Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

 

[timschochet]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

What year do you think the industrial revolution started?

 

[Psychopav]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

What year do you think the industrial revolution started?

You're right, it was more or less coincident with the industrial revolution.

 

[shader]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

Heck, the US nuked two entire cities...

 

[theglorydays]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

I agree, it's all or nothing. The bible isn't a smorgasbord, you don't pick and choose what you like and throw out the stuff you don't. I believe a lot of people are worshipping a God of there own imagination, an idol they have formed after there image and likeness. Not the God of scripture

 

[Henry Ford]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The argument was not that science leads inexorably to more moral outcomes, it was that science leads to the ability to acquire greater information about choices that will increase human flourishing. For instance, we know how to prevent many, many more diseases. We can feed infinitely more people. This does not mean that evil withers away. What it means, however, is that if want to know how to do good, we have more information at our disposal in order to achieve that.

Its ironic that the discussion drove off into a ridiculous side-discussion about industrialization. Because, of course, the Bible doesn't tell us a thing about whether industrialization is good. So it's kind of hard to see how psychopav feels that his biblical definition of goodness or morality is any more concrete or defined than anyone else's.

 

[theglorydays]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

100 million+ dead from wars and atrocities in the 20th century. Look at the newspapers and at your own heart, this isn't the act of a few but the plight of the human race. Man is born alienated from God and has an evil heart. The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful Jeremiah 17:9. He must be born again is what Jesus said

 

[Henry Ford]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

100 million+ dead from wars and atrocities in the 20th century. Look at the newspapers and at your own heart, this isn't the act of a few but the plight of the human race. Man is born alienated from God and has an evil heart. The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful Jeremiah 17:9. He must be born again is what Jesus said

So you believe that morals are worse now than, say, 1000 years ago?

 

[Henry Ford]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

 

[Psychopav]

The argument was not that science leads inexorably to more moral outcomes, it was that science leads to the ability to acquire greater information about choices that will increase human flourishing. For instance, we know how to prevent many, many more diseases. We can feed infinitely more people. This does not mean that evil withers away. What it means, however, is that if want to know how to do good, we have more information at our disposal in order to achieve that.

Its ironic that the discussion drove off into a ridiculous side-discussion about industrialization. Because, of course, the Bible doesn't tell us a thing about whether industrialization is good. So it's kind of hard to see how psychopav feels that his biblical definition of goodness or morality is any more concrete or defined than anyone else's.

The argument wasn't mine, it was Henry Ford's, who posited that because the bible includes scientific errors it is more likely to include moral ones. I don't agree that the two are linked and was just trying to understand why one might think they are. You and he suggest that scientific progress brings with it greater potential for moral progress - something which I don't agree with and which may be besides the point either way.

 

[Henry Ford]

My argument is that if it contains errors based on human misunderstanding, those may include moral misunderstandings.

 

[theglorydays]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Not sure when this thread went off the rails, but I must be one of the rare ones.

My dad is/was raised a Muslim, my mother was/is raised a Lutheran

On my mothers side there is a significant jewish arm.

I have the 3 Abrahamic religions in my blood, but none were ever forced on me thankfully. I never stood foot in a church, synagogue or mosque outside weddings until I found my own way etc.

I have chosen to forsake organized religion, due to its controlling nature when it comes to telling me how to live my faith. Through my own curiousity I chose to recognize christianity as my path. I do not force my opinion onto others, nor do I go to a church on a regular basis. Simply put every church I've ever been to or tried has had a bunch of old people thinking it's their ticket into heaven, a bored minister or loonies screaming, shouting, talking in tongues or having large pools or water to "cleanse" souls. I do not want to feel obligated to tithe, "spread the word" or be told how I should practice my faith.

Do I doubt the Biblical events? Of course. No sane person could accept the word of men mostly removed from the events that really happened.

Science is never going to prove what did or didn't happen to the milestone biblical events in the New Testament and religious folk using text to prove their argument is circular logic. So I don't really have a faith in organized religion, but believe in Christianity.

 

[Henry Ford]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

That doesn't actually answer any part of the question I asked, but of course I always enjoy rereading parts of the Bible.

 

[Henry Ford]

Not sure when this thread went off the rails, but I must be one of the rare ones.

My dad is/was raised a Muslim, my mother was/is raised a Lutheran

On my mothers side there is a significant jewish arm.

I have the 3 Abrahamic religions in my blood, but none were ever forced on me thankfully. I never stood foot in a church, synagogue or mosque outside weddings until I found my own way etc.

I have chosen to forsake organized religion, due to its controlling nature when it comes to telling me how to live my faith. Through my own curiousity I chose to recognize christianity as my path. I do not force my opinion onto others, nor do I go to a church on a regular basis. Simply put every church I've ever been to or tried has had a bunch of old people thinking it's their ticket into heaven, a bored minister or loonies screaming, shouting, talking in tongues or having large pools or water to "cleanse" souls. I do not want to feel obligated to tithe, "spread the word" or be told how I should practice my faith.

Do I doubt the Biblical events? Of course. No sane person could accept the word of men mostly removed from the events that really happened.

Science is never going to prove what did or didn't happen to the milestone biblical events in the New Testament and religious folk using text to prove their argument is circular logic. So I don't really have a faith in organized religion, but believe in Christianity.

I definitely appreciate your perspective and am glad for you that you've found a belief that brings you peace and joy.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

That doesn't actually answer any part of the question I asked, but of course I always enjoy rereading parts of the Bible.

And the Lord looked upon his kingdom and sayeth, "point to the shirt, lest ye be judged" (Dkeato 4:17-19)

 

[Buckfast 1]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

 

[Henry Ford]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

Having read your post in the other religion thread, I know I agree with you on a whole lot of stuff. But I think "stupid" is an overreach. I think it's often just a form of laziness, and that people find it simple to buy a prepackaged morality - but when almost everyone actually analyzes it, they realize they alreadymake the same moral judgments people with a belief system like yours and mine make every day, they just say it's because God said it. They already pick and choose from the sacred text based on what they know is immoral even about the statements in the Bible. No one's arguing for slavery because it's scriptural, because they've already dismissed that part.

 

[shader]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

 

[Buckfast 1]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

Having read your post in the other religion thread, I know I agree with you on a whole lot of stuff. But I think "stupid" is an overreach. I think it's often just a form of laziness, and that people find it simple to buy a prepackaged morality - but when almost everyone actually analyzes it, they realize they alreadymake the same moral judgments people with a belief system like yours and mine make every day, they just say it's because God said it. They already pick and choose from the sacred text based on what they know is immoral even about the statements in the Bible. No one's arguing for slavery because it's scriptural, because they've already dismissed that part.

I agree with you completely. I don't actually think that Christians are too stupid to comprehend morality without God. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians would be non-murdering, non-stealing individuals without the benefit of the Ten Commandments. I just find that argument comical because I think it makes them look worse and less intelligent than they truly are.

 

[Henry Ford]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Can you explain your belief in Satan? Lucifer! The fallen angel!!

 

[Buckfast 1]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

 

[Henry Ford]

Death is not inherently immoral. War is not inherently immoral. Suicide is not inherently immoral. I reject the idea that moral determination can be made without considering the circumstance.

 

[timschochet]

The fact that the 20th century was so bloody is often used by Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who point out that anti-religious theologies such as Nazism and Communism led to most of the killing. For what its worth, it's not a bad argument, except that it doesn't answer for all the bloodiness that resulted before the 20th century (and in some cases during the 20th century) that was a direct result of religious belief.

The fact is that both theists and secularists have been, historically, responsible for mass murder. There doesn't seem to be any objective rule which favors one group over the other, but this actually strengthens the secularist argument that religion is not necessary for morality (while it does little to strengthen the religious argument that it is.)

 

[timschochet]

As far as the Industrial Revolution goes, like so many other things there is no right answer as to whether or not it was good or bad for morality. Followers of Ayn Rand (as I used to be) would have you believe that ANY technological advancement is good. But the historical fact is that Eli Whitney's cotton gin increased and prolonged slavery in the American south. And there's another historical fact: that the Industrial Revolution paved the way for the end of slavery because it was no longer an economically viable system.

 

[drummer]

As far as the Industrial Revolution goes, like so many other things there is no right answer as to whether or not it was good or bad for morality. Followers of Ayn Rand (as I used to be) would have you believe that ANY technological advancement is good. But the historical fact is that Eli Whitney's cotton gin increased and prolonged slavery in the American south. And there's another historical fact: that the Industrial Revolution paved the way for the end of slavery because it was no longer an economically viable system.

 

[timschochet]

As far as the Industrial Revolution goes, like so many other things there is no right answer as to whether or not it was good or bad for morality. Followers of Ayn Rand (as I used to be) would have you believe that ANY technological advancement is good. But the historical fact is that Eli Whitney's cotton gin increased and prolonged slavery in the American south. And there's another historical fact: that the Industrial Revolution paved the way for the end of slavery because it was no longer an economically viable system.

Which part?

 

[drummer]

As far as the Industrial Revolution goes, like so many other things there is no right answer as to whether or not it was good or bad for morality. Followers of Ayn Rand (as I used to be) would have you believe that ANY technological advancement is good. But the historical fact is that Eli Whitney's cotton gin increased and prolonged slavery in the American south. And there's another historical fact: that the Industrial Revolution paved the way for the end of slavery because it was no longer an economically viable system.

Which part?

I like Bateman's post more.

 

[timschochet]

As far as the Industrial Revolution goes, like so many other things there is no right answer as to whether or not it was good or bad for morality. Followers of Ayn Rand (as I used to be) would have you believe that ANY technological advancement is good. But the historical fact is that Eli Whitney's cotton gin increased and prolonged slavery in the American south. And there's another historical fact: that the Industrial Revolution paved the way for the end of slavery because it was no longer an economically viable system.

Which part?

I like Bateman's post more.

My roommate in college dated a Satanist chick. She was extremely hot, but totally freaky. She told me that Satan's teaching was basically expressed in a single sentence: "Do as thou wilt!" One time I came home and she had drawn a pentagram on the floor, lit candles, and was muttering something about human sacrifice. She was holding a kitchen knife at the time.

She was totally full of ####. But damn I wanted her.

 

[tonydead]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

Having read your post in the other religion thread, I know I agree with you on a whole lot of stuff. But I think "stupid" is an overreach. I think it's often just a form of laziness, and that people find it simple to buy a prepackaged morality - but when almost everyone actually analyzes it, they realize they alreadymake the same moral judgments people with a belief system like yours and mine make every day, they just say it's because God said it. They already pick and choose from the sacred text based on what they know is immoral even about the statements in the Bible. No one's arguing for slavery because it's scriptural, because they've already dismissed that part.

No it is stupid. Animals exhibit morality and they are illiterate.

 

[hxperson]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

That doesn't actually answer any part of the question I asked, but of course I always enjoy rereading parts of the Bible.

And the Lord looked upon his kingdom and sayeth, "point to the shirt, lest ye be judged" (Dkeato 4:17-19)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

They might be able to figure out murdering and stealing. But without the Bible, how would we know that eating shellfish is wrong?

 

[drummer]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

That doesn't actually answer any part of the question I asked, but of course I always enjoy rereading parts of the Bible.

And the Lord looked upon his kingdom and sayeth, "point to the shirt, lest ye be judged" (Dkeato 4:17-19)

 

[The Commish]

Well....it took 16 pages, but we finally got there. Congrats Otis...I think this is the longest one of these threads made it before the inevitable

 

[Otis]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

At least buy us dinner.

 

[Otis]

Well....it took 16 pages, but we finally got there. Congrats Otis...I think this is the longest one of these threads made it before the inevitable

 

[Otis]

Not sure when this thread went off the rails, but I must be one of the rare ones.

My dad is/was raised a Muslim, my mother was/is raised a Lutheran

On my mothers side there is a significant jewish arm.

I have the 3 Abrahamic religions in my blood, but none were ever forced on me thankfully. I never stood foot in a church, synagogue or mosque outside weddings until I found my own way etc.

I have chosen to forsake organized religion, due to its controlling nature when it comes to telling me how to live my faith. Through my own curiousity I chose to recognize christianity as my path. I do not force my opinion onto others, nor do I go to a church on a regular basis. Simply put every church I've ever been to or tried has had a bunch of old people thinking it's their ticket into heaven, a bored minister or loonies screaming, shouting, talking in tongues or having large pools or water to "cleanse" souls. I do not want to feel obligated to tithe, "spread the word" or be told how I should practice my faith.

Do I doubt the Biblical events? Of course. No sane person could accept the word of men mostly removed from the events that really happened.

Science is never going to prove what did or didn't happen to the milestone biblical events in the New Testament and religious folk using text to prove their argument is circular logic. So I don't really have a faith in organized religion, but believe in Christianity.

You don't really sound all that religious. More like a casual follower.

 

[Otis]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

I don't think I've seen any math on this point in here at all. Just lots of unsupported speculation. It strikes me that we are a much more civilized and accepting society that ever before.

 

[Otis]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

They might be able to figure out murdering and stealing. But without the Bible, how would we know that eating shellfish is wrong?

It's stuff like this that always has me scratching my head at believers. I mean, really?

 

[matuski]

Or use whatever number you want. 200 years ago. 2000 years ago. 20 years ago. When did the moral decline begin, in your opinion?

The bible answers the question of why is the world so messed up, the garden of Eden when man fell. He is now born devoid of spiritual life and alienated from his Creator. Morality isn't the issue, mans born in a spiritually dead state. He has a heart problem, a heart that is self seeking and enslaved to sin. This doesn't mean he is as evil as possible. It does mean that even the good he does is not acceptable to God because it isn't done out of a pure heart of faith; love for God and neighbor. At the core, Even his good acts are really selfish. He cannot change his nature through rule keeping or morality. Lust=adultery hatred=murder and these come from a persons heart. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 KJV)"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.

Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ESV)

That doesn't actually answer any part of the question I asked, but of course I always enjoy rereading parts of the Bible.

 

[matuski]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

They might be able to figure out murdering and stealing. But without the Bible, how would we know that eating shellfish is wrong?

 

[Jayrok]

My argument is that if it contains errors based on human misunderstanding, those may include moral misunderstandings.

I would also suggest it contains errors based on willful human interpolation to further a cause or idea.

 

[Henry Ford]

My argument is that if it contains errors based on human misunderstanding, those may include moral misunderstandings.

I would also suggest it contains errors based on willful human interpolation to further a cause or idea.

Well, I certainly agree with that. And it makes my point even more.

As a side note, Tim, the opposite of "theist" isn't "secularist" it's "atheist."

 

[Stinger Ray]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

They might be able to figure out murdering and stealing. But without the Bible, how would we know that eating shellfish is wrong?

It's stuff like this that always has me scratching my head at believers. I mean, really?

We get it. All of you non believers think you are smarter than believers.

 

[Henry Ford]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

They might be able to figure out murdering and stealing. But without the Bible, how would we know that eating shellfish is wrong?

It's stuff like this that always has me scratching my head at believers. I mean, really?

We get it. All of you non believers think you are smarter than believers.

I don't.

 

[Jayrok]

My argument is that if it contains errors based on human misunderstanding, those may include moral misunderstandings.

I would also suggest it contains errors based on willful human interpolation to further a cause or idea.

Well, I certainly agree with that. And it makes my point even more.

I would argue that a chief theme of the new testament is based on it, making it a game changer.

 

[shader]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?