Jesus as Christ

[URAVIP2ME]

You'ld think that the all powerful perfectly intelligent creator of the universe would be capable of making his wishes understood in a more straightforward manner instead of through this semantical scavenger hunt which requires you to set reason aside....

I find No setting aside of ' reason' for the people at Acts of the Apostles 17:11 because they searched or researched the Scriptures daily to see if things were really so before drawing a conclusion.
I find No setting aside of ' reason' in Jesus' teachings because Jesus in a logical manner used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures as the basis for his teachings.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " It is written...." Already written down in the OT.
A comprehensive concordance puts the Bible in alphabetical order for us by subject or topic arrangement.
In other words, because the Bible is chock full of cross-reference verses and passages we can use 'power of reason'.
Thus, we can 'reason' and by reasoning see for the internal harmony among the many Bible writers.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My treasure does not lie on earth, but rather in the grace of God.
Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“Place not thy reliance on thy treasures. Put thy whole confidence in the grace of God, thy Lord. Let Him be thy trust in whatever thou doest, and be of them that have submitted themselves to His Will. Let Him be thy helper and enrich thyself with His treasures, for with Him are the treasuries of the heavens and of -> the earth.”
Gleanings, pp.234-235

A lot of people think their 'end' treasure does Not lie on Earth, but I notice at the end of the ^ above ^ post it mentions the treasures of 'both' the Heavens and of the Earth (Earth).
To me Jesus was referring to 'spiritual treasures ' but that will lead to heavenly or earthly treasures.
So, to me an 'earthly treasure' would be the promise Jesus made that humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
- from Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5
Of course, inheriting the Earth would be because of God's undeserved grace or kindness.
That is "IF" we keep walking by spiritual light - 1 John 1:7 - keeping spiritual treasures in heart and mind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In Isaiah 61:1-2, which Jesus quoted in the synagogue in Nazareth [Luke 4:18-19], there was no mention by Jesus of 'the day of vengeance of our God'. This was something reserved for the return of Christ......................

Yes, agree, a 'day of vengeance', and in Jesus' day or that time frame there was a ' day of vengeance ' in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem - Luke 21:20-22.
In our day, the 'day of vengeance' will conclude with the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14; Revelation 7:9.
So, yes, agree, reserved for the return of Christ - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Confidence in mundane, verifiable, commonly observable reality is not at all the same as religious faith.
I know my friend exists.
I know his house exists.
I don't know if he's at his house.
If I pop in there at a random time, then he might be there or he might not be there. I don't know.
If I have an appointment with him, the chances are higher that he'll be there, although how likely it is would depend on previous experience with the dude - how trustworthy he is etc.
So what we have here, are rather reasonable expectations based on precedents / evidence...................

Confidence and faith go hand-in-hand.
There is religious faith in that there are 'religious-myth faiths' and what Jesus believed to be 'religious truth'.
The religious truth that sets one free from what is religiously false.
In a sense we can 'pop in' the Bible at a random time, but God is always there. I know, just open the Bible.
Yes, as Amos 3:3 says: will two walk together unless they have agreed to meet by appointment ?
So, by appointment one can have the faith / confidence the person/friend will be there.
So, either by 'pop in ' or by our arrangement God is always home in the Bible for us.

 

[Trailblazer]

A lot of people think their 'end' treasure does Not lie on Earth, but I notice at the end of the ^ above ^ post it mentions the treasures of 'both' the Heavens and of the Earth (Earth).
To me Jesus was referring to 'spiritual treasures ' but that will lead to heavenly or earthly treasures.
So, to me an 'earthly treasure' would be the promise Jesus made that humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
- from Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5
Of course, inheriting the Earth would be because of God's undeserved grace or kindness.
That is "IF" we keep walking by spiritual light - 1 John 1:7 - keeping spiritual treasures in heart and mind.

Jesus told us not to lay up our treasures on earth because our life on earth is fleeting and temporary, not forever.

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Jesus also told us not to love our life in this world, lest we lose eternal life. What I believe that means is that we are not supposed to be attached to our life in this world because it is very transitory and because being attached to what is worldly intervenes between us and God..

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

I believe that 'the meek will inherit the earth' means that the generations and future generations of meek people will inherit the earth. This earth is for the living and heaven is for those who have passed on to the next world, which is a spiritual world.

"It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life." Heaven and Hell, p. 351

 

[Trailblazer]

'Vengeance', 'vindication', and 'judgment' are used of the second coming of Christ. To believe that this has already come to earth seems odd to me. Where is the evidence of Christ's appearance to destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem as prophesied by Zechariah [Zech.12:9-14]?

I don't know why you believe that those verses refer to what Christ will do at His second coming? There are a multitude of verses that refer to the return of Christ in the Old Testament and the New Testament. A great many of those verses and how they were fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah are delineated in the book Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Some of the key prophecies and how Baha'u'llah fulfilled them are shown in this 10 minute video.

 

[rational experiences]

Words. Alphabet.

Letters own words. Men use letters to quote I make words. As men.

Science once said a letter owned a number by their wisdom.

Letters were angles. By thought O creator concept. Angle inside O. Calculus.

Adam by alpha beta is not Jesus.

Word says so.

Alpha bet...alphabetalphabetalphabeta.

A thinker would say Alpha bet Alpha.

There is only alpha I never should have discussed anything else.

But you don't.

Reason men's science mentality keeps building more and more destructive threats. Each thesis he claims is more dangerous than the last.

As weapons evolved as we evolved into huge destructive wielding.

It is obvious what human evolution produces its destructive intelligence.

Reason we are going back in time as once a large sun is now a small sun.

So we know as we evolve we get informed by mass communications of greater destruction.

By natural history communicated back. What no longer exists.

The science mind is hence possessed by it.

Destructive minds care less about human life. So they believe Jesus human life sacrificed owns scientific advice. How to instructions.

Yet it should never have occurred.

Science of man only wants science and cares less about what science caused

Humans today read science as if human thesis denoting life's sacrifice spoke rationally.

So thinkers who live family and health and life lovingly whole challenge the authenticity of the teaching.

Was life created to be sacrificed by a man god.

So first advice God is in the heavens word GOD. Not a man. It's how the heavens flow on the face of the great deep.

No man is God rationale.

The theist a man theorising against God was life sacrificed.

It is authentic life of man by science sacrificed life.

It was not meant.

God the state however men said caused life to be saved. Not by the sacrificed but stopping of the sacrifice.

Not reasoned as a human logical assertion I was taught.

O earth mass.
Heavens mass.

Mass does not own single states. Mass is one whole state only with lots of changing explanations within it.

Ignored. One means only one.

If men said earth O one body owned it's only one spirit as one would you not quote it as mass?

What body was born in the immaculate space womb

One whole spirit one of mass....that was sun sacrificed to burn. Crucified once? Natural. Not any man. Spirit gas itself. Gods form.

Yes.

And the vacuum void womb removes or takes away the sacrificed gas spirit?

Yes.

Which is not any other status anywhere else.

Ignored the exact teaching body of one. Science advice no man is God states.

Science made burning spirit gases fall to the ground had as a satanic theme burnt us all to death once.

Is their belief to copy.

Jesus was placed by definition before Christ as Christ not Jesus was holy.

Christ is not earths one mass heavens body of one either. Another not taught mis quote of Satanists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Faith is for things we know to be true. That is why we have faith in them.

That makes no sense.

Nobody says "I have faith that I will fall to earth when I jump of this building"
or "I have faith that you won't survive a shotgun shooting in the head"
or "I have faith that 2+2 equals 4".

But people DO say "I have faith that this undetectable, undemonstrable god is looking out for us"
or "I have faith that my prayers are heared"
or "I have faith that this ancient jew performed miracles and returned from death".


And the reason is exactly what I said.
Faith is for things you HOPE to be true. Not for things you KNOW to be true.

Definition of know

transitive verb

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Neither of these apply to faith based beliefs in undefendable, unverifiable, undemonstrable supernatural shenanigans.

For 1, there is no direct perception of anything supernatural.
For 2, there is no practical understanding of anything supernatural

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find No setting aside of ' reason' for the people at Acts of the Apostles 17:11 because they searched or researched the Scriptures daily to see if things were really so before drawing a conclusion.
I find No setting aside of ' reason' in Jesus' teachings because Jesus in a logical manner used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures as the basis for his teachings.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " It is written...." Already written down in the OT.
A comprehensive concordance puts the Bible in alphabetical order for us by subject or topic arrangement.
In other words, because the Bible is chock full of cross-reference verses and passages we can use 'power of reason'.
Thus, we can 'reason' and by reasoning see for the internal harmony among the many Bible writers.

You can't believe in the supernatural, magic / miracles, etc without setting reason aside.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Confidence and faith go hand-in-hand.

Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that confidence is a result of positive beliefs. But that doesn't tell you anything about the justification for it.

For example, you could believe that you can fly. It's a belief you could hold.
That belief would result in you being confident in being able to jump from a building a land safely.

But your confidence would be misplaced off course, because it flows from an unjustified faith based belief.

There is religious faith in that there are 'religious-myth faiths' and what Jesus believed to be 'religious truth'.
The religious truth that sets one free from what is religiously false.
In a sense we can 'pop in' the Bible at a random time, but God is always there. I know, just open the Bible.
Yes, as Amos 3:3 says: will two walk together unless they have agreed to meet by appointment ?
So, by appointment one can have the faith / confidence the person/friend will be there.
So, either by 'pop in ' or by our arrangement God is always home in the Bible for us.

The bible is just a book. The stuff written therein are claims.

You keep pointing to this book as if it is evidence of the claims it makes.
This is off course pointless circular reasoning.

The bible is a just a book. The stuff written in there are just claims.
You believe them on faith. I don't. I require proper reasons to believe something.



Let's try something different to make the point clear.

Tell me.... is there anything that you could NOT believe "on faith"?
I say there isn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

That makes no sense.

Nobody says "I have faith that I will fall to earth when I jump of this building"
or "I have faith that you won't survive a shotgun shooting in the head"
or "I have faith that 2+2 equals 4".

But people DO say "I have faith that this undetectable, undemonstrable god is looking out for us"
or "I have faith that my prayers are heared"
or "I have faith that this ancient jew performed miracles and returned from death".

And the reason is exactly what I said.
Faith is for things you HOPE to be true. Not for things you KNOW to be true.

No, it of for things we believe/know are true, depending upon how much faith we have.

Baha'u'llah explained why what we believe/know cannot be proven to anyone else:

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

Neither of these apply to faith based beliefs in undefendable, unverifiable, undemonstrable supernatural shenanigans.

For 1, there is no direct perception of anything supernatural.
For 2, there is no practical understanding of anything supernatural

I guess you missed the full definition of know.
The way I know is 2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of.

Definition of know

transitive verb

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Definition of know

transitive verb

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

I already told you that neither of these definitions are describing religious faith.

There is nothing in supernatural stuff that is observable, which means there also can't be any practical understanding. That rules out both definitions.

And that's why "faith" is required. Because actual knowledge isn't applicable / available. You don't require "faith" when you have evidence and practical understanding.


Also, you "forgot" to answer my question: is there anything that can't be believed on faith?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and miracles are a subset of magic.
If you admit God can do magic then you must accept all the other claims of magic attributed to gods and humans down the ages and across the nations.
Please show me an authenticated example of God ─ indeed, any god ─ intervening in human affairs.
While that's true, at least science is looking for the answer. to the point where the question can be framed with considerable precision. The churches are not looking, saying instead that God did it; but that explains nothing unless and until we have a suitable explanation of what real (not-imaginary) thing God is and how exactly [he] does things.
That's incorrect. What science has actually said is that on our present knowledge there's no way that we can access information about what if anything existed before the singularity of the Big Bang. The hypothesis that the universe formed from energy and matter pre-existing in some metaverse is still open. (I see no basis for the alternative, that absolutely nothing pre-existed the Big Bang ─ there would be neither time nor space in which anything could happen. It makes far more sense to me that time and space are effects or qualities of matter and energy, not vice versa.)
This is the only such claim in the bible, and refers only to the Tanakh, there being no NT when it was written. Since the Tanakh itself makes no such claims, this claim is at best one writer's opinion, and doesn't itself even have the benefit of his claim. Nor is it a claim of infallibility ─ which is just as well.
This is Matthew's Jesus. None of the other four say anything like that.

But if it's correct then the covenant of circumcision still applies regardless of Paul, slavery is still fine as long as you stick to the rules, you must not suffer a witch to live, you must not keep company with menstruating women, the penalty for razzing your parents is death, you must sacrifice your first-born male child to God as required by Exodus 29-30 ─ and so on.

When is a beginning not a beginning?

How can science even consider there is anything measurable or observable before the Big Bang? This is truly fanciful thinking.

Either there is 'nothing' before the Big Bang or there is an omnipresence we call 'God'. And since things don't appear without purpose, it seems highly likely that God is the intelligent designer.

When one compares the narrative of the atheist with that of the Christian, the two 'realities' come nowhere close. Without God giving meaning and purpose to existence nothing really makes sense.The unjust and immoral often evade justice, the poor and disadvantaged get a raw deal, and life itself can be short and harsh.

As it says in Psalm 14, 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

You'ld think that the all powerful perfectly intelligent creator of the universe would be capable of making his wishes understood in a more straightforward manner instead of through this semantical scavenger hunt which requires you to set reason aside....

Very few people would say that human beings are just advanced computers, but clearly you think they are!

I can only conclude that in your world of pure reason, the future holds no place for the weak reasoning and fallible logic of a human compared to the robot.

In accordance with scripture, l believe that human beings are more than just advanced computers. I understand that people have a soul and spirit capable of compassion and love.

What is love if not spirituality?

 

[blü 2]

When is a beginning not a beginning?

When time isn't the dominant factor it's assumed to be in words like 'beginning', 'eternal' and so on. If matter-energy are subject to time, then questions of a beginning are relevant because of the assumption that time must have had a start ─ and for our universe we think that start was the Big Bang and we don't know what if anything was before then.

But if time exists only as a quality or effect of matter-energy, then time only exists because matter-energy exists, and questions of beginnings don't arise. Time, for all we know, may run backwards or 'sideways' or consist of more than one temporal dimension elsewhere than our universe, (just as space consists of more than one spatial dimension). That of course is all hypothetical, all speculation, but it suffices to raise questions we don't have answers to.

How can science even consider there is anything measurable or observable before the Big Bang? This is truly fanciful thinking.

My own answer is that the matter-energy of the Big Bang had to come from somewhere, and one possibility is that our universe exists inside or alongside a metaverse which was the source. (Other ideas include the idea that the universe expands hugely and then contracts back to a singularity in enormous cycles, though it's not a very popular model.)

Either there is 'nothing' before the Big Bang or there is an omnipresence we call 'God'.

This is where science and religion part ways, since religion doesn't derive the nature of God from the nature of nature, but rather from the nature of human aspiration.

And since things don't appear without purpose, it seems highly likely that God is the intelligent designer.

Of course things appear without purpose. Only sentient beings, like us and many animals, have purposes, and those purposes are all to do with the particular needs and emotional set-ups of each species. If the earth is wiped out tomorrow with all its living things, and that's the end of all life anywhere in the universe, the universe isn't sentient, doesn't have purposes, is incapable even of noticing. It's the humans who are sentient, have purposes, and care about things personal to them and their desires, physical and intellectual,

When one compares the narrative of the atheist with that of the Christian, the two 'realities' come nowhere close. Without God giving meaning and purpose to existence nothing really makes sense.The unjust and immoral often evade justice, the poor and disadvantaged get a raw deal, and life itself can be short and harsh.

Don't take this personally, but it's REALLY annoying to be told that without God there's no morality, no meaning. Of course there's morality, both evolved so that all humans have a share of it, and local, so that manners and customs may differ, but none of that depends on any supernatural being. (I may have mentioned this before, but to be clear, our evolved morality gives us dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and of course an instinct for child nurture and protection; and we've also evolved with a conscience and with a capacity for empathy.) And the meaning of life is (a) to survive long enough to reproduce and bring offspring to independence and (b) whatever else each of us may wish to make of it.

As it says in Psalm 14, 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very few people would say that human beings are just advanced computers, but clearly you think they are!

I said nothing of the sort and I have no clue where you got that from.

I can only conclude that in your world of pure reason, the future holds no place for the weak reasoning and fallible logic of a human compared to the robot.

??

What are you on about?

In accordance with scripture, l believe that human beings are more than just advanced computers. I understand that people have a soul and spirit capable of compassion and love.

What is love if not spirituality?

Love is an emotion. Love isn't any less real just because it has physical mechanics underpinning it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When is a beginning not a beginning?

How can science even consider there is anything measurable or observable before the Big Bang? This is truly fanciful thinking.

As far as science is concerned, asking about "before" the universe might not even be a sensible question. Kind of like asking who lives north of the north pole.

Either there is 'nothing' before the Big Bang or there is an omnipresence we call 'God'.

Talk about a false dichotomy!

And since things don't appear without purpose, it seems highly likely that God is the intelligent designer.

Talk about a non sequitur!

When one compares the narrative of the atheist with that of the Christian, the two 'realities' come nowhere close.

There is no "atheist narrative".
There are narratives that don't include supernatural shenannigans, which you could call "atheist" I suppose.
But there is no "Atheist Narrative".

Not agreeing with a specific narrative, is not a narrative by itself, you see...

Without God giving meaning and purpose to existence nothing really makes sense.

This follows from the false/unsupportable premise that a god is required for meaning and purpose.
And that a god exists. And that this god gives meaning and purpose.

GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.

I don't require a god to find meaning and purpose. So I guess my mere existence already falsifies your hidden premise.

The unjust and immoral often evade justice

They oftenly also don't. But yes, life isn't always fair.
All we can do is try our best to make sure they don't.

, the poor and disadvantaged get a raw deal, and life itself can be short and harsh.

Yes. So? What does that have to do with the matter at hand?
Trying to go for the emotional appeal?

As it says in Psalm 14, 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'

What else would you expect a religion to say? That those who don't believe it are rational geniuses?

 

[Redemptionsong]

When time isn't the dominant factor it's assumed to be in words like 'beginning', 'eternal' and so on. If matter-energy are subject to time, then questions of a beginning are relevant because of the assumption that time must have had a start ─ and for our universe we think that start was the Big Bang and we don't know what if anything was before then.

But if time exists only as a quality or effect of matter-energy, then time only exists because matter-energy exists, and questions of beginnings don't arise. Time, for all we know, may run backwards or 'sideways' or consist of more than one temporal dimension elsewhere than our universe, (just as space consists of more than one spatial dimension). That of course is all hypothetical, all speculation, but it suffices to raise questions we don't have answers to.
My own answer is that the matter-energy of the Big Bang had to come from somewhere, and one possibility is that our universe exists inside or alongside a metaverse which was the source. (Other ideas include the idea that the universe expands hugely and then contracts back to a singularity in enormous cycles, though it's not a very popular model.)
This is where science and religion part ways, since religion doesn't derive the nature of God from the nature of nature, but rather from the nature of human aspiration.
Of course things appear without purpose. Only sentient beings, like us and many animals, have purposes, and those purposes are all to do with the particular needs and emotional set-ups of each species. If the earth is wiped out tomorrow with all its living things, and that's the end of all life anywhere in the universe, the universe isn't sentient, doesn't have purposes, is incapable even of noticing. It's the humans who are sentient, have purposes, and care about things personal to them and their desires, physical and intellectual,
Don't take this personally, but it's REALLY annoying to be told that without God there's no morality, no meaning. Of course there's morality, both evolved so that all humans have a share of it, and local, so that manners and customs may differ, but none of that depends on any supernatural being. (I may have mentioned this before, but to be clear, our evolved morality gives us dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and of course an instinct for child nurture and protection; and we've also evolved with a conscience and with a capacity for empathy.) And the meaning of life is (a) to survive long enough to reproduce and bring offspring to independence and (b) whatever else each of us may wish to make of it.

As it says in Psalm 14, 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'

The argument is not that atheists have no morality but that their morality is dictated by a different set of principles from the Christian.

If one follows the arguments of Richard Dawkins, it's the 'selfish gene' that drives the 'natural' man. To my understanding, this is the way of 'fallen' man who has no higher calling. Your a) and b) points above suggest to me that love is compromised. The love of an atheist always places 'self' before 'other'. Jesus, on the other hand, said that the greatest thing a man can do is lay down his life for his friends. Why would an atheist do such a thing? For the atheist, this life is all there is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As far as science is concerned, asking about "before" the universe might not even be a sensible question. Kind of like asking who lives north of the north pole.



Talk about a false dichotomy!



Talk about a non sequitur!




There is no "atheist narrative".
There are narratives that don't include supernatural shenannigans, which you could call "atheist" I suppose.
But there is no "Atheist Narrative".

Not agreeing with a specific narrative, is not a narrative by itself, you see...



This follows from the false/unsupportable premise that a god is required for meaning and purpose.
And that a god exists. And that this god gives meaning and purpose.

GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.

I don't require a god to find meaning and purpose. So I guess my mere existence already falsifies your hidden premise.



They oftenly also don't. But yes, life isn't always fair.
All we can do is try our best to make sure they don't.



Yes. So? What does that have to do with the matter at hand?
Trying to go for the emotional appeal?



What else would you expect a religion to say? That those who don't believe it are rational geniuses?

If you cannot explain what possibilities existed before the Big Bang, then you leave yourself with no option but to admit that reason has failed you.

Thank you.

 

[blü 2]

The argument is not that atheists have no morality but that their morality is dictated by a different set of principles from the Christian.

I think a lot of biblical morality is vile; invasive war, massacres of populations, mass rape, slavery, women as property, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance and so on. And since all the Christians I personally know agree this stuff is vile, obviously their morality has a source other than the bible ─ namely the evolved moral instincts I outlined in my previous post, and the customs of the societies in which we live.

Jesus, on the other hand, said that the greatest thing a man can do is lay down his life for his friends. Why would an atheist do such a thing? For the atheist, this life is all there is.

Consider the evolved moral qualities I listed in my previous post: they don't rely on gods, but on their effectiveness in aiding survival and breeding, not least in promoting social cooperation. Thus both the believer and the nonbeliever will dislike the one who harms, will like fairness and reciprocity, will respect authority, will be loyal to the group, and will get a sense of satisfaction from self-denial, in the same proportions.

And of course both believers and nonbelievers have a conscience and a capacity for empathy ─ again through evolution, and again regardless of gods.