the right religion

[sojourner]

Truth, what is truth.

That is the same question Pilot asked Christ.

For the pilot, truth is the relationship between thrust/drag and gravity/lift. Period.

 

[1robin]

That's a really weak rationale in my opinion....

Christianity can only "take away a person's sin" because it put's it there in the first place!

I don't behold any concept of 'sin', just skillful and unskillful actions, so I don't need Christianity to "take away sins" because I don't believe in the Christian concept of 'sin' and especially not 'original sin'.

Our "original sin" outside of the negativity and guilt-motivations of Christianity, is in fact, the Human Condition.

The Human Condition besets us all. And we do not know why. No-one does. But it sure isn't a reason for guilt and we don't enter this human condition inherently 'sinful'. To think so is really quite perverse and illogical in my opinion.

So the systematic murder of Russia's citizens by the atheist Stalin was not actually wrong. It was unskillful?

Actually many immoral (sinful) actions seem to proceed out of calculated, skillful, genius. If you are going to deny right and wrong as categories of moral truth, exist I would substitute a better word than unskillful. Maybe socially unfashionable. That would still allow the atheist to temporarily avoid any entanglements with accountability and objective truth and retain the ability to make moral judgments on an arbitrary basis of preference and opinion and would not suggest genocide was due to a lack of skill.

 

[Northern Lights]

So the systematic murder of Russia's citizens by the atheist Stalin was not actually wrong. It was unskillful?

Yes, it was unskillful. But hold on, I didn't say it wasn't "wrong" .... Go back to my post - you'll see I talked of "Sin" not right and wrong. Of course it is wrong! Who is going to argue against that? ..... but it wasn't sinful because 'sin' doesn't exist. We all have free will to make skillfull, compassionate choices, or unskillful, harmful choices. Sin belongs to the fantasy notion of a man in the sky, bitter, jealous, abusive, hateful and judging his little creatures.

That only seems abhorant to you because you're conditioned into Christian thinking. It was unskilful be because it was an act without compassion, causing great suffering to so many people. But it was still unskilfull.

Actually many immoral (sinful) actions seem to proceed out of calculated, skillful, genius. If you are going to deny right and wrong as categories of moral truth, exist I would substitute a better word than unskillful. Maybe socially unfashionable. That would still allow the atheist to temporarily avoid any entanglements with accountability and objective truth and retain the ability to make moral judgments on an arbitrary basis of preference and opinion and would not suggest genocide was due to a lack of skill.

Your point here about 'calculated' skilfull people again, just demonstrates that you don't understand what is meant by 'skilful' and 'unskilfull' actions, in a Dharmic perspective.

In the Christian mindset, everything is 'judged' (including many Christians, by their lofty conservative brethren ). There's a huge ego phenomenon to everything. There is no consideration of Human condition; the fact that we are all born with very different 'toolkits' and cannot be unianimously judged

- not even by an angry, jealous, insecure, self-obsessed god.

 

[1robin]

For the pilot, truth is the relationship between thrust/drag and gravity lift. Period.

Apparently me grammatical mistake was so earth shattering it called you out of retirement. Good to hear from you again. I have studied aviation for 20 years and have never heard the term gravity lift before.

 

[sojourner]

Apparently me grammatical mistake was so earth shattering it called you out of retirement. Good to hear from you again. I have studied aviation for 20 years and have never heard the term gravity lift before.

There was supposed to be a slash there. I'm gonna fix it...

Stand by...

 

[1robin]

Yes, it was unskillful. But hold on, I didn't say it wasn't "wrong" .... Go back to my post - you'll see I talked of "Sin" not right and wrong. Of course it is wrong! Who is going to argue against that? ..... but it wasn't sinful because 'sin' doesn't exist. We all have free will to make skillfull, compassionate choices, or unskillful, harmful choices. Sin belongs to the fantasy notion of a man in the sky, bitter, jealous, abusive, hateful and judging his little creatures.

Unskillful in what way? Skill means relative competence to accomplish a goal. Stalin was very competent at killing his enemies.

Wrong and right are normally used to define objective moral value. Relative wrongs are not actually wrong. They are acceptable or not, not actually wrong or right, morally. You talking only about contrived ethics, not actual moral truth.

You object to sin which is posited as a concept of faith and you protest against an act of faith by making an act of faith in denial of it. Saying there is no sin is an act requiring greater faith given less evidence than claiming it does exist. That was double standards on steroids.

Sin is defined as moral acts against divine law. Without divine law you have no criteria even theoretically possible to know that any act is actually wrong or right. Your moral system has no potentiality to make or know any objective moral truths. The best it can do is create preferences, opinions, and legality.

If you believe that anything is actually wrong or right morally you need God and sin comes with that need. IOW your claims necessitate what you deny by using unjustifiable faith to dismiss justifiable faith.

So far we have a great big bowl of wrong here.

That only seems abhorant to you because you're conditioned into Christian thinking. It was unskilful be because it was an act without compassion, causing great suffering to so many people. But it was still unskilfull.

Compassion is not a skill. Being compassionate might be, so would being brutal, or oppressive. Skill is morally neutral and only implies competence. It is truly remarkable and a wonder to behold what a non-theist can do to the concept of morality once it has been untethered from any rational foundation. It apparently is free to blow in the wind and be plugged in to the most appalling and unjustifiable rationales imaginable. I have never heard a single legal conclusion apply to a lack of skill being equated to Malum in se'. In many years of debating morality I have never heard it's equal.

Your point here about 'calculated' skilfull people again, just demonstrates that you don't understand what is meant by 'skilful' and 'unskilfull' actions, in a Dharmic perspective.

I certainly have no idea what your talking about. It is an English word so lets take a look at it's English synonyms.

expert, accomplished, skilled, masterly, master, virtuoso, consummate, proficient, talented, gifted, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, good, competent, capable, brilliant, handy

Not one moral quality in the whole bunch. A Dharmic perspective is not a common ground for debates concerning English words and common contexts and was not even mentioned in the posts I saw.

In the Christian mindset, everything is 'judged' (including many Christians, by their lofty conservative brethren ). There's a huge ego phenomenon to everything. There is no consideration of Human condition; the fact that we are all born with very different 'toolkits' and cannot be unianimously judged

Christian beyond anyone else have a judge that infinitely exceeds any man. That is also about the humblest position possible. We are a group composed entirely of self admitted failures. We are not discussing you take on Christianity or Dharmic philosophy. We are discussing moral ontology. Without God no possibility exists within nature to access objective moral truth. Which is why non-theists feel it allowable to mangle traditional moral concepts as badly as they have been here.

- not even by an angry, jealous, insecure, self-obsessed god.

What was this thought fragment supposed to convey?

 

[sojourner]

There. Fixed.

Oh! Precession do to asymmetric propellor loading might be added to the list...

 

[1robin]

There. Fixed.

Oh! Precession do to asymmetric propellor loading might be added to the list...

I am not grammatically skilled enough to have recognized a missing slash. I did not mention any such thing. I did notice a missing sojourner for the past few months, however. Actually I went back and now get it. Gravity / lift. Ok.

Just about anything can be added to their list:

AMAD fire dynamics.
Thrust vectors.
Merge position.
Centripetal tangent vectors.
AB burn through thermodynamics.
and a thousand others.

Those jet pilots are lethal rocket scientists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pontius Pilot rules the skies, but Pontius Pirate rules the oceans. Arrrrrn't ya' glad, lad?

 

[1robin]

Pontius Pilot rules the skies, but Pontius Pirate rules the oceans. Arrrrrn't ya' glad, lad?

How come my grammatically accurate claims do not create this much of a stir? I am not sure I want Pontius pilots, pirates, or even privates ruling anything though I do think he was more of a victim than a demon.

How much mileage does this narrative have?

We have available:

Pontius Primate.
Pontius Pirates.
Pontius Pilot.
Pontius Private.
Pontius the Pilates instructor.

and maybe Pontius the pontificator.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pontius the Pilates instructor.

ROFLM!!! :bow:

 

[1robin]

ROFLM!!! :bow:

I am as pop culture acronym ignorant as grammatically ignorant. I had to look ROLFM up.

Another poster in another thread does not think I even have a sense of humor. He dared me to make a joke. I will make one without intending to if he waits long enough.

 

[sojourner]

One problem with Pontius Pilates instructor:

It disproves the flat ball theory.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Pontius Pilot rules the skies, but Pontius Pirate rules the oceans. Arrrrrn't ya' glad, lad?

But Jesus takes the wheeeeeeeeeel!

 

[1robin]

One problem with Pontius Pilates instructor:

It disproves the flat ball theory.

This grammatical issue certainly has legs. Who is it that claims their balls are flat?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

William Lance Craig calls God "the greatest possible being." Elsewhere, so has his esteemed colleague J.P. Moreland. Aquinas has basically said the same thing.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

After God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

There is not any credible evidence of a fall of man, or a global flood, or even a regional flood. An ordinary regional flood have have happened, but not for the reasons that the Bible gives. I would like to discuss the flood with you in a new thread that I could start. The flood story is a very good reason why people should not trust the Bible. Another good reason is Dr. Richard Carrier's detailed article on the New Testament canon at
The Formation of the New Testament Canon.

You, and the Bible, claim that the Bible is not confusing, but there are easily hundreds of examples that prove that it is confusing. If a God inspired the Bible, consider how much of people's lives are needlessly wasted debating biblical issues that would not exist if the Bible had been written much more clearly. Valuable time in this very short life is needed to help poor people, get more education, make more money, and spend more time with children, not have contentious debates. A loving God would never inspire a book like the Bible.

God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the supposed fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. Otherwise, he would not have done it. After God created humans, he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Common sense, logic, reason, and basic philosophy indicate that no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

It is also a given that although a much higher percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians than in South Korea, at least some skeptics in the U.S. would have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea. That is partly true because everyone has different abilities to persuade other people, and some South Korean Christians would be able to persuade American skeptics better than American Christians could. Surely all of the best persuaders in the world do not live in the U.S.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Oh come on. You have been gone for months and you come back saying the same thing as when you left. We have already seen humans can love anything, inanimate objects, ideas, or even things that are evil whether they had any choice in what they did or not. In a world where the majority of things are lacking on love or are altogether not acting in our favor I think loving God is justifiable. You have never shown that any objective criteria exists for what may be loved or not. Your simply telling me how you feel. It is also not necessary God create us, and especially that he save us after we have betrayed him. Yet he freely chose to do these things without being compelled. He would have remained just as much God without doing either.

William Lance Craig calls God "the greatest possible being." Elsewhere, so has his esteemed colleague J.P. Moreland. Aquinas has basically said the same thing.

That is what is true of the philosophers God. It is very close to the Christian theological God but has a slightly different context. It is also very complicated in that it indicates only great making properties are maximized. Regardless it is of no help to your claims.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

It was not in God's nature to create me. It was in his capacity and he is a creator being but his creation of me was a choice or anything at all. The exact same way and artist is not compelled to paint or compose. They freely chose to do so as an expression of their nature not as something they are compelled to do. Humans constantly go against the "better angels of our nature" and constantly refuse the "lesser angels of our nature". Neither matters in your context.

There is not any credible evidence of a fall of man, or a global flood, or even a regional flood. An ordinary regional flood have have happened, but not for the reasons that the Bible gives. I would like to discuss the flood with you in a new thread that I could start. The flood story is a very good reason why people should not trust the Bible. Another good reason is Dr. Richard Carrier's detailed article on the New Testament canon at
The Formation of the New Testament Canon.

Then what is the fact we kill human lives in the womb on an industrial scale by denying the very right to the fetus we demand for our selves, demand society tolerate a sexual practice of 4% of us that causes 60% of the aids cases and costs billions without any justification, have had 300 years of peace in the last 5000, have never made a form of government that has not failed, and have enough weapons pointed at each other to wipe out all known life and almost have twice, if not evidence. We have obviously adopted a widespread moral insanity and I think the bible's explanation for it is the only viable candidate.

You, and the Bible, claim that the Bible is not confusing, but there are easily hundreds of examples that prove that it is confusing. If a God inspired the Bible, consider how much of people's lives are needlessly wasted debating biblical issues that would not exist if the Bible had been written much more clearly. Valuable time in this very short life is needed to help poor people, get more education, make more money, and spend more time with children, not have contentious debates. A loving God would never inspire a book like the Bible.

Confusing is a completely relative value. Higher math for example is about as exact as possible and non-ambiguous yet I know of no subject that is claimed to be more confusing. Even if confusing that is no reason to suggest it is invalid. It can be 100% our fault any confusion results from the bible. I do not think you have much of a case, you certainly do not have an objective case, but even if you did it does not equal untrue anyway.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the supposed fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. Otherwise, he would not have done it. After God created humans, he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Why don't you provide me a list of the best possible things and more importantly how in the world you could possibly know they are. God's actions are the best possible thing by necessity and the fact we have no criteria that supersedes him to condemn them by. If he chose to let us all die without any chance of salvation I have no way of showing that is not the best possible thing and neither do you according to divine command theory. God does not obey moral criteria he is the moral locus for all moral criteria. God's purpose necessitates everything that follows and you lack totally any criteria capable of judging that purpose.

Common sense, logic, reason, and basic philosophy indicate that no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Is that the same common sense logic and reason that created the Nazi regime, the Stalinist atheist utopia, and is currently calling 'good' the moral and financial destruction of the greatest nation on earth. Why should I accept your conclusions using those criteria and not Pol Pot's. What criteria without God do you have to suggest who is right. Every tyrant in history thought he was using those same qualities and was right. Without God there is no way to say they were not, in fact good and evil are not even categories of truth any longer.

Previously we noted in an interview with Richard Dawkins, when asked for his definition of morality he responded “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins.


The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.
More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes | Frames of Reference

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

These are not reasons they are complaints. I used to be an atheist for personal preference. My mom died and she was a Christian. I thought either God did not exist, or he did and did not help and I hated him. After I arrived at my conclusion I then set about looking for intelligent sounding justifications. I made a fool out of myself and cost myself more than many men ever have, by those efforts.

I have already suggested you read Craig's: "the problem of the unevangelised" many times. If you will not do so, do not expect me to credit your efforts of posting this same objection over and over again. If you do not desire answers because they upset the narrative then debate is meaningless.

It is also a given that although a much higher percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians than in South Korea, at least some skeptics in the U.S. would have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea. That is partly true because everyone has different abilities to persuade other people, and some South Korean Christians would be able to persuade American skeptics better than American Christians could. Surely all of the best persuaders in the world do not live in the U.S.

This sounds like a victim mentality that has become a liberal core doctrine. If you fail it is not your fault it is societies, you could not succeed, and the world owes you. Tel that to all those people that over came more obstacles than most of us even realize exist. Scientists said the human body was unable to run a 4 min mile physically. That deterred the entire sport until one guy did it, and then all kinds or people did it. Christianity exploded on the scene in an area where they were persecuted by the most powerful empire on earth and rejected by their own countrymen. It is not the opposition or even opportunity that is the determining factor it is the desire to proceed in spite of these things. I did not bother with whether you are technically right or not because others like Craig would be a much better source. I only attempted to show that it is the human heart that allows others to deny us. Our own nation was oppressed by the greatest institutionalized Church, army, and Navy the world had ever seen. Yet they chose to risk everything they had on over coming it. I imagine that if a few determined people in N Korea decided to risk it all on faith that God would destroy the N Korean regime just as he did he did the British and as he converted the Roman empire.

There is not an original claim in here. Every one of these has been addressed many times.

 

[Quirkybird]

God's actions are the best possible thing by necessity and the fact we have no criteria that supersedes him to condemn them by.

You have to be joking! If humans behaved in the way the deity is reputed to have acted they would have been utterly condemned and rightly so.