A Question of Christian Theology (1 Viewer)

[trickx]

Yes Atheists can be moral people... but only because they choose to be so... and usually base their morals on religious ideas of right and wrong. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, don't commit adultery... etc etc etc.

Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is a product of evolution along with our physiology and psychology.

We wouldn't have come this far as a species if we didn't have these innate values such as not killing.

I've got a quick question for a Christian.

Seeing as Charles Darwin made Christians face the fact that the literal creation story cannot be quite so literal, he also destroyed the primary myth by which they had told the Jesus story for centuries. That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing divine presence to lift us back to what God had originally created us to be. But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin.

And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can Christians tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?

 

[Teclis]

Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is a product of evolution along with our physiology and psychology.

We wouldn't have come this far as a species if we didn't have these innate values such as not killing.

I've got a quick question for a Christian.

Seeing as Charles Darwin made Christians face the fact that the literal creation story cannot be quite so literal, he also destroyed the primary myth by which they had told the Jesus story for centuries. That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing divine presence to lift us back to what God had originally created us to be. But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin.

And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can Christians tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?

Well...

Firstly I don't believe the creation story and evolution are mutually exclusive for many many reasons.

Also, it's not physical perfection... it is a lack of sin that we had before and now we have. We are fallen in the sense that we now live with sin.

Also one thing to point out, and I may be wrong. But have humans actually evolved in the 8000 odd years since Adam?

 

[Tully B.]

Yes Atheists can be moral people... but only because they choose to be so... and usually base their morals on religious ideas of right and wrong. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, don't commit adultery... etc etc etc.

It's more likely that ethics created religion than religion created ethics. For me, that simply means that religion is necessary in society to propegate pre-existing morals and values. For this reason, I am not an anti-theist, just an athiest.

Morals have developed over the last 2000 years into what they are today, and many religions have adapted quite nicely to these "new" ethics. For example, in Western society at least, it is generally frowned upon to stone people for being homosexual, to cut out the eyes of women for looking at a man lustfully, to kill them for wearing clothes of two different threads. All these things are deemed "immoral" in modern society, despite the fact that they were condoned in the bible - no, not just condoned, but ordered by your God. That, to me, means that religion has adapted quite well with the changing ethics of our society - it has not, however, played a major part in the progress of these ethics.

 

[KFunk]

Those, among other things (Euthyphro dilemma as one example) tend to lead me to believe that a belief in a deity with no proof (and no, books or any other texts are not proof, they are merely hearsay) is childish and foolish, and can be quite destructive to any society.

In what way do you see the Euthyphro dilemma as implying unproved beliefs to be (potentially) destructive?

#2. Mathematical probability (even outside the realm of physics, mathematics would still be a constant. The existence of a god would still be within mathematics, seeing as how there is a quantity of god/s (0 to infinity) not to mention a few other things).

Mathematical probability doesn't directly state this, but it is a fact and is constant throughout probability: The more difficult an outcome, the less likely it will happen.

If we take the 4 possible set of events (and if there are any others please enlighten me, and I will incorporate them)
A. God was always there, and then created the universe.
B. The universe was always there.
C. God came out of nothing, and then created the universe.
D. The universe came out of nothing.

Also assuming that god > universe (god is greater, and more complex than the universe), seeing as to create the universe it would indeed have to be greater than it's own creation.

The chance that a god comes out of nothing (no god CANNOT create itself) is much lower than the universe coming out of nothing, seeing as god is more complex. It is much more difficult for a perfectly formed and great omnipotent being to come out of nothing than it is for a blob of matter and energy at one point in space.

I'm just going to be an asshole and call this out as rubbish probability. You could just as well say, given your relatively limited knowledge about me, that yesterday it is more likely that I ate cereal than that I visited a music store (but what on earth does this imply in terms of warranted belief). Your assumption that the universe is 'less difficult' (or perhaps 'simpler'... hence more likely??) is a question begging hypothesis pulled out of thin air. Also add some shavings of straw man into the mix given that there are any number of conceptions of god and of the universe which you cannot fairly roll into single genralisations.

Further, certain schools of proabability (namely frequentists) would argue unequivocally that you cannot apply probability values to such things, to the point that your probability estimates, or rankings rather, would be deemed meaningless. I have sympathy for the Bayesian approach, however, which would permit us to speak of the probability of such things, but I still think your approach is pure conjecture in the absence of rigour.

 

[KFunk]

Also, to the Mods, this should totally be merged with the Does God Exist thread.

 

[Teclis]

It's more likely that ethics created religion than religion created ethics. For me, that simply means that religion is necessary in society to propegate pre-existing morals and values. For this reason, I am not an anti-theist, just an athiest.

Morals have developed over the last 2000 years into what they are today, and many religions have adapted quite nicely to these "new" ethics. For example, in Western society at least, it is generally frowned upon to stone people for being homosexual, to cut out the eyes of women for looking at a man lustfully, to kill them for wearing clothes of two different threads. All these things are deemed "immoral" in modern society, despite the fact that they were condoned in the bible - no, not just condoned, but ordered by your God. That, to me, means that religion has adapted quite well with the changing ethics of our society - it has not, however, played a major part in the progress of these ethics.

On Morals in the Old Testament, Hebrews is great as it talks about Christians overusing the "law" of the Old Testament.

The point of the laws in Leviticus wasn't to stone gays etc etc etc... It was a list of rules, the point of which was to show what a sin was... and the list being so comprehensive that you needed your sacrifice to not go to Hell (that sacrifice being unncessary with Jesus' sacrifice)

On Ethics creating religion... I'm not so sure. I think we can all agree that humans tend to be inherently selfish, violent and horny. Why would any humans create a set of ethics that stopped you from fulfilling those impulses?

 

[dieburndie]

I think we can all agree that humans tend to be inherently selfish, violent and horny.

There is nothing about either selfishness or sexual desire that is necessarily immoral. As for violence I don't think we can all agree that it is a tendency inherent in humans (that claim is particularly questionable as it applies to women). Religious adherents always seem to assume the worse about human morality separate from a supernatural force to provide an incentive to behave, which certainly says a lot about the kind of people they would be if they didn't have a spiritual babysitter keeping them in line.

I believe that it is the strictly religious who are truly lacking a foundation for morality. Taking a set of predetermined rules and accepting them as absolute, as opposed to a pragmatic, evidence-based approach to morality, is a very limited and potentially dangerous way of structuring your views.

 

[Tully B.]

On Morals in the Old Testament, Hebrews is great as it talks about Christians overusing the "law" of the Old Testament.

The point of the laws in Leviticus wasn't to stone gays etc etc etc... It was a list of rules, the point of which was to show what a sin was... and the list being so comprehensive that you needed your sacrifice to not go to Hell (that sacrifice being unncessary with Jesus' sacrifice)

On Ethics creating religion... I'm not so sure. I think we can all agree that humans tend to be inherently selfish, violent and horny. Why would any humans create a set of ethics that stopped you from fulfilling those impulses?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is a direct quote in the Deuteronomy telling people to stone gays, and one in Leviticus about eye-gouging... I'll look it up in my NIV later.

People can indeed be selfish, violent and horny. But they can also be the polar opposite of those things (except horny). Whose to say that humans are inherently good or evil, since we can clearly see that they have tendencies to be both?

I'm not sure of my opinion on this topic, but Christianity seems to be contradictory on the topic of human nature. They say that humans are evil, but then claim that we derive our modern ethics from God, which suggests that we are inherently good as well (since God has given us morals).

 

[katie tully]

This thread would be 100x better if those bullshit inane posts by ksubi and jaylee from the first page are deleted.

I was enjoying reading the banter between Mcfly, Cookie, Serius, and anyone else who contributed without being a spastic.

Re: thread. I am off to read the Bible to come back with answers. Keep in mind I am an atheist and that I am reading an English Bible because I don't speak classical Greek or whatever the first Bibles were written in. So results may vary from the original interpretation.

 

[katie tully]

Anyway re: theology students

CSU has a theology faculty so I had a bit of a read and I wouldn't consider these guys to have worthless degrees. I think to spend most of your life studying and interpreting the Bible would be grueling and no doubt many would have a "crisis of faith" if you will. As an atheist I don't think the Bible has no value, I think in terms of it being a historical text it's one of the most important and accurate representations of early Christian societies we have.

So a few of the theologians at CSU are qualified in;
- PhD cum laude in Biblical Hebrew linguistics at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
- first degree was in Classics and Mediaeval History, with an honours thesis on the Cathar heresy in 13 th century France. She was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to study theology at Oxford, and subsequently a Fulbright Postgraduate Award to undertake doctoral coursework in religion and ethics at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley
- BSc, BTh, BA (Hons), PhD
- BA (Sydney), BD (Rüschlikon), ThM (Rüschlikon), Dr Theol(Zurich)

I mean the list goes on, so we're talking about some incredibly intelligent people and I think you would be hard pressed to find an atheist with an equally great understanding of the Bible, of religion and religious ethics, etc. To debate anything with these guys would result in me curling up into a ball and crying forever.

 

[katie tully]

When you're typing a reply it's not "right there on the screen" -_-

thank you Jaylee, your my favorite

lol OMG i never thought to scroll down. I see I see my bad lol. But I could understand why she coudn't see his name. We're BoS illiterate

chillax calm down spread peace and love

LOL, haha, agreed.

And you're my favourite too No really, you are

LOL no. But there's no harm in being extra nice to people on BoS. It's a rare thing.

very, very rare.
i stopped going on here coz i got insults left right nd center coz i said Hi.
people thought i was thacker nd at the time EVERYONE on BoS hated her.

so, NEW ACCOUNT!

I wasn't being serious?????????

Omg, I think I know you.

LOL, umm, you do?

yes.

who thacker? no, she hasnt... her parents dont allow her.LOL

Half a million posts on bullshit. Those non spasticated posts you did make consisted of "lol omg u dont wanna die coz wat if da afterlife is a luxury?!".

The original point of Tangent being that they don't want an afterlife, when they die they just want to be dead. It's entirely feasible to expect that some people don't want to live for eternity after death, infact I could think of nothing worse.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Anyway re: theology students

CSU has a theology faculty so I had a bit of a read and I wouldn't consider these guys to have worthless degrees. I think to spend most of your life studying and interpreting the Bible would be grueling and no doubt many would have a "crisis of faith" if you will. As an atheist I don't think the Bible has no value, I think in terms of it being a historical text it's one of the most important and accurate representations of early Christian societies we have.

So a few of the theologians at CSU are qualified in;
- PhD cum laude in Biblical Hebrew linguistics at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
- first degree was in Classics and Mediaeval History, with an honours thesis on the Cathar heresy in 13 th century France. She was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to study theology at Oxford, and subsequently a Fulbright Postgraduate Award to undertake doctoral coursework in religion and ethics at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley
- BSc, BTh, BA (Hons), PhD
- BA (Sydney), BD (Rüschlikon), ThM (Rüschlikon), Dr Theol(Zurich)

Rhodes is all flash no photo, tbh. Clarendon ftw!

I mean the list goes on, so we're talking about some incredibly intelligent people and I think you would be hard pressed to find an atheist with an equally great understanding of the Bible, of religion and religious ethics, etc. To debate anything with these guys would result in me curling up into a ball and crying forever.

Yeah, that's right unfortunately. Very few atheists look at the Bible texts and go 'wow, cool source' (which it is). Yet if they pick up a piece of textual evidence which is half the age, they will go 'wow, cool source'.

I personally feel the odd one out when I go to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity conferences. Edit: Er, actually I'd also say that the majority of European Egyptologists are also Christian, if not also Biblical historicitists.

 

[katie tully]

Rhodes is all flash no photo, tbh. Clarendon ftw!

Yeah, that's right unfortunately. Very few atheists look at the Bible texts and go 'wow, cool source' (which it is). Yet if they pick up a piece of textual evidence which is half the age, they will go 'wow, cool source'.

I personally feel the odd one out when I go to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity conferences. Edit: Er, actually I'd also say that the majority of European Egyptologists are also Christian, if not also Biblical historicitists.

It is a terribly fascinating read.

To take any of it literally would be to borderline on insane, but it definitely has merit.

 

[bean1]

You have got it all wrong - (and right at the same time)

Yes, God is a loving God - AND he is also a jealous and vengeful God.

And considering that we're talking on the basis that there is a God, would you not surely follow a God that could strike you down and send you to a horrible torturous place if you didn't beleive in him - scary thought huh?

 

[bean1]

Dude - wana not live forever when you can - are you spaz?

Who wants to end their life? If you could spend the rest of it forever with the people you love, y not?

Eternal life sounds silly because of what you believe life on earth to be - what if it was better after you die?

 

[bean1]

My previous post was to katie tully btw

 

[bean1]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is a direct quote in the Deuteronomy telling people to stone gays, and one in Leviticus about eye-gouging... I'll look it up in my NIV later.

People can indeed be selfish, violent and horny. But they can also be the polar opposite of those things (except horny). Whose to say that humans are inherently good or evil, since we can clearly see that they have tendencies to be both?

I'm not sure of my opinion on this topic, but Christianity seems to be contradictory on the topic of human nature. They say that humans are evil, but then claim that we derive our modern ethics from God, which suggests that we are inherently good as well (since God has given us morals).

You say that our ethics are derived from God - CORRECT - the issue then is that we brought SIN into the world - thats why we choose to do bad. Derivitives mean nothing if you've come so far from the begining that no-one actually knows what the begining was anymore.

Also, we are essentially bad people. How interesting that you only ever have to teach a child to do good - rather than bad, that comes so natural to them as the grow.

 

[katie tully]

Dude - wana not live forever when you can - are you spaz?

Who wants to end their life? If you could spend the rest of it forever with the people you love, y not?

Eternal life sounds silly because of what you believe life on earth to be - what if it was better after you die?

Fairly sure I'm not a spaz.

Why would I want to live forever? If at the end of life there is nothing, no consciousness, no afterlife, no frolicking in the hills with Bambi - just nothing, like there was before we were born, I can handle that. And heaven sounds pretty gay anyway, no animals?

 

[Smile_Time351]

You say that our ethics are derived from God - CORRECT - the issue then is that we brought SIN into the world - thats why we choose to do bad. Derivitives mean nothing if you've come so far from the begining that no-one actually knows what the begining was anymore.

Also, we are essentially bad people. How interesting that you only ever have to teach a child to do good - rather than bad, that comes so natural to them as the grow.

This is an incredibly destructionist prospect...that completely fails to grasp the nature of the debate. The question here is not whether we brought sin into the world- this is obvious. The question is where this came from. Your God is the root of all evil, phrase it how you want, it's impossible to devalue a derivative when you spend your life worshipping said derivative.

Furthermore, why would an omniscient, omnibenevolent being give its creations the capacity and potential to sin in the first place. By definition everything we have came from God, including our pre-operative propenstity to sin that you touched on with your childhood analogy. Derivatives mean everything in this "Question of Christian Theology"

 

[Jaylee42003]

Half a million posts on bullshit. Those non spasticated posts you did make consisted of "lol omg u dont wanna die coz wat if da afterlife is a luxury?!".

The original point of Tangent being that they don't want an afterlife, when they die they just want to be dead. It's entirely feasible to expect that some people don't want to live for eternity after death, infact I could think of nothing worse.

oh jeez get the fuck over it.