Religous Debate: Does anyone know what the first commandment is?

[MobBoss]

Morals are determined by people. One immorality here may be moral there.

Shrug. I would rather get my morals from God as opposed to man. Man tends to screw things up.

I care whats writen on the bags its delivered in. You can easily sway a mass of hungry people with your writings to do your bidding whether good or bad.

Shouldn't the hungry people be told who is feeding them and why? If a christian organization is feeding hungry people that others dont care about, I think they are fully justified in putting whatever they want on the bags of rice. I dont really see a lot of atheist "feed the world" organizations around.

He was in the eyes of Nazi youth

No arguement there. Youth are susceptable to impression like that as they generally lack the wisdom to tell good from evil.

I think unreasonable would be that one famous evangelic preacher damning a town in Pennsylvania (or Virginia, I forget which) and saying the wrath of God would be visited upon them for overturning ID.

I agree with you, however, you also overstate the situation. He didnt "damn" the town at all. This is what he said:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.

Not quite damning them as you so put it. He also didnt say the wrath of God would hit them either, but dont let a little thing like fact stop you from pointing fingers at christians. By the way, I personally think Pat Robertson says quite a few stupid things and doesnt help the overall christian population that much at all. He has done some good things, but I think age has untamed his tongue and the result is he says stupid things from time to time.

 

[blackheart]

Shrug. I would rather get my morals from God as opposed to man. Man tends to screw things up.

God didn't directly speak to you, you got it from the Bible, written by men?

Shouldn't the hungry people be told who is feeding them and why? If a christian organization is feeding hungry people that others dont care about, I think they are fully justified in putting whatever they want on the bags of rice. I dont really see a lot of atheist "feed the world" organizations around.

I don't see a lot of Atheist organizations advertising themselves. Is there a point to this? Are Christians more generous somehow or are they winning converts?

Not quite damning them as you so put it. He also didnt say the wrath of God would hit them either, but dont let a little thing like fact stop you from pointing fingers at christians. By the way, I personally think Pat Robertson says quite a few stupid things and doesnt help the overall christian population that much at all. He has done some good things, but I think age has untamed his tongue and the result is he says stupid things from time to time.

That isn't damning the city? Pointing fingers at Christians? What, did I say "damn all these Christians for one guy's words!" ?

 

[MobBoss]

God didn't directly speak to you, you got it from the Bible, written by men?

God does speak directly to all of us. Even the bible tells us that. So once again, you are wrong....making that quite the career arent you?

That isn't damning the city?

No, that is not damning the city at all. Damning a city would be calling some type of curse down upon it, and he didnt do that at all. Once again, you are incorrect.

 

[Theodorick]

Shrug...what does an Atheist base his morals on? In other words, what motivates him to "love his neighbor" as opposed to just leaving him the hell alone (or complaining to his housing authority about his neighbors nativity display).

In my experience to love thy neighbor you must accept your neighbor no matter what they believe, are, or are trying to be, and show compassion, care, and unselfish generosity towards them. Do it without the bondage of ego and selfishness and do it only for the instinctive need to have an overwhelming empathy, civility, and heartfelt compassion for others. And if they shall do it to you, hurt you or try and hold you back from your expressions of your beliefs, then do not fight, accept their views, smile, understand their perspective, and then move on. Pacifism is the most powerful talent a person can have.

And even with this I will admit I am Athiest, but I am an athiest with a religion. I am a raised Buddhist within the more traditional sect which believes not in a god but concentrates fully on the philosophy of compassion and the afterlife of the enlightened. An athiest can be an unselfish person, and if not then accept them the way they are. There's a gandioise calm in acceptance without retribution; but I must admit I am yet to be at this state.

 

[Azash]

Define unreasonable. You can disagree with something and still be reasonable.

Yes, but sometimes people blindy battle anything against their faith without even bothering to read/hear the arguments.

One does not necessarily have to be naive in order to be caring and giving.

I meant the fact that one would assume there is little or no risk of embezzlement.

 

[onejayhawk]

In my experience to love thy neighbor you must accept your neighbor no matter what they believe, are, or are trying to be, and show compassion, care, and unselfish generosity towards them. Do it without the bondage of ego and selfishness and do it only for the instinctive need to have an overwhelming empathy, civility, and heartfelt compassion for others. And if they shall do it to you, hurt you or try and hold you back from your expressions of your beliefs, then do not fight, accept their views, smile, understand their perspective, and then move on. Pacifism is the most powerful talent a person can have.

And even with this I will admit I am Athiest, but I am an athiest with a religion. I am a raised Buddhist within the more traditional sect which believes not in a god but concentrates fully on the philosophy of compassion and the afterlife of the enlightened. An athiest can be an unselfish person, and if not then accept them the way they are. There's a gandioise calm in acceptance without retribution; but I must admit I am yet to be at this state.

I have always argued that atheism is a religion by any reasonable definition of the term. FredLC has lond differed with me on this point.

Regardless, skill at being pacifist is indeed valuable. It is one of Jesus beatitutdes, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Matthew 5: 9,10

Truth is. It does not have a source, but can be found anywhere it is sought.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I agree with MobBoss that Christians have a right to advertise their faith on the rice they're giving to starving nations. Like MobBoss says, if no one else is trying to help, then a little advertising is a fair 'price' to put on their generosity. Similarily, I think the GM foods are an okay solution to starvation.

Define unreasonable. You can disagree with something and still be reasonable.

The only time I have an issue with faith being 'unreasonable' is when they denounce something as being evil or immoral without being able to use any reasoning other than "God says it's wrong". You can understand the frustration in that.

I also denounce things as wrong, sure. But usually I can give a moral reasoning behind the action, as well as how the action does not meet the moral standard. Every action has a consequence, and by following the reasoning, I can point out how actions that I deem as 'wrong' are hurting more people than is necessary to complete the desired task.

As well, I have trouble when people won't recognize a harmful affirmative action as being affirmative. Intent matters, but actions also matter. To take an action, when you know it will cause harm, should be acknowledged for what it is.

 

[JoeM]

You've takenI can understand the frustration in that, however until I became one of the faithful I could not denounce things as wrong.

Ultimately, without faith, morality becomes relative, even democratic some might say, and hence there is no longer absolute right or wrong.

Only the unfaithful could regard christian charity as advertising.

 

[El_Machinae]

Anybody who doesn't think of it as advertising (not for their church, but for God) is not following through on the logic.

There absolutely is relative morality - in that people won't always agree with premises. However, there are a lot of morals that people will agree upon, within a society. For example.

A) Hurting someone, for no good reason, is wrong.

Now, we'll argue 'till we're blue in the face whether the pain is for a 'good reason' or not, but the statement is accepted for what it is.

 

[GermanRuler]

I've never understood how christians accept the god of the old testament, who is vengeful and vain beyond belief, as being the same god that they speak of as loving and forgiving.

have you read the bible it says that we should fear God, he only does what he does for his own reasons that is not are place to ponder

 

[sanabas]

Only the unfaithful could regard christian charity as advertising.

Huh? There's at least a couple of christian charity organisations that have stated they use the charitable acts to help evangelise. If some of those groups weren't allowed to evangelise as part of their charity, do you think they'd still perform that charity?

 

[El_Machinae]

Sadly, us arguing the statement doesn't disprove it. I must remember to generalize such that silence wins my argument.

 

[MobBoss]

Huh? There's at least a couple of christian charity organisations that have stated they use the charitable acts to help evangelise. If some of those groups weren't allowed to evangelise as part of their charity, do you think they'd still perform that charity?

Of course they would. Christian charities already go out to many nations where they are not allowed to evangelise. Hasnt stopped them yet.

 

[ironduck]

have you read the bible it says that we should fear God, he only does what he does for his own reasons that is not are place to ponder

But that's where you're wrong - the schizoid bible disagrees with itself. The OT says to fear god, the NT says not to.

 

[ironduck]

however until I became one of the faithful I could not denounce things as wrong.

I would say it's the opposite that applies. If you are not following a religion it is your own moral that counts, you weigh a given situation with your own mind and soul and deem it right or wrong.

If you follow a religion you rely on the religion to tell you what is right or wrong, and as a christian that is ultimately not your call but god's. In other words, you cannot denounce something as wrong, you can only interpret god's words and assume that you know what his will is.

 

[sanabas]

Of course they would. Christian charities already go out to many nations where they are not allowed to evangelise. Hasnt stopped them yet.

I'm sure some of them would. I'm equally sure that some christian charity organisations wouldn't. They'd claim they've only got limited resources, and can only do so much, but they'd make sure the stuff they're doing is in a place that they can continue to evangelise.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the rice: I'm certain that some of the Charity would be redirected if the advertising wasn't allowed. However, I also think that some Christians would agree that it is a form of advertising.

In other words, you cannot denounce something as wrong, you can only interpret god's words and assume that you know what his will is.

I have had endless frustration with this. I have learned that better information and logic, however, can convince a Christian that their tightly held morals were not so iron clad. I kicked butt during a seminar on SCNT cloning over Christmas. And I worked the religious panel quite well.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure some of them would. I'm equally sure that some christian charity organisations wouldn't. They'd claim they've only got limited resources, and can only do so much, but they'd make sure the stuff they're doing is in a place that they can continue to evangelise.

Shrug. Pure assumption on your part.

In other words, you cannot denounce something as wrong, you can only interpret god's words and assume that you know what his will is.

In situations where one is unsure of what God's will would be, then you should pray that his will be done regardless of your own desire.

 

[ironduck]

I think it's worth noting that not all christians evangelise, many simply help for the same reason many non-christians help - because they feel empathy.

 

[ironduck]

I have had endless frustration with this. I have learned that better information and logic, however, can convince a Christian that their tightly held morals were not so iron clad. I kicked butt during a seminar on SCNT cloning over Christmas. And I worked the religious panel quite well.

Actually I'm not really right about it in all cases, it depends on the person who happens to be a christian. Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it. So they make the same weighing of morals as people who are not religious and accept that they may be wrong - as do I.