Genesis and Antis

[The Pixie]

And I could also add you don't need science in the modern sense to know those facts. The wonder comes from metaphysics really. Is there anything that is truly wonderful or do we just have an idea of wonder that we project on it?

So the argument here is that the heading on the card the girl was holding is inaccurate. It is not just science, but more a general philosophy that embraces science. If that is your point, then I will agree and we can move on.

Everyone has sinned. That's the basis.

That is only half of it. Why do we therefore all deserve hell?

Further, the reinforces the meme on the card the girl was holding. The philosophy that embraces science says we are wonderful. Christianity says we all deserve hell.

The whole point of your post was to prove that meme was wrong, and yet here you have conceded that it was right (albeit with an inaccurate heading).

No. I want to see you make an argument for it. Keep God and Christ in the picture for us and make an argument where by you will determine who gets to be in the presence of God and who doesn't and also explain why this isn't just arbitrary.

People who are basically good do not deserve hell. This follows from our commonly held understanding of justice: The severity of punishment is related to the severity of the crime.

Do you believe severity of punishment should be related to the severity of the crime or do you reject our current understanding of justice? Do you think petty theft and serial rape should be punished the same? I am pretty sure you agree with me here.

So do you think the punishments our courts hand our are arbitrary (and I am thinking about the ideal here, I appreciate there are flaws, as could be practiced by an all-knowing God)? In a sense, yes, but there is a consistency across the system, there is a hope that the perpetrator will reform, and there is the chance of release for all but the most serious crimes. Of course, someone has to decide what those most serious crimes are. I am going to assume an all-knowing and perfectly just God can do that.

Let us turn this around, and see what you are proposing. In your view God engineered a world in which every single person that was destined to live in it was certain to end up deserving hell. What sort of entity creates a world like that? And the only way to avoid hell is grovelling to the guy who engineered it.

If we were talking about anyone other than your God, you would be horrified by such a scenario.

No. It says you are fallen and you are meant for better things. You're meant to rule and reign and be in an exalted place.

Right. You are a fallen sinner inevitably destined for hell, but why be sad? Start grovelling to the guy who engineering all this, and all will be good.

Well, for you. Five billion other people are going to hell, but if you can live with the thought that billions of people are suffering eternity, you will be as happy as pig in muck!

No set age, but in 2 Samuel 12, David says after his son dies that he will go to be with his son and his son will not go to be with him. Isaiah 7 speaks of a time before a child knows the right from the wrong. What's the magical age? There isn't one. it depends on the maturity of the child and when they understand. The same could also be said for people with severe intellectual disabilities.

Is this the verse?

23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

The Ancient Hebrews believed they would all go to a kind of underworld called Sheol. I think it more likely David was referring to going there than heaven.

Furthermore, the text gives no indication of the age of the child. To support your claim, you have to assume the child was still not old enough to know right from wrong. Why should we suppose that that is the case?

Also, this point when they know right from wrong is very vague. This webpage gives an overview of the development of the idea, and it takes years:
http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/...il.cfm?id=1801

Let us suppose, however, that at age nine a boy suddenly understands the Golden Rule. Yesterday he was guaranteed a place in heaven, suddenly today he deserves to go to hell. Have I understood your position properly?

Makes me think it would be better not to teach your children morality at all and to stifle all signs of empathy in them. If you can get them to adulthood without them understanding right and wrong, they should secure in a place in heaven. In effect, we are punished for learning what is right and wrong (and in fairness, this is Biblical; Adam and Eve were punished for just that). Do you consider that to be a just system?

In summary then, while it is nice to think children will get a free pass to heaven, there is no Biblical support and the system is fundamentally flawed. And the ultimate flaw is the assumption that everyone deserves to go to hell.

You tacitly acknowledge that it is not just for those who cannot tell right from wrong to automatically go to hell. It is a shame you cannot extend the logic to those of us who can.

Why would I condone doing evil that good may result?

God does. He allows Satan to get up to all sorts of mischief, when, being all-powerful, he could stop it in an instance. Do you think you are better than God?

If God is real, He is the greatest good, the most beautiful, the most true, the sustainer that all that exists, the giver of all good gifts, the foundation of righteousness, the ultimate judge, etc. and if someone says to Him in essence "forget you" and goes without Him, well they get their wish. That's what Hell is. They get to live and be their own gods.

Great. So no anguish or torment, just life away from God? That is a big relief.

By the way, you say "the ultimate judge", but all he has judged is we all deserve hell!

What's the problem with having a woman obey her husband?

It indicates that the husband is superior. Like you have to obey your boss, because he is your superior in the workplace.

This is the opposite of equality.

This was also because of differences. Men and women are equal in being both fully human, but they have differences. A man is generally capable of doing a lot more of the work that is needed due to tending to be stronger. That's worth more.

Now that you are explaining why men are considered superior in the Bible, I think my point is made.

How would this follow that the women are not cared for? All that follows from this is that the men tended to have the responsibility of leadership.

Who said the women were not cared for? No idea where you get that from.

The verse in Deuteronomy says all the men, not just the leaders. All the men had to appear before the lord, because all the men, leaders and followers, were important to God. He did not want to see any of the women.

You talk about the special love of a father for his daughter, but so what? Atheists have that too. What we are discussing is the Biblical view of women, not the real one!

Wow. So atheists have something, therefore, that can't be what the Biblical passage could also have in mind. Wow.

We are talking about a Biblical passage about fathers selling their daughters into slavery. Can you clarify how this relates to the special love of a father for his daughter?

Is there any reason to suppose that a gentile slave ever became part of the covenant, and then got released in a Jubilee year, or is this just wishful thinking?

Why not? Anyone who became a part of the covenant got the blessings of the covenant. This would include even Gentile women like Ruth and Rahab.

So just wishful thinking (neither Ruth nor Rahab were slaves).

That's because daughters also tied family lines so you had to be more specific in that area. Sons didn't do that.

Or because the selling of daughters was commonplace - because women were little more than property.

Your last sentence is problematic. Daughters were treated better but this was true of all Hebrew slaves? Hebrew daughters were treated better than Hebrew sons but that's true of Hebrew sons as well?

All Hebrew slaves were treated better than gentile slaves (Lev 25:44-46).

Nice to have someone speaking from a fully Western perspective. Yes. Marriages were not based on love. That's a more modern phenomenon. It was a way of uniting two families and in this case, a poorer family with a richer one. That way, the daughter could get into a family where she would be cared for instead of the one she was in where she would not be.

Which means the daughter would be obliged to have sex with someone she did not want to. I.e., rape. Is that right? Or is that just my "fully Western perspective"?

It's both, but ritual purity means the woman gets more time with the daughter, the daughter more time with the mother, and this is time that the mother does not have to work. The mother gets extra bonding with a daughter.

I put that bit in bold, as it tacitly acknowledges the point is the ritual purity, and the following consequence is the extra bonding.

Blood was seen as a symbol of life. The reason a woman would be seen as unclean in her period was that her life was flowing out of her symbolically. For a man with his semen, his life was flowing out of him that same way. Why should I think getting blood in battle would be different? In fact, after the battle with the Midianites in Numbers 31, anyone who killed a man or touched a corpse was to go and be outside the camp for a week of purification.

You are talking of a one-off event that appears to be because the Midianites were considered especially unclean. Even the plunder from the war was cleansed in fire or water. There is no indication that this was the standard procedure of the day.

How the tradition began of a woman changing her name doesn't matter. What matters is that we do it. Does it mean because we do it that we value women less?

No we do not.

I am interested to see where you go with this; I have no idea.

It only comes from one place. An atheist thinker like Jurgen Habermas would even tell you without Christianity, we would not have the moral systems we have today. What today seems obviously moral to you would not have been seen the same way before Christianity came along.

Plenty of other cultures worked out that murder and stealing are wrong. Conversely, our culture has worked out slavery is wrong, despite the Bible. Christianity certainly has had an impact, but we cannot know how how culture would have developed without it.

No, because I still would have a moral system. My contention is rape and adultery start somewhere. They start with those thoughts. When does a man do the wrong? When he thinks the good that he can get is greater than any cost he could pay. That's the cost-benefit analysis. That's why one stops the idea immediately lest the benefits in the mind grow and grow.

The reality, however, is that the vast majority of non-Christian men do not rape, just because they know it is wrong. Furthermore, repression of our natural thoughts seems to actually engender rape. Incidents of rape are actually higher in more religious US cities than in the less religious cities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_4667822.html

Rape seems to also be a problem for Bible-minded cities. The rape rate per 100,000 people was 5.4 in the ten most fundamentalist cities and 3.9 in the ten most secular cities.

The reality is that Jesus' command seems to lead to more rape, not less.

See also:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...m-and-religion
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...sault-problem/

And this one too. Is this a proper Christian attitude to rape?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...ims-bob-jones/

Katie Landry, who was raped by a coworker several times during the summer before she started attending Bob Jones, didn’t tell anyone about her assault for several years. She was deeply ashamed and failed most of her classes her first year of school. When she eventually sought counseling, the dean of students told her that “we have to find the sin in your life that caused your rape.”

What part needs clarifying?

You said:

"No. It doesn't. The question that has to be asked is "Why not?" Note also that you live in a society like it or not that has been Christianized and has a Christian ethical background behind it. Most Christians would also say they don't commit rape not out of fear of Hell or promise of Heaven as well I suspect, but I'm just pointing here to the heart issue. This is why Jesus condemns lust. Wrongdoing starts somewhere."

That seemed to be saying the Christians have reasons not to rape beyond a fear of hell and a hope for heaven. I took that to mean that they actually get that rape is wrong. I was hoping (futilely I now suspect) that you would accept non-Christians also get that rape is wrong. Given you went on to say: "The claim was that if we could get away with it, we would be rapists." I think I was wrong.

Then again, you also said: "Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

Oh, and you think we all deserve hell.

So if you could state:
1. Are we all wicked, just atheists, just a few specific individual or what?
2. Do we all deserve to go to hell?
3. Would all atheist man rape if they could get away with it?
4. Would all Christian man rape if they could get away with it, if there was no threat of hell or promise of heaven?

That's part of natural law thinking....

Is it?

Why do you also think it is wrong?

Empathy and reciprocity.

Why do you think it is wrong? Perhaps you can point to the Bible verses that tell you emphatically that rape is wrong. And if you can do that, you can point to the verses that tell you slavery are wrong. Good luck with that!

The reality is we both use empathy and reciprocity to decide they are wrong (or draw on our culture, and the empathy and reciprocity there).

What consequences would happen if it was done? After all, we can all think something is wrong but do it anyway.

Yes we can. The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I will not do it anyway. Perhaps I am just more moral than you.

Actually, I doubt I am. I think you are every bit as moral as me, it is only that your religion has convinced you that you are such a wicked person. Remember the meme on the card the girl was holding? It should have had "Rapist" on the left and "Moral agent" on the right.

You can only have moral failures if you have morality and unless perfect people exist, if you have morality, you have moral failures.

So?

Absolutely I do. Why? Because there is a good that I want that seems at the time greater than any costs to it.

Great. So there is your answer.

No. Some would have rejected God with greater knowledge. Some would not have. All people are judged according to the light that they received.

Ah, I see. So punishment is increased for the well-educated and lessened for the ignorant.

This is a perfectly just system in your view?

One aspect I want to highlight is how the system revolves around God's ego. All these people consigned to hell for not worshiping God, with the punishment turned up for those who rejected him most. While we argue about rape and slavery, these are as nothing to God. Slaver, rapists, librarians; they are all the same to God, and his perfect justice.

Sure people know they have moral failures, but it takes religion to convince them those failures are so bad that they deserve to go to hell. People have both good and bad in them, and in the vast majority of people, the good is much greater than the bad. Christianity focuses entirely on the bad. You have some moral weaknesses, therefore you are fallen, sinful, etc. But look, join our religion and you will be okay.

Actually, this is false. Even Aquinas said on the whole people do more good than bad. What Christianity does say is that there is a problem, and in fact, this is not new. Every system knows there is a problem. Christianity then says "Here is our solution to it." What needs to be asked is if the solution is true or false.

What is false? We seem to agree that on the whole people do more good than bad. I am sure you think the bad is a moral failure, and sufficient to mean everyone deserves hell. Are you debating whether Christianity focuses on the bad rather than the good? You say nothing to refute the claim.

It doesn't take religion to know that. Everyone knows there's a problem.

It takes religion to capitalise on it. It takes religion to convince someone who does more good than bad that he deserved to go to hell for eternity.

If we make Christianity be about just the forgiveness of sins, then we do lose focus. The hope of Israel is that God would become king over the Earth once more and His rule would be manifest. Where does forgiveness fit in with that? It means being on good relation with the King and siding with Him.

Has anyone said Christianity is just the forgiveness of sins?

For what I think, I would point to Jesus talking about marital unfaithfulness. Some think this is just adultery, but I think it could just as much refer to abuse going on. That is not being faithful to the covenant.

That is it? That is all you have about abuse to the spouse or children? No wonder such abuse is rife throughout Christians. Except it is not, is it? Despite the vaguest of prohibitions, most Christians know anyway that such abuse is wrong. The same way atheists, Hindus, etc. do.

If it is followed, yes. Are those teenagers following it? Doubtful since they're not married. How does it show a rule does not work when we say "Look. Where the rule is not followed, teen pregnancies go up."

It shows the rule is unworkable.

I think we've tried long enough with the "Just tell them about condoms" method. It hasn't worked so well.

So kind of like the "one per customer" rule.

Most Christians I know have no interest in outlawing homosexuality. Do we say that it's wrong and shouldn't be done. Yes. That's not the same as not allowing people to do it. We think pre-marital sex is wrong but we don't burst into peoples' houses to see what they're doing. The only exception to something like this, and one I can definitely understand, is a parent keeping watch on what goes on under their own roof with their kids.

Where are you getting this "burst into peoples' houses"?

Remember where we started with this? You objected to people saying Christianity is anti-sex, and I pointed out that instead is is just very restrictive. With that in mind, you have said:

Homosexuality: "Do we say that it's wrong and shouldn't be done."
"We think pre-marital sex is wrong"

Such was only in Israel and only for the time of the theocracy. Today, in the new covenant, those who do this and do not repent are to be cut off from the body for the time being.

So God has changed his mind about stoning them to death? He has now realised it is a bad idea? Or does he think it is still a good idea in a theocracy, but realises it might not be so popular outside a theocracy?

Today? No. Back then, Israel was again to be a pure people in every way and the release of semen like that represented life going out.

Talk me through this. You are saying that God held the ancient Hebrews to a higher standard than he does for Christians today? He wanted them to be pure, but he is not bothered whether Christians are pure? Is that right? Perhaps he realised his expectations were set to high, afterall it is not like he is all-knowing. Oh, wait...

No. He in fact holds Christians to a higher standard, but the Christians are not one people living in one nation and do not have the same sacrificial system and also have the Holy Spirit working in them which the Hebrews generally did not have. We are held to a higher standard such as the Sermon on the Mount, and we would be judged more severely because we come after the resurrection. Not before.

So because Christians are not living in one nation asnd have no sacrifice system, the semen is not impure? Or does the Holy Spirit make it pure? Or something..?

Those who did not defile themselves are those who remained faithful to the covenant and not chasing after others. This is so especially since Revelation describes a time where people will be tempted to stray, and that's true on both a futurist and a preterist interpretation.

Right. So having sex with a women is likened to breaking a covenant with God.

Assuming you think breaking a covenant with God is a terrible thing, that indicates having sex with a woman is also a bad thing.

Get married if you will burn with passion. It is better to have that passion satisfied than to burn with it, especially if it distracts you from everything else.

And:

No. Paul is saying in a time of famine, taking on a wife will bring about extra responsibilities that could be difficult for the present situation. He is not saying sex is bad at all. He's a good Jew after all.

Read the whole thing in one go. Paul is saying get married to avoid burning with passion; sex is bad, but better in a marriage than not. He says nothing about "a time of famine, taking on a wife will bring about extra responsibilities". Where are you getting that?

Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

The command would also have included adultery. It's part of the Jesus tradition which we do get in the Gospels.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said.

How do you think Paul knew what the Lord said?

Scripture (i.e., the Old Testament).

I have quoted our exchange as I have no idea where you are going with this.

Many atheists can be fine people on a horizontal level, relating to their fellow man. Many Christians can be jerks on a horizontal level. THe vertical level though is about what do you do with the one who is the greatest good and not the ones who are lesser. Yes. The greatest evil one can do is to shun that which is the greatest good of all. All other evils one does are a result of shunning this greater good.

So in your view, all atheists have done this great evil of rejecting god, right? But you said:

"Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

So not wicked people, just people who have done "The greatest evil one can do". Is that it?

[Abigail]

So in your view, all atheists have done this great evil of rejecting god, right?

Jesus is our righteousness complete in that He makes up for any short comings we have. If we reject Him then we have to attain complete righteousness through our own efforts.

But you said:

"Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

So not wicked people, just people who have done "The greatest evil one can do". Is that it?

Christians believe God created people with consciences (which can become dull or severed). It is our conscience which mostly informs us when we have acted selfishly to the harm of others. Culturally we can dull our consciences so that as a group, even though we are not ok, the only person who stands out as bad is the one who consistently or drastically goes further. In other words most atheists will not stand out from their cultures as more wicked than anyone else. We all have deficits, however the Christian acknowledges his failings and asks Christ to sort out the shortfall. The atheist gets insulted at the notion that he may not be perfect.

[Apologiaphoenix]

hmmm. I wrote out a whole response and it didn't get published somehow. Not doing it again today. I'll try to remember tomorrow.

[jpholding]

hmmm. I wrote out a whole response and it didn't get published somehow. Not doing it again today. I'll try to remember tomorrow.

Might be a good idea to put your longer responses in a word processing document first. I've had to do that.

Not that The Picknoser has much intelligent to respond to. Reading his posts is like watching America's Funniest Fundy Atheist Videos. One where he's hitting himself in the groin with a sledgehammer repeatedly.

[The Pixie]

Might be a good idea to put your longer responses in a word processing document first. I've had to do that.

For once I agree with the obnoxious jerk; write any long responses in a word processor.

[The Pixie]

Jesus is our righteousness complete in that He makes up for any short comings we have. If we reject Him then we have to attain complete righteousness through our own efforts.

Christians believe God created people with consciences (which can become dull or severed). It is our conscience which mostly informs us when we have acted selfishly to the harm of others. Culturally we can dull our consciences so that as a group, even though we are not ok, the only person who stands out as bad is the one who consistently or drastically goes further. In other words most atheists will not stand out from their cultures as more wicked than anyone else. We all have deficits, however the Christian acknowledges his failings and asks Christ to sort out the shortfall. The atheist gets insulted at the notion that he may not be perfect.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Before going any further, can we clear up some confusion here? Atheists do not get insulted when someone says we are not perfect. We accept that no one is perfect. In fact, I have even said as much several times in this discussion for example:

Post #30: "Sure people know they have moral failures, but it takes religion to convince them those failures are so bad that they deserve to go to hell. People have both good and bad in them, and in the vast majority of people, the good is much greater than the bad."

The bits you quoted of me relate to a discussion about why atheists would think Christians believe all atheists are wicked. AP apparently cannot understand how atheists might get that impression, and yet he says rejecting God is the most wicked think a person can do. I was trying to understand his thinking there.

You seem to have a rather different view, and appear to allow people to come to righteousness even without accepting god (albeit with difficulty). That would seem to imply you do not think rejecting God is the most wicked thing a person can do, though I might be reading more into this than is there.

Although I disagree about its origin, I too think we have consciences, and that is dictates our morality. I think that our culture is what informs are conscience in the first instance, however. Thus, our culture has determined slavery is wrong, and so most people in our culture believe slavery is wrong. A few centuries ago, that was not the case. The culture had no problem with slavery, and so people of the time did not. I think this argues against your conscience being a built-in morality loaded in by God. I think what is built-in to each of us is the potential for morality, ready to accept a morality from the culture.

[Abigail]

Thanks for joining the discussion. Before going any further, can we clear up some confusion here? Atheists do not get insulted when someone says we are not perfect. We accept that no one is perfect. In fact, I have even said as much several times in this discussion for example:

Well, if you accept that then the sign the little girl is holding is incorrect because its inference is that you have no flaws.

Post #30: "Sure people know they have moral failures, but it takes religion to convince them those failures are so bad that they deserve to go to hell. People have both good and bad in them, and in the vast majority of people, the good is much greater than the bad."

We know that the one who sins is a sinner. A person who realizes they are a sinner will find hope in the Bible because it tells them what is good and how to avoid the penalty of sin. In Romans 2 the Bible speaks of non-Jews (pre-Jesus' time) as still having a law as evidenced by the fact that they could look at other people and judge their behaviour - in other words these people have a set idea of how people should behave and would obviously act to convince others to change their behaviour or act to punish them if they didn't change. You are like this and only have a problem with the Bible (you say religion) because you want to be the authority to say what is right or wrong and what penalties should be levied on wrong-doers.

The bits you quoted of me relate to a discussion about why atheists would think Christians believe all atheists are wicked. AP apparently cannot understand how atheists might get that impression, and yet he says rejecting God is the most wicked think a person can do. I was trying to understand his thinking there.

You seem to have a rather different view, and appear to allow people to come to righteousness even without accepting god (albeit with difficulty). That would seem to imply you do not think rejecting God is the most wicked thing a person can do, though I might be reading more into this than is there.

If you are 'coming' to righteousness then it sounds like you havent got it all quite figured out yet and that implies that you do not know what complete righteousness looks like, so how will you ever be able to know if you have got there or not. God offers to make up any shortfall. I think what AP is meaning is that by rejecting God's offer you exclude yourself.

Although I disagree about its origin, I too think we have consciences, and that is dictates our morality. I think that our culture is what informs are conscience in the first instance, however. Thus, our culture has determined slavery is wrong, and so most people in our culture believe slavery is wrong. A few centuries ago, that was not the case. The culture had no problem with slavery, and so people of the time did not. I think this argues against your conscience being a built-in morality loaded in by God. I think what is built-in to each of us is the potential for morality, ready to accept a morality from the culture.

Cultures are made up of people. People can be self-centered or God-centered.

[JimL]

Is Christianity really a faith opposed to the joys of life? https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...sis-and-antis/

Yes it is. Genesis 3:17-19

[Adrift]

hmmm. I wrote out a whole response and it didn't get published somehow. Not doing it again today. I'll try to remember tomorrow.

I mention this from time to time, but one of my favorite browser extensions is Lazarus Form Recovery. With a couple clicks you can recover your whole response in case it somehow gets lost, it doesn't post, or the tab closes, or whatever.

[The Pixie]

Well, if you accept that then the sign the little girl is holding is incorrect because its inference is that you have no flaws.

No, on the right side of the sign it says you are wonderful, not you are perfect.

The inference you are making is based on the Christian view that if something is slightly flawed then it is sinful, fallen and deserves to go to hell. It is only wonderful if it is perfect. Thus, when it says "full of wonder", you infer perfect.

As a non-Christian, I can still see something as wonderful, even if it is flawed.

We know that the one who sins is a sinner.

Right. Soon as you commit any sin, you get labelled as "sinner". You are wicked, fallen and deserve to go to hell. Ignore all the good stuff you have done. Ignore all the hundreds of times you resisted the temptation, and focus only on the couple of times you gave in. In fact, even feeling the temptation is a sin, whether you resist or not, when it comes to men with women. That is the Christian view. It is all based on shame. Making the individual feel he or she is deserving of hell.

The alternative view, the one on the right of the card, is that actually people are pretty great. Not perfect, but pretty great.

A person who realizes they are a sinner will find hope in the Bible because it tells them what is good and how to avoid the penalty of sin. In Romans 2 the Bible speaks of non-Jews (pre-Jesus' time) as still having a law as evidenced by the fact that they could look at other people and judge their behaviour - in other words these people have a set idea of how people should behave and would obviously act to convince others to change their behaviour or act to punish them if they didn't change. You are like this and only have a problem with the Bible (you say religion) because you want to be the authority to say what is right or wrong and what penalties should be levied on wrong-doers.

Where do you get the idea that I "want to be the authority to say what is right or wrong"? A major part of my argument is that we already know what is right or wrong. AP says if he would be a rapist if he was not a christian and he could get away with it. I have stated that I am not a rapist because rape is wrong. We all by-and-large agree on what is right and wrong, and I have no desire to change that.

Now when it comes to what penalties should be levied on wrong-doers, I certainly am arguing against an eternity in hell for the sin of rejecting God as being illogical. It makes no sense against claims of God being perfectly just.

If you are 'coming' to righteousness then it sounds like you havent got it all quite figured out yet and that implies that you do not know what complete righteousness looks like, so how will you ever be able to know if you have got there or not. God offers to make up any shortfall. I think what AP is meaning is that by rejecting God's offer you exclude yourself.

Glancing back at AP's posts, I see you could well be right, and I may have misunderstood what he was saying. I hope he will clarify.

Cultures are made up of people. People can be self-centered or God-centered.

Or community-centred or family-centred or... There are more than two options.

Perhaps this comes back to what AP said: ""Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow." If you divide everyone up into "self-centered or God-centered", it is easy to convince yourself all atheists are self-centred I suppose.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I might not answer until Monday. Today, I am getting ready for Valentine's Day and Allie and I have a Double Date tonight.

Saturday is V-Day and sorry everyone, but Allie much cuter than anyone else here.

Sunday, I don't post at all.

So might not be anything from me until Monday.

[Abigail]

No, on the right side of the sign it says you are wonderful, not you are perfect.

The inference you are making is based on the Christian view that if something is slightly flawed then it is sinful, fallen and deserves to go to hell. It is only wonderful if it is perfect. Thus, when it says "full of wonder", you infer perfect.

As a non-Christian, I can still see something as wonderful, even if it is flawed.

We were discussing righteousness and using flawed in that context. You agreed that you (by you I dont mean you personally but you as in non-believer) have failings and so in that respect you are also flawed. Behaviour is something concrete we can evaluate and you admitted yours is flawed. A broken cup might make a wonderful crock at the bottom of a pot-plant but it is certainly not a wonderful cup as its original design was to carry liquid.

Right. Soon as you commit any sin, you get labelled as "sinner". You are wicked, fallen and deserve to go to hell. Ignore all the good stuff you have done. Ignore all the hundreds of times you resisted the temptation, and focus only on the couple of times you gave in. In fact, even feeling the temptation is a sin, whether you resist or not, when it comes to men with women. That is the Christian view. It is all based on shame. Making the individual feel he or she is deserving of hell.

The alternative view, the one on the right of the card, is that actually people are pretty great. Not perfect, but pretty great.

Where do you get the idea that I "want to be the authority to say what is right or wrong"? A major part of my argument is that we already know what is right or wrong. AP says if he would be a rapist if he was not a christian and he could get away with it. I have stated that I am not a rapist because rape is wrong. We all by-and-large agree on what is right and wrong, and I have no desire to change that.

Now when it comes to what penalties should be levied on wrong-doers, I certainly am arguing against an eternity in hell for the sin of rejecting God as being illogical. It makes no sense against claims of God being perfectly just.

Sigh..., I didn't mean you personally want to be the authority, I meant your system. We agree that we seem to have some (incomplete) notion of what is right or wrong - enough to think there is a right and wrong way to behave but not enough to always know or always agree on what the best way is. I believe that the Bible offers this. You believe you are able to know. So can you see how I got the idea that you offer no better than your own final authority on what is right and wrong.

Glancing back at AP's posts, I see you could well be right, and I may have misunderstood what he was saying. I hope he will clarify.

Or community-centred or family-centred or... There are more than two options.

Perhaps this comes back to what AP said: ""Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow." If you divide everyone up into "self-centered or God-centered", it is easy to convince yourself all atheists are self-centred I suppose.

I wasn't meaning self-centered in the sense you are trying to portray here, but was using it in the sense of either taking your authority from God or from yourself (or community or family whatever).

[The Pixie]

We were discussing righteousness and using flawed in that context. You agreed that you (by you I dont mean you personally but you as in non-believer) have failings and so in that respect you are also flawed. Behaviour is something concrete we can evaluate and you admitted yours is flawed. A broken cup might make a wonderful crock at the bottom of a pot-plant but it is certainly not a wonderful cup as its original design was to carry liquid.

Right, and this is exactly the attitude the card the girl was holding is about.

In the Christian view, everyone has flaws, no matter how minor, and thus they are flawed - like a broken pot. Good analogy; good for somethings, but no way useful for what we are meant for.

The alternative philosophy, the one on the right of the card, is that actually we are pretty great despite some flaws.

The point I am arguing is that yes, Christianity does promote the view we are all flawed. You seem to be agreeing here.

Sigh..., I didn't mean you personally want to be the authority, I meant your system.

Why the sigh? I ask because you felt it was important enough to type. Do you think I should automatically understand every you write, no matter how ambiguous?

We agree that we seem to have some (incomplete) notion of what is right or wrong - enough to think there is a right and wrong way to behave but not enough to always know or always agree on what the best way is. I believe that the Bible offers this. You believe you are able to know. So can you see how I got the idea that you offer no better than your own final authority on what is right and wrong.

No, I do not believe we are able know.

I think we can try to work it out, and I think we are getting ever closer to it, but I see no way to know if we are right or not.

However, I am sure the Bible is not the way. We have already moved beyond Biblical morality of burning witches, stoning disobediant children and keeping slaves.

I wasn't meaning self-centered in the sense you are trying to portray here, but was using it in the sense of either taking your authority from God or from yourself (or community or family whatever).

Actually my point still stands. The very fact that you said it that way shows how atheists can get that impression, even if it is by misunderstanding.

Also, I note "in the sense you are trying to portray here". You seem to be blaming the misunderstandings on me. Is it possible I thought you meant self-centred because you said "self-centered", rather than because I deliberately twist everything you say? I guess -ironically - it comes down to whether you think all atheists are wicked.

[jpholding]

For once I agree with the obnoxious jerk; write any long responses in a word processor.

Don't forget to take this with you to work:

sledge-hammer.jpg

[MadBum40]

A lot of Christians say everyone is sinful, right from the moment of birth (some go so far as to say we all deserve to go to hell just for being born human). A lot of Christians say God has the right to snuff our lives out if he wants (to morally justify various genocides mainly)

If God intervenes to stop people from doing evil by invading them, He's a moral monster for killing those poor, poor evildoers. If He doesn't, He's still a moral monster for letting those evildoers kill other poor, poor people.

In the Christian view, everyone has flaws, no matter how minor, and thus they are flawed - like a broken pot. Good analogy; good for somethings, but no way useful for what we are meant for.

I don't get what your problem is, here, nor do I have any idea as to what you mean by "no good for what we are meant for". Your view seems to "solve" that problem by denying we are meant for anything. It's like breaking the pot to get rid of cracks.
It's still the same thing, in essence. We don't have any purpose, or we're "not good enough to fulfill" that purpose, either way, we're not fulfilling any purposes; why complain so much, then?

EDIT:
Both those quotes are by "The Pixie". I don't know how to post multiple quotes from a single post with the name.