Morality, Religion and Atheism

[Kokopelli]

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Luke 6:31

That is best understood in the full context of Luke 6:27-36

Love for Enemies

[theLBC]

That is best understood in the full context of Luke 6:27-36

i was citing the golden rule for perspective.

what goes around comes around, karma or whatever you want to call it...
if there is no "justice" in the afterlife (or next life), it would only be natural to want to get justice in this life for every infraction against you...
it is really a fundamental way of how we think, otherwise we wouldn't tolerate the existence on this planet of scumbags like....
we put their fate "in god's hands", because if we couldn't, we would be in prison for taking the law into our own hands.

[IVC]

But without a single, unifiying belief system, is there a scary "vacuum?" Maybe -- if you find that kind of thing scary.

Vacuum and alternate belief systems are not scary by themselves, it's the ignorance of the vacuum being filled with arbitrary small ideas (e.g., wokeness, language/word redefinition, ban on disagreements, erasing history, etc.) that is somewhat scary, and it's the inability of people whose vacuum is being filled with junk to recognize that others don't share their values and ideas that is really scary.

I'm not scared of Jehovah's Witnesses who want to convert me, or Amish who want to be left alone, but I am scared of the NY/CA politicians who have the means and the willingness to destroy those who don't share their religion (their value system).

All I want to be able to say is: "I don't share your views, I don't share your definition of moral and immoral, I want to be left alone with my views and values." A simple example being "same sex marriage" - if the state issues a paper/document to a same sex couple, it's really none of my business, but forcing me to use the word "marriage" or forcing me to celebrate it is no different from any religious intolerance, even if it's forced upon me under the guise of some new virtue of "tolerance," or "love" (where we are all supposed to be full of love except that we hate those who disagree with us because we convinced ourselves those who disagree with us actually hate us, and hating the haters is a virtue too - the usual "pretzel logic" argument).

A lot of American Christians wouldn't say that we worship the state. But the way that they talk about "The Founding Fathers," their wisdom, their benevolence, the sacredness of the Constitution (not "a" constitution but "the" Constitution) certainly lead me to believe that they're fooling themselves in that regard.

"The" Constitution is essentially embodiment of the core Christian values and principles with enough latitude to accommodate any other set of moral values that are not grossly inconsistent with the core of Christianity.

Any Christian would look at the Constitution and see it as the legal minimum for a functioning moral society. There is no worship of the Constitution, there is gladness that the foundation laid in it allows for a society that is consistent with Christian values and which precludes the priests and clergy from hijacking the controls of the society.

I'm happy to live in a religiously pluralistic country where we have no official religion, my beliefs are nobody else's business but mine and no group of "wise" men get to determine what my religious truth will be.

You don't live in such a pluralistic country, that's the problem.

When we have politicians, especially in the NYC or CA, talk about moral indignation about something or something else by using phrases such as "this is not who we are," or "this is not what we stand for," you can bet your bottom dollar that they are not only assuming that there IS an official, enforceable value system in the country (a single, dominant, "urban atheist religion"), but also that there is no room for discourse on these values that they adopted out of the vacuum. The "deplorables" is a newspeak for "heretics," yet virtually none on the left noticed it as such.

The left lost their mind when government switched control to Trump because they lost their religion, not because Trump had different views on economy or energy independence.

/rant (I need to take a break from this thread )

[Barang]

i was citing the golden rule for perspective.

what goes around comes around, karma or whatever you want to call it...
if there is no "justice" in the afterlife (or next life), it would only be natural to want to get justice in this life for every infraction against you...
it is really a fundamental way of how we think, otherwise we wouldn't tolerate the existence on this planet of scumbags like....
we put their fate "in god's hands", because if we couldn't, we would be in prison for taking the law into our own hands.

Romans 12:17-19John 5:28-29

[theLBC]

Romans 12:17-19 New King James Version
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

John 5:28-29 New King James Version
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

thank you. exactly.
it is this foundation that allows the family of victims to find peace without vengeance.
honestly, i have never received the gift of faith, and i doubt i would find the ability to restrain myself.

[1911RONIN]

thank you. exactly.
it is this foundation that allows the family of victims to find peace without vengeance.
honestly, i have never received the gift of faith, and i doubt i would find the ability to restrain myself.

If you lack faith, ask God to give it to you. I understand the restraint issue, but grace is there to help with the journey. Being plugged into the Kingdom of God is beyond simple right/wrong living.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Barang]

honestly, i have never received the gift of faith, and i doubt i would find the ability to restrain myself.

you might be interested in reading lee strobel's conversion. he's an atheist, worked for chicago tribune.
lee's wife was agnostic until she converted to chistianity. he saw the changed in her behavior that led him to investigate/research about Jesus (i hope i'm getting this right ). this might help you find/put the faith in Him?

[theLBC]

you might be interested in reading lee strobel's conversion. he's an atheist, worked for chicago tribune.
lee's wife was agnostic until she converted to chistianity. he saw the changed in her behavior that led him to investigate/research about Jesus (i hope i'm getting this right ). this might help you find/put the faith in Him?

i appreciate, support and defend religion or christian ideas quite a bit for somebody that doesn't consider himself religious. almost all the groups that volunteer at local crisis centers to feed the poor are organized by churches, despite the empty claims by atheists that they "give just as much".

i think i was jaded when my mom died (i was 12) because we were really active as a family in our parish charities and stuff.

[CVShooter]

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Luke 6:31

The original (or maybe just the older) version, was written in the negative -- "Don't do unto others..." That is remarkably different than the Gospel's revision -- "Do unto others..."

In some respects, Jesus's version is far more demanding. You must do, not sit idly by. Kudos for boldness and action! But as many scholars have pointed out, it also lends itself to some serious problems, such as what happens when what I want isn't what you would want. We risk imposing our will and our wishes on others.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" That's a classic case of the Golden Rule gone bad.

The "Silver Rule" is far more robust -- don't do. It may not create a better society. But it sure as sh&! keeps it from getting any worse.

[CVShooter]

"The" Constitution is essentially embodiment of the core Christian values and principles with enough latitude to accommodate any other set of moral values that are not grossly inconsistent with the core of Christianity.

Any Christian would look at the Constitution and see it as the legal minimum for a functioning moral society. There is no worship of the Constitution, there is gladness that the foundation laid in it allows for a society that is consistent with Christian values and which precludes the priests and clergy from hijacking the controls of the society.

/rant (I need to take a break from this thread )

Wow! You proved my point much better than I could have if I really tried. Thank you.

I'll leave some of your other points alone. I have no problems with any person marrying anybody else -- the law shouldn't care either way, in my opinion. If 2 people (3 people, 10 people, whatever) want to be legally married, then fine -- I wish them all the happiness they can find. I've heard that some poly couples end up forming corporations rather than marriages to make it all work in the legal sphere. But that's all just legal gymnastics. The state shouldn't be in the business of determining what marriage is or isn't. Maintaining stable families, however they look, is a noble and worthwhile goal, I think. A lot of state resources are used in helping unstable families -- the state has a vested interest there.

Yes, we agree that the left is just as dogmatic in their beliefs as the right. We could bicker and argue about who started it but the fact remains that self-righteousness is a sickness that can infect any political, religious, economic or other philosophical system. Vanity is definitely our favorite sin.

[IVC]

Yes, we agree that the left is just as dogmatic in their beliefs as the right.

The difference being that the left wants to convert others into submitting to their dogmas, while the right (now) understands that the goal is to be left alone, and that converting others is an affront to the freedom and civil liberties because others might not share the same value system.

We can agree that the left is at the point where the right was 100-150 years ago, where it was commonly understood that "freedom of religion" meant "freedom of Christian denomination" and where the local communities wanted to have control of the locally-accepted morality through the legal system. The right has long since stopped trying to codify their values in the law, so that they could tolerate and coexist with people they find immoral. The left, on the other hand, is at the point where they want to annihilate and destroy those who disagree, without even understanding they are involved in a religious purge.

The contemporary left uses the "logic" of "you disagree, therefore you're immoral, therefore you're deplorable and irredeemable, therefore you must be attacked everywhere at any time, therefore you should be eliminated from the society, therefore discrimination and dehumanization of you is not only acceptable, but keenly encouraged." Each one of these statements in one form or another was publicly pushed by a member of the left in very recent times.

[Barang]

In some respects, Jesus's version is far more demanding. You must do, not sit idly by. Kudos for boldness and action! But as many scholars have pointed out, it also lends itself to some serious problems, such as what happens when what I want isn't what you would want. We risk imposing our will and our wishes on others.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" That's a classic case of the Golden Rule gone bad.

except that Jesus is not forcing individual (not government) against their will. it isn't "what i want " but what is according to His Word. you are free to ignore or follow His golden rule. His Word is always available (when in doubt - check the Bible) so that it is consistent according to His teachings.

[Barang]

i appreciate, support and defend religion or christian ideas quite a bit for somebody that doesn't consider himself religious. almost all the groups that volunteer at local crisis centers to feed the poor are organized by churches, despite the empty claims by atheists that they "give just as much".

i think i was jaded when my mom died (i was 12) because we were really active as a family in our parish charities and stuff.

truly sorry about your mom. i can understand how one's faith can be shaken in times like that.

short story about my my wife's cousin who was/is pastor and his wife been trying to conceive for 7 years. they got what they wished for, gave birth to two sons (3 years apart).

tragically, the 21 years old son died while in a hotel and the 17 years old son also died in the same year while in the class room. both healthy and they just suddenly dropped dead. the dad blamed God and lost his faith.

i will not judge nor condemn anyone who's in this situation. i get it and very understandable. death will eventually come to all of us who are living, but there are scriptures that are helpful, reassuring and the hope we believers are waiting for a better life (everlasting). we will be reunited and see our departed loved ones once again in a place where there is no pain and suffering anymore, a place created by God for His children.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 New King James Version

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

John 16:33 New King James Version

33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you [a]will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

[CVShooter]

The difference being that the left wants to convert others into submitting to their dogmas, while the right (now) understands that the goal is to be left alone, and that converting others is an affront to the freedom and civil liberties because others might not share the same value system.

We can agree that the left is at the point where the right was 100-150 years ago, where it was commonly understood that "freedom of religion" meant "freedom of Christian denomination" and where the local communities wanted to have control of the locally-accepted morality through the legal system. The right has long since stopped trying to codify their values in the law, so that they could tolerate and coexist with people they find immoral. The left, on the other hand, is at the point where they want to annihilate and destroy those who disagree, without even understanding they are involved in a religious purge.

The contemporary left uses the "logic" of "you disagree, therefore you're immoral, therefore you're deplorable and irredeemable, therefore you must be attacked everywhere at any time, therefore you should be eliminated from the society, therefore discrimination and dehumanization of you is not only acceptable, but keenly encouraged." Each one of these statements in one form or another was publicly pushed by a member of the left in very recent times.

So you think the right is somehow more "woke" to their dogmatic behaviors than the left? Oh, man -- that's rich!

[CVShooter]

except that Jesus is not forcing individual (not government) against their will. it isn't "what i want " but what is according to His Word. you are free to ignore or follow His golden rule. His Word is always available (when in doubt - check the Bible) so that it is consistent according to His teachings.

Really? So all that BS Jesus spouted about the destruction of those who don't agree with him was just hot air -- he didn't really mean it? Seems about as free to make a decision as a robbery victim is -- yea, you can refuse, I suppose. But it isn't exactly freedom, is it?

Truth-seeking and apologetics aren't the same thing. Try the former.