Are Athiests evil?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

thank you Wickie for a note of reason and toleration.:)

While all this back patting is going along, I'd like to point out that you are still wrong in your belief that all humanity is evil.

to quote from your own scripture " the sins of the parent" Ezk 18... clearly states this...

Evil/wickedness is not the natural state, how can one who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong be evil or wicked? A child when it's born cannot know right and wrong or good and evil etc.

Unfortunately it would seem to me you are afraid to admit this because if we didn't have original sin or the fall of man, why then would we need a saviour?
The notion of Original sin is nothing but the justification for redemption

I'm all for toleration and reason, but it would seem that this reasoning is flawed.

The state of sin that has captured human beings since the Fall. The idea that we have plenty to be ashamed about simply through being alive is one of the less appealing of ethical doctrines, but is also one of the main components of any variety of Christianity, since without it the doctrine of the atonement loses its rationale. The precise way in which Adam's guilt was transmitted to us all has, naturally, exercised theologians. For Augustine, it simply comes as a consequence of sexual reproduction and its accompanying concupiscence. For Aquinas, it is not so much sin that is passed on as the loss of a supernatural capacity to govern the lower appetites by means of reason. Original sin is functionally necessary to dramatize the importance of redemption, and the religious practices that facilitate it.

It would appear without this particular human flaw christian dogma ceases to have a use. For what? Tasting a forbidden fruit? Well I'm truly sorry for your predicament, but if you want to bring up the idea of atheists being evil this is what happens...

Original sin only appears with St. Paul and doesn't seem to appear in the Old Testament. Snakes and women got a bad deal, by way of a spiteful little tweek in their design.

It is only actually after the life of Jesus Christ does original sin and related wickedness really appear.
Oh dear, what say you to this?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes. Many in fact:
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
thanks, I thought I remembered a passage along those lines but couldn't remember what one. Not going to pretend I understand exactly what Jesus is referring to by the "you who practice lawlessness" line, but it does seem to clear up that belief in Jesus alone is not a means of salvation.

The reference to you who practice lawlessness is to these folk who professed to be Christians, but who lived sinful lives.

Belief in Christ incorporates repentance toward God and trust in Christ for salvation. So we can say that we are justified by God's grace alone, through faith (belief) alone, in Christ alone. Our good works are no basis for our salvation, it is all of God's grace. But true faith comes from a heart (nature) that has been changed by God, a nature that must bring forth good works just as our old natures had to bring forth evil thoughts and actions.

Again I'm left wondering how Christians themselves determine that they are saved? Or do some say that they cannot know they are, though they obviously hope they are?

We determine we are saved by believing in God's promises. Christ said He would save all who come to Him; we come to Him in repentance and faith, therefore He must save us. We know we are saved by examining ourselves with this question: have I come to Christ in repentance and faith? If I have, then the Spirit of God within confirms that God has fulfilled His promise.

Sometimes Christians experience doubt on the matter, for Satan uses many tactics to wreck our lives. One of them is that Christ of course saves others, but not me. We answer that by reminding ourselves that Christ promised otherwise, and that as we do sincerely believe in Him, He has saved us.

Yes, we can know we are saved now:
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Equally troubling is the idea that the Christian faith should be suppressed. I know that has often been the case with those who hate Christ, and that it will be the universal mindset in the rule of Antichrist - but it is sad to hear it in 21st C. Ireland.

Wolfsbane, I don't think anybody has advocated the suppression of christianity have they? Encouraging people to speak out against its flawed teachings? yes. Suppression? No.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

While all this back patting is going along, I'd like to point out that you are still wrong in your belief that all humanity is evil.

to quote from your own scripture " the sins of the parent" Ezk 18... clearly states this...

It says nothing of the sort. It deals with adults who do evil and says the son who sees the evil his father did and refrains from it will not be held guilty for his father's evil:
Ezekiel 18:13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “ If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!

Evil/wickedness is not the natural state, how can one who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong be evil or wicked? A child when it's born cannot know right and wrong or good and evil etc.

It's in the nature even when not able to be expressed:
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Unfortunately it would seem to me you are afraid to admit this because if we didn't have original sin or the fall of man, why then would we need a saviour?

The fact of the Fall and original sin is indeed the rationale of the need of a Saviour.

The notion of Original sin is nothing but the justification for redemption

Yes - like your house on fire is the justification for the Fire Service hosing it down.

It would appear without this particular human flaw christian dogma ceases to have a use. For what? Tasting a forbidden fruit? Well I'm truly sorry for your predicament, but if you want to bring up the idea of atheists being evil this is what happens...

No predicament - tasting the forbidden fruit was rebellion against God. That merits eternal damnation.

Original sin only appears with St. Paul and doesn't seem to appear in the Old Testament. Snakes and women got a bad deal, by way of a spiteful little tweek in their design.

It is only actually after the life of Jesus Christ does original sin and related wickedness really appear.
Oh dear, what say you to this?

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

That's David speaking, in the OT.

He also says:
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

or as the NIV puts it:
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Equally troubling is the idea that the Christian faith should be suppressed. I know that has often been the case with those who hate Christ, and that it will be the universal mindset in the rule of Antichrist - but it is sad to hear it in 21st C. Ireland.
Wolfsbane, I don't think anybody has advocated the suppression of christianity have they? Encouraging people to speak out against its flawed teachings? yes. Suppression? No.

I have misunderstood you then. But I find it difficult to interpret your words otherwise:
There are laws against peddling racist lies based on grotesque generalizations. Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws? I'm not sure I do, but I welcome the fact that they illustrate that society has come to question the attitudes behind the actions.

I simply long for the day when there's a similar outcry when some misguided christian characterizes the whole of humanity as wicked and evil. It's the kind of belief that underpinned empire and slavery. It reflects a breathtaking cultural arrogance in which only christians are good and right and decent. It's only one small step from believing that people are evil to believing that they somehow deserve the bad things that happen to them. And not only that but it's a vital aspect of the indoctrination process. Once you convince people they're evil you're half way to selling them your philosophy as their only salvation. What's positive or life-affirming about that? What is the effect on children of starting them out in life believing they are inherently bad? You can't stop people believing or spreading this kind of filth but you can stand up against it wherever you find it, christian forum or not.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

rockbeer said:

I have misunderstood you then. But I find it difficult to interpret your words otherwise:
There are laws against peddling racist lies based on grotesque generalizations. Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws? I'm not sure I do, but I welcome the fact that they illustrate that society has come to question the attitudes behind the actions.

Note my words in bold above.

Also please note the two separate occasions where I've said that I unequivocally oppose censorship.

I consider the christian doctrine of humanity's inherent evil as repugnant as any racism, misogyny or homophobia. I'm absolutely encouraging people to question social acceptance of it and to speak out against it. But I'm not advocating suppression.

daveharnett

DeVore wrote: »

As an agnostic I'd like to point out that there are several types of agnosticism.

I'm also particularly proud to be an agnostic because I believe we are the only group in the whole religious debate who arent black and white about it. We are the only group not professing to actually KNOW and that you should follow us.

I would disagree a little on this DeV. I would describe my personal flavour of athiesm as a subset of agnosticism, rather than somehow opposed to it. I do not assert that there is not god, I simply assume it. I am perfectly happy to concede that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. I believe that Russell's Teapot, Thor, Allah and Jehova all might exist, but until I see some evidence of them, I will assume that they don't.

rockbeer wrote: »

I consider the christian doctrine of humanity's inherent evil as repugnant as any racism, misogyny or homophobia.

I wouldn't go that far rockbeer. I would say that humanty in Hobbes' state of nature is perfectly amoral. I see very young children as fundamentally selfish entities. Only when the 'civilised' humanity has a chance to influence it does morality start to manifest itself, and even then it it primarily a function of self-preservation. Genuine altruism is a difficult thing to find.

studiorat

I was waiting for the quotes, particularly more Ezekiel...
The people are actually rebuked for suggesting that children suffer for their parents sin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It says nothing of the sort. It deals with adults who do evil and says the son who sees the evil his father did and refrains from it will not be held guilty for his father's evil:
Ezekiel 18:13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “ If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!

I'm afraid it does, I mentioned the chapter and verse, there's no need for you to quote it back to me. You did however choose to leave the important part out. I'd rather you actually made a real argument in your own words than just quoting the parts you think will make you look right.

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment of the father's iniquity; nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be on himself."

It goes on as I'm sure you know "I will judge you, house of Israle, each according to their conduct" No mention of salvation, no mention of original sin. Genesis records many consequences from the transgression. But nothing about children inheriting the guilt. Jeremiah 31:27; Deuteronomy 24; Galatians 6:5 all prove the impossibility of transference of guilt and therefore original sin too. Of course I've said this already, maybe you'd pay a bit more attention if it was in blue? We'll see...

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes - like your house on fire is the justification for the Fire Service hosing it down.

Close, if my house goes on fire it's from my own carelessness not because of my fore fathers.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No predicament - tasting the forbidden fruit was rebellion against God. That merits eternal damnation.

We're getting into serious Adam and Eve territory here, I'm not even going to get into creationism at this stage.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

The sinner is said to “go astray” , instead of being being “born astray,” revealing the individual’s personal culpability, rather than Adam’s responsibility.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He also says:
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

The text simply refers to the situation surrounding his conception and actual birth. It does not talk about his state at birth. I believe the text is actually "shapen in iniquity" KJV. David's being conceived and brought forth in sin did not make him a sinner.

wolfsbane wrote: »

or as the NIV puts it:
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

There's so many versions of 51.5 that I think it's hardly a good line to make an argument for original sin from. At no stage is original sin mentioned, it is implied. NIV would seem to make original sin and actual sin very difficult to distinguish.

So while we are on the subject of sin I'll ask you about this. Then you can tell me if your bible is still a fit reference for moral guidance in the modern world.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..." -Lev. 25:44-46

And you think atheists are evil?

Húrin

rockbeer wrote:

I simply long for the day when there's a similar outcry when some misguided christian characterizes the whole of humanity as wicked and evil. It's the kind of belief that underpinned empire and slavery. It reflects a breathtaking cultural arrogance in which only christians are good and right and decent.

The whole of humanity being evil also includes Christians. Jesus called his own followers evil to their faces.

studiorat wrote: »

So while we are on the subject of sin I'll ask you about this. Then you can tell me if your bible is still a fit reference for moral guidance in the modern world.

Your narrative of history is wrong. People are no more moral now than they were then.

wolfsbane wrote: »

3. God takes the initiative, choosing before time began a number of these sinners for salvation, sending His Son to pay for their sins, and sending His Holy Spirit at some moment in their lives to change their heart so that they will gladly repent and believe.

That's ridiculously deterministic. I suppose "a number" means 144,000?

Many object that God is unfair in choosing some and not others - but they forget that God is under no obligation to save any sinner. It is to the praise of His mercy that He saves any. Those who end up in hell do so because of the choices they freely made

But you said that God chose before time, who would be saved, which means that he also picked who would not be saved. Thus, by your logic, Jesus has created the majority of people who have lived in the past two millenia, with the express purpose of torturing them eternally.

Húrin

Galvasean wrote: »

Pity the book Christianity is based around discriminates against many kinds of people.

But the belief Christianity is based around discriminates against nobody. Contemporary secular culture advocates tolerance of all. The Gospels and the epistles of the NT advocate love of all.

Orion

I can't believe this thread is still going. I liked the OP - it was a reasonable question but it has just been hijacked by dogmatism on both sides of the argument. Reading the thread just gives me further proof that many religious people just can't accept a different point of view - no matter what religion they are or how reasonably the discussion starts.

rockbeer

Húrin wrote: »

The whole of humanity being evil also includes Christians. Jesus called his own followers evil to their faces.

For sure, but there are two points here. Firstly, the only ones who certain (and I emphasize certain again) christians regard as redeemed from their evilness in any way are christians. And secondly, what difference does it make to the rest of us how christians choose to describe themselves? The fact that a christian calls himself evil is neither here nor there when he sets himself up in judgement of the entire human race.

studiorat

Húrin wrote: »

Your narrative of history is wrong. People are no more moral now than they were then.

I think you misunderstand. Moral values now are different, the social mores that influence people have changed and I feel modern mores are indeed better for all.

Slavery is not acceptable now, I'd hazard a guess that the people who deal in slavery now do actually realise it is a bad thing.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

For sure, but there are two points here. Firstly, the only ones who certain (and I emphasize certain again) christians regard as redeemed from their evilness in any way are christians. And secondly, what difference does it make to the rest of us how christians choose to describe themselves? The fact that a christian calls himself evil is neither here nor there when he sets himself up in judgement of the entire human race.

Wrong. It makes a huge difference how Christians describe themselves when you are comparing the doctrine of universal depravity to racism. Racism declares that one section of humanity is inherently better than another. The doctrine of universal depravity states that all are sinners and therefore equal.

It is hardly passing judgement on anyone when we make a universal observation on the human race as a whole. Human beings are unable to breath without oxygen, are unable to run at 100 mph, and cannot fly without mechanical aids. Observing, and stating, these limitations hardly equates as being judgemental. In the same way Christians agree with the Bible's description of humanity's moral limitations.

Of course, Rockbeer, if you know of an adult human being of sound mind who has never done, said, or thought anything that is morally wrong then I will gladly reconsider my opinion.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Of course, Rockbeer, if you know of an adult human being of sound mind who has never done, said, or thought anything that is morally wrong then I will gladly reconsider my opinion.

hmmm! the Virgin Mary?

Thinking something morally wrong? That's a tough one...

Well if we knock the first 2 or 3 commandments out of the equation it mightn't be so difficult. But this is where we are going to disagree...

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

hmmm! the Virgin Mary?

Thinking something morally wrong? That's a tough one...

Well if we knock the first 2 or 3 commandments out of the equation it mightn't be so difficult. But this is where we are going to disagree...

The Anglican 10 Commandments has the sabbath as no 4.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

It is hardly passing judgement on anyone when we make a universal observation on the human race as a whole.

Er, yes it is, it's passing judgement on everyone! Including those of us who don't share your blinkered outlook.

PDN wrote: »

Of course, Rockbeer, if you know of an adult human being of sound mind who has never done, said, or thought anything that is morally wrong then I will gladly reconsider my opinion.

You really love this misrepresenting people thing don't you PDN?

The flaw in your argument is that because people do bad things you characterize them as inherently evil and wicked. Why, I ask again, is that extreme view any more justifiable than characterizing them as inherently good on the basis of their altruistic acts?

The flaw in your argument is that it emphasizes only one aspect of the whole picture, and it does so for transparently self-serving purposes. I don't need to produce someone who has never done anything bad to falsify your philosophy, only someone who has at least once done something altruistic.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

You really love this misrepresenting people thing don't you PDN?

The flaw in your argument is that because people do bad things you characterize them as inherently evil and wicked. Why, I ask again, is that extreme view any more justifiable than characterizing them as inherently good on the basis of their altruistic acts?

The flaw in your argument is that it emphasizes only one aspect of the whole picture, and it does so for transparently self-serving purposes. I don't need to produce someone who has never done anything bad to falsify your philosophy, only someone who has at least once done something altruistic.

Ah, it seems as if we are misunderstanding one another.

When Christians talk about mankind being evil we are contrasting ourselves with God as being holy. That is the sense in which we speak of 'evil'.

Think of is as being like eating spaghetti in a white shirt. Afterwards I might have one blob of bolognese sauce on my shirt front. At this point my wife will say to me, "Your shirt is dirty". I might protest that if at least 50% of my shirt is still white then it is more clean than dirty. I might even argue that it is clean if there is at least one white spot remaining - but in my wife's eyes the shirt is still dirty.

When Christians refer to all humans as being 'evil' this is what they mean. All of our lives have been stained with sin.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

When Christians talk about mankind being evil we are contrasting ourselves with God as being holy. That is the sense in which we speak of 'evil'.

50% is a big blob of ragu...

Anyway, contrasting with god being holy, well the opposite would be un-holy not evil...

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

When Christians refer to all humans as being 'evil' this is what they mean. All of our lives have been stained with sin.

So its true then -atheists are evil:D

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

50% is a big blob of ragu...

Anyway, contrasting with god being holy, well the opposite would be un-holy not evil...

And tonight I will switch off the light and find myself in the un-light.:)

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PDN wrote: »

And tonight I will switch off the light and find myself in the un-light.:)

studiorat has a very valid point from a logical perspective. The terms holy and evil are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

50% is a big blob of ragu...

PDN putting the bib back in biblical

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Slavery is not acceptable now, I'd hazard a guess that the people who deal in slavery now do actually realise it is a bad thing.

I would disagree with this. Given that there are more slaves now than at any other stage of our history, it is arguable that slavery is more acceptable than ever. Even in the 'civilised' West we have slaves. For example, women trafficked into sexual slavery.

wolfsbane

Húrin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
3. God takes the initiative, choosing before time began a number of these sinners for salvation, sending His Son to pay for their sins, and sending His Holy Spirit at some moment in their lives to change their heart so that they will gladly repent and believe.
That's ridiculously deterministic. I suppose "a number" means 144,000?

I don't want to take this further off topic, but I'll be brief:

No, I consider the 144,000 to be a symbolic figure for the whole number of converted Jews. In the same passage we read of a much larger group of believers:
Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

But you said that God chose before time, who would be saved, which means that he also picked who would not be saved. Thus, by your logic, Jesus has created the majority of people who have lived in the past two millenia, with the express purpose of torturing them eternally.

Whatever purpose God had in creation, the wicked are still worthy of His wrath. We are not told all the ins and outs of why Satan and the fallen angels were permitted to fall, nor are we of man.

They all were created perfect. They fell. God chose not to redeem the fallen angels, and He chose to redeem some of fallen man. As their Creator, He is perfectly entitled to do so.

As His creatures, and fallen ones at that, we should not try to second guess Him:
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

I was waiting for the quotes, particularly more Ezekiel...
The people are actually rebuked for suggesting that children suffer for their parents sin.

Indeed, just as I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It says nothing of the sort. It deals with adults who do evil and says the son who sees the evil his father did and refrains from it will not be held guilty for his father's evil:

I'm afraid it does, I mentioned the chapter and verse, there's no need for you to quote it back to me. You did however choose to leave the important part out. I'd rather you actually made a real argument in your own words than just quoting the parts you think will make you look right.

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment of the father's iniquity; nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be on himself."

Er, yes, that is what I said.

It goes on as I'm sure you know "I will judge you, house of Israle, each according to their conduct" No mention of salvation, no mention of original sin.

Correct. They were to be judged by their own works. But what has that to do with the existence of original sin?

You seem to think one is punished for Adam's sin, without having any evil in one's self. We are born evil because we have Adam's fallen nature. Whether his guilt is imputed to us because we are his seed, or it transmits to us biologically, is a debated point. What is beyond dispute is the fact that no one has ever lived a sinless life, nor had anyone to teach them to lie, steal or wound. It comes naturally to the child.

Genesis records many consequences from the transgression. But nothing about children inheriting the guilt. Jeremiah 31:27; Deuteronomy 24; Galatians 6:5 all prove the impossibility of transference of guilt and therefore original sin too. Of course I've said this already, maybe you'd pay a bit more attention if it was in blue? We'll see...

As above: those verses (Jer.31:30, BTW) deal with our actual sins, not about our being born with a sinful nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
The sinner is said to “go astray” , instead of being being “born astray,” revealing the individual’s personal culpability, rather than Adam’s responsibility.

Why does everyone who has ever lived and who with ever live sin? Because they are born with Adam's fallen nature.

So while we are on the subject of sin I'll ask you about this. Then you can tell me if your bible is still a fit reference for moral guidance in the modern world.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..." -Lev. 25:44-46

Yes, God permitted slavery in Israel. Like He permitted divorce, and polygamy. Slavery was the economic system of the world, but not of God's approval. He regulated it amongst Israel, as He did divorce.

When the time came for God to send His Son to establish a new order, things like slavery, divorce and polygamy were set right.

Not that the individual can set society right on his own - if slavery is a big part of its economy, it has to be dealt with in the manner that does most good to the slave. Kind treatment of slaves, acknowledgement of their equal status as fellowmen, and their ultimate emancipation as the goal.

And you think atheists are evil?

Anyone who does not love God is evil - all sin is evil, so those who continue in it are evil.

Some of course are more evil than others. Many we would be glad to have as a neighbour; some we wouldn't want within a thousand miles of us.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

Note my words in bold above.

Also please note the two separate occasions where I've said that I unequivocally oppose censorship.

I consider the christian doctrine of humanity's inherent evil as repugnant as any racism, misogyny or homophobia. I'm absolutely encouraging people to question social acceptance of it and to speak out against it. But I'm not advocating suppression.

But you are happy about suppression of racism, for example? That is where I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting the docrine of inherent evil in the class of teachings that should be banned.

You will understand me jumping to that conclusion better when you realise that some countries already jail anyone who teaches homosexuality is immoral. The U.K. has already experienced such intimidation, but it has been successfully challenged by those who value liberty.

Lollipops23

to me a good person is someone who is kind, considerate of others and generally just a positive influence on those around them. I know plenty of atheists,christians and people of other faiths who are like this.
evil people are those who cram their beliefs(atheist,christian or otherwise) down your juggular and criticise you for not believing on the same things you do.pure evil.

CDfm

dogmatic people of any variety are painful.

a core belief is the obligation to be sound to others and you dont have to be a christian to do that.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed, just as I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It says nothing of the sort. It deals with adults who do evil and says the son who sees the evil his father did and refrains from it will not be held guilty for his father's evil:


Er, yes, that is what I said.

And I said if that's the case how then can original sin be passed through the generations? The debated point is this not a biological or other means transference of guilt, but a transference of guilt full stop. Which I've said already, there is no original sin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When the time came for God to send His Son to establish a new order, things like slavery, divorce and polygamy were set right.

Not that the individual can set society right on his own - if slavery is a big part of its economy, it has to be dealt with in the manner that does most good to the slave. Kind treatment of slaves, acknowledgement of their equal status as fellowmen, and their ultimate emancipation as the goal.

@ FC sex slavery was exactly what I had in mind when I made the point about slavery. Should I re-phrase that?

So you are saying Wolfs, that as long as slavery is good for the economy it's ok? As long as slaves are treated correctly? How exactly does that work?