Isis,

Aldebaran said:

Unless you can avoid doing so, right?

Click to expand...

What are you implying exactly?

Are you trying to tell me what I think?

In any case, no, if I have done something harmful (deliberately or otherwise) that negatively effects someone without them knowing I caused it I feel as if I ought to tell them and do so.

Aldebaran said:

I see. So you rely on your individual moral code as a basis for what's right and wrong and use that to determine what you need to do after the fact, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, like everyone else.

Shadowprophet said:

Ironically no. My own personal opinion is, if somebody believes in something, anything is better then having absolutely no belief at all.

Click to expand...

Really? You prefer people who believe in the imaginary, rather than the real?

I look at it this way, i would sooner trust an individual that believes they answer to a higher power then someone who believes that they answer to no one for their trespasses.

Click to expand...

I have a magical gnome at the bottom of my garden. It created the universe and guides me in my daily travails. I guess that means I sit highly in your estimation?

Shadowprophet said:

I get your subliminal message, i wont win any beauty contests with my attitude towards atheists,,, However, atheists truly do upset me at times, they crave this solid evidence that the Christian God is real, yet,just as faith demands it, they deserve no proof, proof makes Faith unnecessary, and we need Faith, if for no other reason then not allowing someone to come along and tamper with our beliefs.


But atheists do upset me, with the things they will stand behind, without the slightest shred of evidence.

You say you dont believe in God, you must have proof, please,, share with us your proof God isnt real?

Click to expand...

I agree with others that we aren't supposed to debate apologetics, but I will offer you this one correction, since it seems to relate to a very common misunderstanding that theists have.

Atheists, in the main, do not state that "God isn't real". While we live our lives in the assumption that there are no gods, it is logically impossible to show that something doesn't exist. Most of us simply say that we don't believe that gods do exist.

See the difference? I can't say that there is zero probability of a god or any other supernatural entity existing. But what I can say is that I consider the probability to be so vanishingly small, I lead my life under the assumption that these things are the products of people's imaginations, hopes and fears.

One other thing. Why do you say that "we need Faith"? Why is it necessary? Why should we accept things that have no evidence to support them (the classic definition of faith)? In every other walk of life, we rely upon reasoned and rational thought to give us the results we desire.

Aldebaran said:

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that if everyone only lives by their own individual moral code, then we end up with anarchy.

Click to expand...

Except that those "individual moral codes" are almost always derived in a community.

People can rationalize and justify just about anything.

Click to expand...

including "God said this"

Aldebaran said:

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that if everyone only lives by their own individual moral code, then we end up with anarchy. That's why laws exist, and it's also why God created the original law--because when people make up their own, they can change on a whim. People can rationalize and justify just about anything. It can be a dangerous thing.

Click to expand...

Wrong. And this has been discussed so frequently that I can't believe you haven't noticed it.

Yes, we each have our own code. But we also live in community with others. And we have evolved to understand that our individual well-being is enhanced by the well-being of our community. So our individual codes reflect this. They may differ on the peripheries but, notwithstanding the existence of sociopaths, most of us tailor our individual codes to also reflect a community value.

Aldebaran said:

By "community", you could be referring to "popular opinion", which you may have noticed in society, changes quite often.

Click to expand...

Including in societies that claim a divine moral code.

Aldebaran said:

By "community", you could be referring to "popular opinion", which you may have noticed in society, changes quite often.

Click to expand...

No, I mean community. Had I wanted to say something else, I would have.

And the things that communities hold to be 'good' do change. And I'm glad they do, and so are you! Otherwise, we'd still be in communities that think slavery is acceptable, that it's ok to hunt down witches, that homosexuals should either be killed, locked up or forcibly subjected to shock therapy and that black people are sub-human.

Yes, community values change!

Aldebaran said:

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that if everyone only lives by their own individual moral code, then we end up with anarchy

Click to expand...

I made a factual observation - that we live and fall by our own standards, whatever they are. That's not an argument for their credibility (or lack of) but simply their existence and this is true whether or not Christianity is true or not.

Our own moral codes tend to roughly align. On some issues, they don't and there's often arguments and disagreements on those issues but civilised society generally agrees that murder, rape, stealing are not kosher and establishes legislation to ensure that they are not permissible.

That's why laws exist, and it's also why God created the original law--because when people make up their own, they can change on a whim.

Click to expand...

That is not how beliefs work. They would change based on specific reasons.

People can rationalize and justify just about anything. It can be a dangerous thing.

Click to expand...

Some people can rationalise and justify "just about anything." Not every individual can do such.

ebia said:

So Islam is no worse than our story was before Jesus.
You can't condemn it for that.

Click to expand...

I never condemned Islam. Remember what I first said before we went wildly off topic: "If Muhammad is the man which Muslims are meant to emulate and look up to as a "man of God", then that is worrying to me. It is to be welcomed when Muslims are moderates who don't follow Muhammad's example."

The same could be said of Christianity. If a large number of Christians were seeking to emulate and look up to Joshua as a "man of God" and they really wanted to put that into practice, Christianity could turn violent. Thankfully, very few Christians see Joshua as the central and most important historical figure to the faith.

Muslims, or at least fundamentalist Muslims, certainly make Muhammad a primary figure, venerating him and considering him a model for Muslim conduct.

I'm pretty much a pacifist. And I certainly condemn David's womanising.
But i still pray the psalms.

Click to expand...

Cool. And no doubt millions of moderate Muslims do the same with Mohammad. If you truly made David an object of veneration central to your faith whom represents a benchmark for human conduct, then you may be more prone to justifying womanizing.

Why pick this moment in time to look at comparative behaviours for evidence?
Why not pick behaviour over the longer span of history?
Most likely because our attention happens to be focused on the Middle East now. Even though that's a historical recent brand of Islam.
While we think of bhuddism (say) as nice and fluffy because our media never reports the attrocities in Burma and Sri Lanka.

When violence happens at home we call it an aboration.
When it happens in the Middle East we say it's inherent to islam
There's a double standard.

Click to expand...

I don't think violence is "inherent" to Islam. You can interpret Islam as a pacifist. But in order to do so, you would have to somehow reconcile the fact that your revered leader and prophet, raised armies and used violence. You can reconcile this fact, but it requires more careful study.

Let's set up a parallel:

I don't think violence is "inherent" to Buddhism. You can interpret Buddhism as someone who condones violence. But, in order to do so, you would have to somehow reconcile the fact that your revered leader and enlightened one, abandoned his political role and preached a message of non-violence.

Here's another parallel:

I don't think violence is "inherent" to Christianity. You can interpret Christianity as someone who condones violence. But, in order to do so, you would have to somehow reconcile the fact that your central person of veneration and the supposed Son of God, showed extreme compassion and specifically opted against violence on several occasions.


It is for this reason that I think we see "fundamentalists" of Islam doing things like 9/11, Charlie Hebdo and ISIS while there isn't really an adequate comparison of scale in other religions. It is also for this reason that I think Islamic fundamentalism appears compelling and justifiable to potential converts.

The line between good and evil is not between us and them but runs right down the middle of each one of us.

Click to expand...

I don't know what this has to do with anything. We all make choices. Our choices are influenced by others actions.

In reality, I don't think many Christians see Jesus as a figure to be emulated. Not just that they see it but fall short, but the don't even think that way around. They Jesus as God with a vaneer of a human body doing something entirely one-off.

If they are emulating any religious figure it's most likely their pastor. Who is most likely not noticably better than mohammed.

MOD HAT ON

Please stay on topic to the OP. If you wish to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.

MOD HAT OFF

ebia said:

In reality, I don't think many Christians see Jesus as a figure to be emulated. Not just that they see it but fall short, but the don't even think that way around. They Jesus as God with a vaneer of a human body doing something entirely one-off.

If they are emulating any religious figure it's most likely their pastor. Who is most likely not noticably better than mohammed.

Click to expand...

really? Of course it is impossible to be perfect like Jesus, but we are supposed to try. We are also supposed to be imitators of the apostles, like Paul. I guess I sort of understand what you are saying, people tend to make role models out of people they have actually met in real life.

orangeness365 said:

really? Of course it is impossible to be perfect like Jesus, but we are supposed to try. We are also supposed to be imitators of the apostles, like Paul. I guess I sort of understand what you are saying, people tend to make role models out of people they have actually met in real life.

Click to expand...

I think there's more to it than that, though that's a factor.
Firstly there is some truth that Jesus's life was a one-off; and then that gets emphasised.
Then most Christians think of Jesus as God. Being full human is only gets lipservce.
So they end up with an omnipotent, all knowing being who is impossible to emulate. It makes as much sense to try as to put your underpants on outside your trousers and take to the air to rescue people.

ebia said:

I think there's more to it than that, though that's a factor.
Firstly there is some truth that Jesus's life was a one-off; and then that gets emphasised.
Then most Christians think of Jesus as God. Being full human is only gets lipservce.
So they end up with an omnipotent, all knowing being who is impossible to emulate. It makes as much sense to try as to put your underpants on outside your trousers and take to the air to rescue people.

Click to expand...

We are still supposed to try to perfect, even though we never will be. So yes, we may never be able to take to the air, but trying to put our underpants on the outsie and rescue people might not be such a bad idea, even if sometimes we fail, it's better than never trying at all, and are never able to fly, or walk on water.

Matthew 5:48
English Standard Version
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

orangeness365 said:

We are still supposed to try to perfect, even though we never will be. So yes, we may never be able to take to the air, but trying to put our underpants on the outsie and rescue people might not be such a bad idea, even if sometimes we fail, it's better than never trying at all, and are never able to fly, or walk on water.

Click to expand...

off you go then

I wouldn't start off from a tall building until you've got the hang of it.