If America went without religion...

[Kemosloby]

I would hope that if your definition of 'good' is based on scripture Christians claim to follow, then Christians woild be 'gooder' than others.

However, if your definition of good is not scriptually based, you can see how this would be less likely to be true.

Do you see my point?

No not really, but if Christians don't live up to the Christian meaning of good, it's not that religion makes them bad, only that religion casts light on their lack of goodness in the form of hypocrisy. So if we did away with religion the world might look rosey due to our blindness to goodness.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No not really, but if Christians don't live up to the Christian meaning of good, it's not that religion makes them bad, only that religion casts light on their lack of goodness in the form of hypocrisy. So if we did away with religion the world might look rosey due to our blindness to goodness.

I'll explain a different way then.
A Muslim, living strictly by the tenets of their religion, might see their actions as 'good'. As might a Christian. And yet their actions would differ.

We can take the view that 'good' is objective and therefore AT MOST, one of the Muslim or Christian is actually good.

Or, we can deduce that goodness is not as simple as adherance to religious direction and try to work out what it actually IS related to.

My position is that the latter choice is preferable, regardless of one's religiosity.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'll explain a different way then.
A Muslim, living strictly by the tenets of their religion, might see their actions as 'good'. As might a Christian. And yet their actions would differ.

We can take the view that 'good' is objective and therefore AT MOST, one of the Muslim or Christian is actually good.

Or, we can deduce that goodness is not as simple as adherance to religious direction and try to work out what it actually IS related to.

My position is that the latter choice is preferable, regardless of one's religiosity.

You don't say much but I would say what God says is good is good, such as giving money to those who can't do anything for you in return, helping the poor and needy. Selfless acts are Love. If those are your actions it's hard to deny they are good.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You don't say much but I would say what God says is good is good, such as giving money to those who can't do anything for you in return, helping the poor and needy. Selfless acts are Love. If those are your actions it's hard to deny they are good.

Regardless of why you do them.

 

[Sonofason]

Okay, time to put out this dumpster fire (seeing as I’ve already been more than generous to you in this thread):

1. The OP asked what the consequences would be if religious affiliations in the US were flipped.

2. I responded by stating my opinion that there would be less obnoxious, self-righteousness.

3. You then called my post obnoxious and self-righteous.

4. I asked what your rationale was for saying so.

5. You failed to provide one, then asked me for my rationale for (2.)

6. Your understanding of the word is: “Rationale - an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena”.

7. My explanation for my opinion that there would be less obnoxious, self-righteousness: “[that] imposition of morality based on a claim to know and endorse an ultimate, supreme, overriding principle of the universe is inherently obnoxious and self-righteous.”

8. You react by saying “you’re wrong” and imply that I haven’t answered your question when it’s obvious that I have.

In summary, you’ve offered NOTHING in our exchange besides broken semantics and weak insults.Then again, I wouldn't expect anything more than that coming from someone who is clearly expressing their hurt feelings.

You're a goofy dude. Better luck next time.

I believe that your first statement, your opinion and answer to the OP that there would be less obnoxious self-righteousness is indeed an obnoxious self-righteous statement and opinion. It is an obnoxious statement because it is offensive to me, and all believers. It is self-righteous because for some reason you think that you are better than we are. You're definitely not. Your willingness to make such a statement is evidence of that fact.

Yes, I asked for your rationale for saying so, but you did not respond with any rationale for your bigoted obnoxious self-righteous statement. All you did was restate your opinion by suggesting that people who desire to impose morality on immoral people is obnoxious and self-righteous. That is not an explanation at all. It is simply a regurgitation of your previous statement as I have said. The fact that you do not believe that there is a God who has established a moral code does not make the people who do believe that God has established a moral code obnoxious and self-righteous. It simply means that you do not recognize the existence of the God who has established moral codes for us to live by. This does not make believers obnoxious and self-righteous, but it does imply that your statement is rooted in obnoxious self-righteous ignorance, because you have failed to recognize the truth.

 

[Sonofason]

And why would God be restricted to creating life on just this planet? Because some ancient holy book says so, written by men that did not have a telescope and thought epilepsy was a demonic possession?

Your straw-man is a failure. I know of no verse in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting that epilepsy was a demonic possession. But I would love to see you fail to produce clear evidence that this is what the Bible says. And when you try to show your evidence, I will then show why what you have said is either a blatant lie, or a regurgitation of someone else's lie.

If you are suggesting that having telescopes is evidence that life exists on other planets, I think you have a poor understanding of what evidence is.

God is not restricted to creating life on just this planet. But there is no evidence that he has created life on any other planet. Therefore there is no ability for us to suggest how likely it may or may not be that he has.

 

[Sonofason]

What evidence do you have that the authors of the Bible actually know sh*t from apples ? Only the circular logic that the book is true because the book says it is true.
That, and the easily observable fact that "I'll see it when I believe it".
Which is why belief is the central obsession of religion. It's a job !

Well, I have experienced God because I have pursued Him based on what the authors of the Bible suggested as a means to finding Him. And since I have experienced God as a result, I believe that what the Bible says is true. And now that I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me, which helps me discern truth from lies, it has become clear to me that what is written in the Bible is true.

The Bible tells us it is wrong to steal from others. Having been stolen from, my heart confirms that what is written in the Bible about stealing is true. Therefore I do believe thieves should be shot and killed, or better just cease to exist. The Bible tells us that adultery is wrong. My heart also tells me that adultery is wrong. So I believe that what the Bible says about adultery is true. I do believe that adulterers deserve to die, or even better cease to exist. I could go on and on. I read what is written in the Bible and my heart tells me that what is written in it is true. There is so much of what is written in the Bible that my heart confirms as true, that I have taken a leap of faith, and have come to believe that all of the statements contained in the Bible is true.

It is not circular logic when that which is claimed is supported in truth by one's own experience.

 

[McBell]

Why isn't Hillary in prison? Do all criminals go to prison?

Because the investigations yielded no imprisonal results.
Thought that was pretty obvious.

 

[McBell]

Your straw-man is a failure. I know of no verse in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting that epilepsy was a demonic possession. But I would love to see you fail to produce clear evidence that this is what the Bible says. And when you try to show your evidence, I will then show why what you have said is either a blatant lie, or a regurgitation of someone else's lie.

If you are suggesting that having telescopes is evidence that life exists on other planets, I think you have a poor understanding of what evidence is.

God is not restricted to creating life on just this planet. But there is no evidence that he has created life on any other planet. Therefore there is no ability for us to suggest how likely it may or may not be that he has.

My god your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.
No one has claimed that the BIBLE blames demon possession for epilepsy.
It was plainly stated that people did.

Though it does make sense.
Especially if you "read" the bible as well as you do posts.

 

[Sonofason]

My god your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.
No one has claimed that the BIBLE blames demon possession for epilepsy.
It was plainly stated that people did.

Though it does make sense.
Especially if you "read" the bible as well as you do posts.

I'm sorry but the Bible speaks of people possessed by devils, and it speaks of people who have epilepsy, and there is certainly a distinction made between the two. The Bible is clear that they are not the same thing, and the person I was responding to, which wasn't you, did claim that the Bible claimed that epileptics were demon possessed. I was simply pointing out the lie. Why you are supporting the liar...I have no idea.

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry but the Bible speaks of people possessed by devils, and it speaks of people who have epilepsy, and there is certainly a distinction made between the two. The Bible is clear that they are not the same thing, and the person I was responding to, which wasn't you, did claim that the Bible claimed that epileptics were demon possessed. I was simply pointing out the lie. Why you are supporting the liar...I have no idea.

you are just plain flat out wrong.
the line in question:

Because some ancient holy book says so, written by men that did not have a telescope and thought epilepsy was a demonic possession?​

the "written by men who thought epilepsy was demonic possession" is about the men who wrote the Bible, not the Bible itself.

So your strawman is the lie, not that which you strawmanned.
Now why are you supporting your lies?
I suspect self interest.

Though to be perfectly honest, I think you misunderstand what was actually said and instead of stopping for a second and rethinking it, you blaze ahead forward making an even bigger fool of yourself.

To each their own.

 

[Sonofason]

you are just plain flat out wrong.
the line in question:

Because some ancient holy book says so, written by men that did not have a telescope and thought epilepsy was a demonic possession?​

the "written by men who thought epilepsy was demonic possession" is about the men who wrote the Bible, not the Bible itself.

So your strawman is the lie, not that which you strawmanned.
Now why are you supporting your lies?
I suspect self interest.

Though to be perfectly honest, I think you misunderstand what was actually said and instead of stopping for a second and rethinking it, you blaze ahead forward making an even bigger fool of yourself.

To each their own.

Come back when you get your facts straight. Perhaps actually read the passages of the Bible that refer to epilepsy and those possessed by devils.

 

[Kemosloby]

Because the investigations yielded no imprisonal results.
Thought that was pretty obvious.

Imprisonable is probably the correct word. Used in a sentence, Hillary was most likely culpable of many imprisonable offences.

 

[Neo Deist]

Your straw-man is a failure. I know of no verse in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting that epilepsy was a demonic possession.

Then you don't know the Bible.

Matthew 17:14-18 very clearly shows that the boy was afflicted, and that he would fall down for no reason. In the KJV it states that he was "lunatick and sorely vexed." In the ESV it says he has seizures. In the ASV it calls the condition epilepsy. In verse 18 of all three translations, Jesus rebukes the demon and it comes out of the boy.

It goes without saying that the writers of the Bible did not know much in the way of scientific or medical understanding as compared to today. When they could not explain something, they often used the supernatural, such as demonic possession. This is also why the translations get updates/revised as both science and medicine are able to explain things.

But I would love to see you fail to produce clear evidence that this is what the Bible says. And when you try to show your evidence, I will then show why what you have said is either a blatant lie, or a regurgitation of someone else's lie.

Not only do I have a ThD from seminary, but other theologians and translators are the ones that update/revise biblical translations. We agree on the nature of those updates and revisions. It does not do any good to cling to archaic notions when modern understanding can explain what the ancients did not understand.

Are you calling me, a doctor of theology, as well as others who are specialists in the field, a bunch of liars?

If you are suggesting that having telescopes is evidence that life exists on other planets, I think you have a poor understanding of what evidence is.

You are missing the bigger picture, but that is to be expected. It is not that "telescopes are evidence of aliens" but rather that modern technology has shown that the earth is not the center of the universe (geocentricity). The Bible was written in a time period that viewed the earth as the center of creation. When Galileo pointed a telescope at the night sky, he had an "uh oh" moment because for centuries the Roman Catholic Church held to the belief in geocentricity, and he just proved them wrong.

We now have space shuttles, satellites, space probes, Mars rovers, astronauts, etc. The Hubble has tracked billions upon billions of galaxies. Get out of the "earth only" train of thought. Think on a cosmic scale. Heck, there are now astronauts, cosmonauts and other countries' space agencies that have said aliens exist. The USA is trying to keep a lid on it for reasons unknown.

If the USA and NASA ever came out and said "aliens exist," I'd think that a large portion of the country would say, "yeah...and? We knew this already. How about that game last night!!!"

God is not restricted to creating life on just this planet. But there is no evidence that he has created life on any other planet. Therefore there is no ability for us to suggest how likely it may or may not be that he has.

Just because we do not have the technology to travel to other galaxies (much less plausibly within our own) does not mean that life is nonexistent elsewhere. Our space exploration is not even a century old. We are mere infants that are barely crawling right now. I believe in a God that is all powerful, and if God wants to put life on 100,000,000,000,000 planets that we can't get to, then so be it. God is above and beyond human limitations and understanding.


Addendum: if you think that the Bible is inerrant and makes no mistakes, then you need to think again. The Bible that we have is a copy of a copy of a copy. The original works of the OT, called the Autographs, have long been destroyed. The Persian king Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem, way back in 587 BC, and those originals went up in flames. The writings of the NT are long lost/destroyed as well.

What you hold in your hand this day can't be compared to what was originally written. Humans make mistakes. Therefore it is a safe bet that biblical scribes made mistakes over the centuries, especially when translating across languages. A quick study of linguistics between Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Latin and English will show that.

Lastly, if you are as Christian as you claim, then instead of arguing perhaps you should just "turn the other cheek."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Chemtrails of vaporized LSD could be the fast track to one world secular non government. Although it would probably be more like the world imagined by Brian Aldiss in his book 'Barefoot In the Head'.(1969), which describes what happens when radical Muslims preempt the west by bombing all major cities with vaporized LSD. An amazing book in a style akin to Joyce's 'Finnegan's Wake'.

Wow! to say the least.
Whatever the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 will be, the words from Jesus' mouth will execute the wicked before they can take things over - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Proverbs 2:21-22; Psalms 92:7

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I believe that your first statement, your opinion and answer to the OP that there would be less obnoxious self-righteousness is indeed an obnoxious self-righteous statement and opinion. It is an obnoxious statement because it is offensive to me, and all believers. It is self-righteous because for some reason you think that you are better than we are. You're definitely not. Your willingness to make such a statement is evidence of that fact.

Yes, I asked for your rationale for saying so, but you did not respond with any rationale for your bigoted obnoxious self-righteous statement. All you did was restate your opinion by suggesting that people who desire to impose morality on immoral people is obnoxious and self-righteous. That is not an explanation at all. It is simply a regurgitation of your previous statement as I have said. The fact that you do not believe that there is a God who has established a moral code does not make the people who do believe that God has established a moral code obnoxious and self-righteous. It simply means that you do not recognize the existence of the God who has established moral codes for us to live by. This does not make believers obnoxious and self-righteous, but it does imply that your statement is rooted in obnoxious self-righteous ignorance, because you have failed to recognize the truth.

You're so far off base. It's ridiculous; and you're getting shredded in this thread.

Where did I even slightly imply that I am "better than" anyone else? And what gives you the right to speak on behalf of "all believers" (whoever the hell that includes) and discern what's offensive to other people and what isn't?

How do you know that I don't believe in any conception of any god?

I never even claimed that all "people who do believe that God has established a moral code obnoxious and self-righteous".

And you're the one banging on about straw man arguments. Are you kidding?

I'm willing to bet that an exercise in imposing one's moral code on another would constitute obnoxious self-righteousness in an infinite number of contexts. The irony of this entire exchange this that you're doing it right now and behaving obnoxiously and self-righteously as a result.

I made a perfectly valid statement. You got your feeling hurt and went way off on a tangent in an attempt to heal your ego. Your "arguments" in this thread also reveal how limited your mind is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just wait until aliens make contact. The world's religions will come crumbling down...except deism.

Most of the world's religions would have no problems with ETs.

 

[McBell]

Imprisonable is probably the correct word. Used in a sentence, Hillary was most likely culpable of many imprisonable offences.

Except the investigations did not reveal any.
Which is the point you keep dodging, avoiding, etc...

Better luck next time

 

[McBell]

Come back when you get your facts straight. Perhaps actually read the passages of the Bible that refer to epilepsy and those possessed by devils.

My Apologies.
I do not know how to dumb it down any further for you.

 

[Papoon]

You don't say much but I would say what God says is good is good, such as giving money to those who can't do anything for you in return, helping the poor and needy. Selfless acts are Love. If those are your actions it's hard to deny they are good.

A very Buddhist attitude.
No god required.
No belief necessary.
Not even Buddhism.
Just a sensitivity to an innate sense of compassion is all that is required to be 'good'.