ultimately, the consensus becomes the same as the empathic 'morality'.

If you wish to place that (unjustified) interpretation on my words, so be it.

Accepted morality is, perhaps, the basis for what we perceive as a 'moral code'... but it is not the only (or even, the strongest) factor.

Quite clearly, empathy has some impact... and, as more people in a culture are sensitive to the 'empathic' morality, so the 'moral code' of the culture is skewed by that profile.

Until, ultimately, the consensus becomes the same as the empathic 'morality'.

I don't know, maybe I'm not interperting you correctly, but it sounds a lot like you agree with me.

You appear to consider 'empathy' an objective standard, and any culture's moral code to be subjective unless it is the same as an empathetic morality.

It is immoral to harm others without their consent.

Is it, indeed?

So, you are arguing that 'objective' morality forbids self-defence, forbids war, forbids the biblical rejoinders to 'not suffer a witch to live'... etc?

Indeed, what constitutes 'harm'? Certain Quaker groups believed that sex was, intrinsically, violent. Thus - they refused to copulate, because they agreed with your conception that 'harm' is immoral. It's a self-limiting state of mind.

Also - what constitutes 'others'... I have the feeling you are being homo-sapiens specific... and yet, clearly, there is no hard and fast rule displayed by any given culture, that disallows ALL acts of 'harm' to other humans... and MANY cultures fail to explore 'moralities' that protect NON-humans from 'harm'.


Your assertion is insupportable.

I don't know, maybe I'm not interperting you correctly, but it sounds a lot like you agree with me.

You appear to consider 'empathy' an objective standard, and any culture's moral code to be subjective unless it is the same as an empathetic morality.

You are not interpreting me correctly, I suspect.

Empathy is ONLY 'standard' in those who empathise. There is nothing 'objective' about empathy... indeed, 'subjectivity' is basically the essence of empathy.

I seem to observe a world of subjective 'consensus' moralities... most of which are influenced, sooner or later, by empathy... for the good or for the bad.

But, even those 'empathic' moralities are still (almost by definition) subjective.

Is it, indeed?

So, you are arguing that 'objective' morality forbids self-defence, forbids war, forbids the biblical rejoinders to 'not suffer a witch to live'... etc?

Indeed, what constitutes 'harm'? Certain Quaker groups believed that sex was, intrinsically, violent. Thus - they refused to copulate, because they agreed with your conception that 'harm' is immoral. It's a self-limiting state of mind.

Also - what constitutes 'others'... I have the feeling you are being homo-sapiens specific... and yet, clearly, there is no hard and fast rule displayed by any given culture, that disallows ALL acts of 'harm' to other humans... and MANY cultures fail to explore 'moralities' that protect NON-humans from 'harm'.


Your assertion is insupportable.

It is precisely because of differring interpertations of those terms that the accepted morals of societies are different. Truly, the consciences of all sane human beings do conform to that statement (I suppose I might add, "unless in self-defense"). Slaveowners, for example, believed in this principle even though they owned slaves. Why? Because they also believed that their slaves did fall under the 'others' category (compare with people who eat meat vs. PETA today). At the very least, the principle applies to one's peers; for example, Islamic jihadists would probably have little qualms about killing evil American satans but would not harm each other.

Nevertheless, the principle holds true for all societies. What of criminals, you may ask? They are either insane, or they realize what they are doing is wrong but they are tempted beyond caring enough not to do it (by greed or desperation). EVERYone in good mental health has a conscience. Try it out; if you harm someone without cause or steal their possessions, or whatever, you will feel guilty. Don't you?