The Judeo-Christian Moral Standard

[Isthmus]

Didnt you ask for an explanantion, there is your answer. Why do you say it is made up?

If you excercise the optionof reading you will see that I explained why in my prior post.

 

[Isthmus]

Why do I need to hold myself to a higher standard, then Id be proof of the point atheists make about how Christians are so arogant and think they are higher than us simply because of their religion.

Actually you are again missing the point. In many ways living up to the Christian standard is to treat your opponents with love and respect, especially when they don't behave in the same way toward you.

 

[WAdude]

Actually you are again missing the point. In many ways living up to the Christian standard is to treat your opponents with love and respect, especially when they don't behave in the same way toward you.

Did I not the first couple of posts? Anyways, I'm not like that. And if I was, you would of just come up with some other BS thing to be against me.

 

[WAdude]

If you excercise the optionof reading you will see that I explained why in my prior post.

Well, if you knew, why did you ask me the question then, just cause?Anyways my answer is what I think. The bible Isnt science pal.

 

[jbk317]

Why are we all so sure of what's out there? All religious people just "know," they know how the world was created, they know this, they know that. I don't know. You don't know something I don't know. Humility. Thats the new "morality."
"I don't really know."
Stay humble my friends.

 

[WAdude]

Why are we all so sure of what's out there? All religious people just "know," they know how the world was created, they know this, they know that. I don't know. You don't know something I don't know. Humility. Thats the new "morality."
"I don't really know."
Stay humble my friends.

I can accept that, and prefer there being a god, than no god at all. That's why I never say my religion is right, instead my religion is my belief, you can believe whatever you feel like believing. But I do not understand why they would question a god of It showed itself to them. Anyways, atheists don't believe In a god, any god. I don't see why they are so sure. But good point there.

 

[novice_x]

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science and Religion

This is why atheists are so upfront about there beliefs. BTW, this man is my hero!

 

[novice_x]

YouTube - Stupid Design

One more!

 

[WAdude]

So what, is that like your demigod or something, your modern version of Jesus Christ? Jk

 

[Isthmus]

Did I not the first couple of posts? Anyways, I'm not like that. And if I was, you would of just come up with some other BS thing to be against me.

listen young man, no one has been rude to you so chill out. my points have been to get you to think and do get you to make arguments in which your conclusions are supported by the evidence available, not by wishful thinking or made up unrelated points (two habits that you seem to rely upon excessively). My point has not been to ridicule you but rather to point out that whether you are arguing the scientific or the religious point of view, you should always treat your opposition with respect and courtesy; you should always exercise some humility (others just might know what they're talking about); and mostly you should expect to have to earn the right to an opinion. By that I mean that while everyone has opinions, in an argument, until you become the person that others quote as a reference source, if you wish to have your opinions taken seriously, then you must back them up with verifiable sources that support your opinions or findings.

That, young man, is what you do when arguing a point, and believe it or not, it is what you will be expected to do as an adult, so consider dropping the attitude and start trying to learn.

 

[Isthmus]

So what, is that like your demigod or something, your modern version of Jesus Christ? Jk

see this is what I mean, why must you denigrate others when you don't have a point to make. could it be that the person being quoted had some valid point worth at least looking into?

 

[WAdude]

listen young man, no one has been rude to you so chill out. my points have been to get you to think and do get you to make arguments in which your conclusions are supported by the evidence available, not by wishful thinking or made up unrelated points (two habits that you seem to rely upon excessively). My point has not been to ridicule you but rather to point out that whether you are arguing the scientific or the religious point of view, you should always treat your opposition with respect and courtesy; you should always exercise some humility (others just might know what they're talking about); and mostly you should expect to have to earn the right to an opinion. By that I mean that while everyone has opinions, in an argument, until you become the person that others quote as a reference source, if you wish to have your opinions taken seriously, then you must back them up with verifiable sources that support your opinions or findings.

That, young man, is what you do when arguing a point, and believe it or not, it is what you will be expected to do as an adult, so consider dropping the attitude and start trying to learn.

What have I made up?

 

[Isthmus]

What have I made up?

are you serious? was all that wasted breath? all that and the only thing you picked up on was that you made up something? If you want to know what you made up, don't act the fool and look at some of the replies to many of your posts in this and the liberals thread. If you still can't see it, then I must assume that you are not interested in learning anything and are only here to waste everyone's time.

 

[WAdude]

see this is what I mean, why must you denigrate others when you don't have a point to make. could it be that the person being quoted had some valid point worth at least looking into?

His point was that science can, with proof, contradict religion. And that the fact that religious people believe the Universe is 6000 years old is BS and that the fact that science cannot find evidence as to what happened before the big bang is because of lack of technology not because of a god. I saw the video. Did you miss the jk part?

 

[WAdude]

are you serious? was all that wasted breath? all that and the only thing you picked up on was that you made up something? If you want to know what you made up, don't act the fool and look at some of the replies to many of your posts in this and the liberals thread. If you still can't see it, then I must assume that you are not interested in learning anything and are only here to waste everyone's time.

What the Paul thing? Take a look at 2 Corinthians 12


You can always ask, "Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul", or who founded Islam, "Muhammad or Umar", or who founded Judaism, "Moses or Joshua", or who founded Buddhism, "Buddha or Siddharta?" Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?



It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.



What you miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul's writings, much of which couldn't have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God's monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps you find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God's essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.

Consider this, however, if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn't, but continues to say the same thing. "A mediator" he writes in Galatians 3:20 "does not represent just one, but God is one." We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.



Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.



Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well?

Again you don't have to believe this, I'm not trying to convert you or anything.

 

[mpw]

...your gonna teabag him, I mean, if youve gotten this far, theres no reason as to why you should not teabag him...

Clearly you use the term to 'teabag' in a very different context to me!

...Seriously, are you ok?...

I think you need to ask yourself that question.

...If a god told you to kill your son, what makes you think that there isnt a greater reason as to why he wants you to...

I think more of my son than I do of God.

 

[mpw]

Uhhhh, if I am understanding you clearly...

I very much doubt that

 

[hakr100]

Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.

Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died as a Jew (if you believe that Jesus lived at all). If there was a Jesus, he did not "found" any new religion, but merely added some thoughts and ideas to an existing one, as religious leaders before him (and since) had done.

You're in a great deal of intellectual difficulty here because you keep pushing your faith, what you believe, what your religion has taught you, as factual, as reality,

The reality is that what you believe as fact is nothing more religious faith.

 

[Isthmus]

How interesting. a coherent, well thought out, double spaced argument. Let me guess someone else (probably your dad) wrote this for you using Word (hence the double spacing)? Thanks dad, but next time, please reply under your own account. Replying for WAdude, teaches him nothing. Nicely written, even if you glossed over a handful of points.

What the Paul thing? Take a look at 2 Corinthians 12


You can always ask, "Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul", or who founded Islam, "Muhammad or Umar", or who founded Judaism, "Moses or Joshua", or who founded Buddhism, "Buddha or Siddharta?" Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?



It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.



What you miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul's writings, much of which couldn't have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God's monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps you find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God's essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.

Consider this, however, if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn't, but continues to say the same thing. "A mediator" he writes in Galatians 3:20 "does not represent just one, but God is one." We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.



Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.



Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well?

Again you don't have to believe this, I'm not trying to convert you or anything.

 

[mpw]

...Let me guess someone else (probably your dad)...

Joe Smith, 1995, scroll down to the conclusion.

 

[CXXV]

I actually think the Bible is a great book full of good life's lessons. But to take it as an irrefutable truth.....come on..be real.

Why do people waste so much time worrying about a so called after life when there is so much to do in this life.

I've yet to meet any Christian that has been on a mission trip do it for the greater good.

If that were the case then stop your car the next time you see a homeless person and offer to take care of them, or feed them, or cloth them.

I would really like all these religious people to just keep it to themselves. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to preach.

Go research the proceedings that were recorded from late 1780's before the constitution was fully ratified and then you will understand what they really tried to achieve with freedom of speech. It was never meant to be used as it is today.

 

[Isthmus]

Joe Smith, 1995, scroll down to the conclusion.

WOW! Thanks mpw. WAdude, here we are trying to have an intelligent discussion and you reply by plagiarizing someone else's work? no wonder the reply sounded coherent. young man, it is obvious now that your interest is solely to troll and that you have no desire to engage in a discussion. You are pathetic.

 

[Az Scooter]

If God is omniscient, why did he need to test Abraham's faith?

It is not about Abraham proving to God his faith. It is about Abraham proving to Abraham his faith. God knew exactly what was going to happen, but needed to prepare Abraham so that Abraham was both certain he would follow God, and that his obedience, even to hard things, would reap blessings

 

[Az Scooter]

I don't have the sort of ego problems that lead me to believe that I am "greater" than anyone or anything else. I don't view the universe that way.

And that "wall of scientifical evidence" is something in which I believe.

You do realize that some of the worlds greatest scientist believe, or believed in God? Hawking, Einstein, and many others have said that the only explanation is an intelligent creator.

 

[Isthmus]

You do realize that some of the worlds greatest scientist believe, or believed in God? Hawking, Einstein, and many others have said that the only explanation is an intelligent creator.

Not quite. they have all wrestled with their religious beliefs as they compared to the data they uncovered and found it to be contradictory to their beliefs. Einstein was particularly public about this, and even allowed his beliefs to publicly challenge his own findings in his later years. This is not the same as saying that they promoted an intelligent creator, but is rather their own personal issues and beliefs.

Hawking does have a more pragmatic and not particularly religious view of the concept of god. here is a recent interview with him that helps shed some light on his views:

Stephen Hawking on Religion, 'Science Will Win'