The Threat of Atheism

philologos

Anne Widdecombe was doing the episode on the Reformation. Robert Beckford did the episode on the Christianisation of Britain.

Undergod

ScumLord wrote: »

Many armies have prayed to God before war throughout history. Being Christian they probably had fairly similar society's and fought over land and resources. Who's good there?

? That has precisely zero to do with my post.

TheInquisitor

Does anyone else think jackass or sorry jakkass is very selective in his responses any one that has a decent agrument he refuses to answer,

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60243537#post60243537

philologos

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

dlofnep

To the OP - I'm an atheist and I oppose abortion. Any moral values that you can find in religion, can be found outside of it. Live your life as best you can, and hope that everyone else does the same.

Tigger

smidgy wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I am a Christian and feel threatened by an atheistic society. The reason for this is that I see atheism as destructive force since it enforces the belief that there is no eternal responsibility for ones actions. Since an atheist is only binded by his own moral code there is too much responsibility placed on the individual to create a code which is actually moral. I personally wouldn’t trust any individual from coming up with their own moral code because more often than not they will design it to suit themselves. If this ideology is to permeate society as a whole and people feel that they are only answerable to the law (and not the 'truth' or God) then it creates a very dangerous society.
S.

Hi op

i feel threatened by people with an imaginary friend who are paranoid that because i don't believe in thier imaginary friend i will kill their unborn children.

i am worried that the leaders of this country will make it illegal to even suggest that this imaginary person is a little bit of an odd idea all things considered and that i could be forced to toe a line where what i believe is boaderline psychosis (the insistance that i be nice to their all powerfull imaginary friend who they have never met and who they only know about because they were told about it) is legislated as the norm.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

In all fairness Jakkass, you're going to have to stop using that excuse at some stage. If you were simply not getting around to them then random posts would not be responded to but there is a definite pattern, ie it's always the difficult points that get skipped over

Besides which, even if you are just not getting around to them, randomly stopping responding to people in the middle of a thread and continuing to respond to other people is pretty rude

I'm not trying to start a fight here but at some stage you will have to acknowledge this issue

philologos

Sam Vimes: I can't help the fact that I won't personally be able to get around to comment on every persons post until you encourage other Christians to post in here again. It's really as simple as that. I don't want to start an argument either.

mewso

To be fair asking Jakkass to address a particular question you would like him to answer rather than accusing him of avoiding them might work better.

mewso

Jakkass wrote: »

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

Pity that. I thought the crowd in here were pretty reasonable in general.

TheInquisitor

Jakkass wrote: »

TheInquisitor: As the only Christian responding I'm not going to be able to respond to all posts. If this were in the Christianity forum there might have been a more robust response from several of the resident Christians there. A lot of them don't like posting in this section anymore.

Ok but now that i've brought your attention to my post why do you still not respond to it. It seems if anyone has a decent answer to your comments you run off for a few hours. Get more more christians over here then dammit!!

Any why don't they like posting here anymore, are they getting answers to their questions that make sense and they don't like?

Wait a second i've just realised GOD DOESN'T EXIST ! P.s even if he did, came up and told me he god my creator i still wouldn't worship him.Why should i worship anything. Is your god that vain that he needs to be worshipped?

philologos

Just for you TheInquisitor, I'm not sure if you were referring to Sams or your post so I'll answer both.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So why does god have one version of morality for one group and a different one for another? And are they both perfect?

They aren't different. The moral laws are pretty much the same. What differs is the penalties for the laws. It is still a sin to carry out an act of sorcery, but the penalty is not to stone that individual to death. That has been fulfilled since the Crucifixion of Christ and the role of mercy which followed on from that crucifixion. It's the penalty that is different. I can't think of moral laws which have been fulfilled by Christ.

You know that the law is broken down into:
Moral - rights and wrongs.
Ceremonial - what to eat, what is clean or unclean, how should I shave my beard. These things were about the identity of the Jews and how they were to keep distinct from other nations. The wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down as a part of the New Covenant (Ephesians 2).
Judicial - the criminal law of Israel that was dealt with by the Sanhedrin. I have already explained that Jesus is our only high priest in Christianity. Therefore His judgement counts and His judgement is grace which is also in Ephesians 2.

I hope that clears it up for you Sam, and apologies for not being able to get around to all your posts.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Same can be said about christians jakkass, just because you believe in god etc doesn't make you good. If that was the case there would be no christians in jail. Just because i don't believe in god doesn't make me a bad person. I see god as a way out for lots of people. They can go to confession and absolve themselves of any crimes, i live to a higher standing than that, anything i do i have to live with for life.

This is true. Christians are not perfect and blameless before God, we need His grace. I screw up still, but I feel I screw up less each and every day I grow in God's grace and in my faith. I have a goal to reach, it will be a life time before I reach it.

As for being "good". Christians have a different notion of what "good" is. Good for atheists is doing things that are beneficial to society. For Christians to be truly good you have to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and your sins have to be blotted out. We are all bad people, we have all sinned and we have all fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We need the grace of God to blot out our sins before Him and to be reunited with Him once more as our sins separated us from Him.

It's just that I have a different notion of what is truly good than what you have. It's a conflict that is going to happen if we have two entirely different worldviews

Kold

Has the OP replied once?

ZorbaTehZ

Q: What's the difference between:

Jakkass wrote: »

God wasn't in violation of His own laws at all. Infact by punishing for transgression God was holding up to the terms of the Old Covenant. He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

God gave us the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, only if we are willing to repent of our sins and to start afresh with His guidance. If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

In both cases God is holding to his side of the deal. God is not subject to the terms that He has placed on humans, He has kept to His side of the deal. However continually humans have failed Him to this very day.

If you actually read the Torah and the New Testament you would have got this by now.

and:

Lord Vix'thra wasn't in violation of His own laws at all. In fact by punishing for transgression, Vix'thra was holding up to the terms of the Tome of Transgressions. He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

Lord Vix'thra gave us the forgiveness of his spawn, only if we are willing to repent of our sins and to start afresh with His guidance. If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

In both cases lord Vix'thra is holding to his side of the deal. Vix'thra is not subject to the terms that He has placed on humans, He has kept to His side of the deal. However continually humans have failed Him to this very day.

If you actually read the Tome of Transgressions and the Book of Bleakness you would have got this by now.

A: Jakkass won't be put in an insane asylum, but for the second guy... get the strait-jacket!

rantyface

Most atheists believe that since humans made up religion, the morals in it were also made up by humans. Since all religions have roughly the same code, it seems that humans naturally do develop ethics and most do see something wrong with murder, rape etc.

Catholics on the other hand support an organisation that actively suppresses justice for child rape victims. It's not a matter of one or two bad priests.

You are also assuming that atheists make up rules to suit themselves, but to me it seems that the people who made up most religions made the rules to suit themselves too (for example the complete abolition of human rights, especially women's, in islam, christianity's support for slavery, hinduism as a means to keep the poor in their place with the caste system) and religious people are not even allowed to question them.

It's a good thing that an atheist can question what's right and wrong themselves, they are more likely to come to the right conclusion than someone who blindly accepts a set of rules from pre-medieval times.

philologos

rantyface wrote: »

You are also assuming that atheists make up rules to suit themselves, but to me it seems that the people who made up most religions made the rules to suit themselves too (for example the complete abolition of human rights, especially women's, in islam, christianity's support for slavery, hinduism as a means to keep the poor in their place with the caste system) and religious people are not even allowed to question them.

Christianity doesn't support slavery. It permits it if it is done with respect to the one who is serving the master (Ephesians chapter 6, Colossians chapter 4).

As for the Jewish Torah, which we discussed at length in this thread. Decide for yourself. I know you will be inclined to agree with the atheists, but hear what i have to say out in this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055509714

rantyface wrote: »

It's a good thing that an atheist can question what's right and wrong themselves, they are more likely to come to the right conclusion than someone who blindly accepts a set of rules from pre-medieval times.

Christians can too. I've had many a time thinking about moral laws and thinking about the sense of them. I've even prayed to God to have Him clarify Scripture at times. I have come to see that the Biblical understanding makes sense for me with the following understanding. Atheists won't feel the same way as I do about God or agree with His attributes, I'm not expecting you to either, I'm just explaining from my perspective.

1. God is the Creator of the Universe.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows everything about the universe that He has fashioned and how everything operates within it.
4. God loves me and humbled Himself in human form to the cross for me (Philippians 2), and God has set laws in the knowledge of the universe that He has fashioned and how it operates and His decrees suggest how best to live within it.

Kipperhell

musician wrote: »

To be fair asking Jakkass to address a particular question you would like him to answer rather than accusing him of avoiding them might work better.

No that doesn't work either I would suggest more people add him to their ignore list there is a distinct pattern. Putting it simply if so many people can see him doing this why bother entertaining him any more. :rolleyes:

philologos

Kipperhell wrote: »

No that doesn't work either I would suggest more people add him to their ignore list there is a distinct pattern. Putting it simply if so many people can see him doing this why bother entertaining him any more. :rolleyes:

What is your deal? Why are you so opposed to me? Do you really despise me that much that you would command people en-masse to ignore me? Discouraging Christian - Atheist dialogue in general is a terrible idea and Boards has served as a good platform or this for the last while.

How about letting people decide for themselves instead of having to listen to you moan about my character or about how I post?

Mickeroo

Kipperhell wrote: »

No that doesn't work either I would suggest more people add him to their ignore list there is a distinct pattern. Putting it simply if so many people can see him doing this why bother entertaining him any more. :rolleyes:

Thats not really fair man. I don't generally agree with Jakkass but I dont like it when certain prominant christian posters undermine people like this in the Christianity forum just cause they can or they're on their own turf and I dont like to see it here either. If you want to ignore Jakkass then go ahead but encouraging other people to is borderline bullying.

Orion

Jakkass wrote: »

What is your deal? Why are you so opposed to me? Do you really despise me that much that you would command people en-masse to ignore me? Discouraging Christian - Atheist dialogue in general is a terrible idea and Boards has served as a good platform or this for the last while.

How about letting people decide for themselves instead of having to listen to you moan about my character or about how I post?

For the first time on this thread I agree with Jakkass. The answers might be selective but at least he's taking part in the debate.

dvpower

Kipperhell wrote: »

No that doesn't work either I would suggest more people add him to their ignore list there is a distinct pattern. Putting it simply if so many people can see him doing this why bother entertaining him any more. :rolleyes:

No way. If Jakkass was to stop contributing, porn might once again overtake religious discussion in total internet traffic.:)

Zombrex

Can everyone stop with this Answer my question, damn it!! nonsense. It is rather childish and unbecoming. It is basically just baiting, the person wants the other person to respond so they can continue bashing away. The whole thing becomes less of a discussion or debate (or even argument) and more simply an excuse to shout at the Christian posters. Say something stupid so I can inform you about how stupid what you just said was.

Why would anyone want to partake in an excersise like that.

I wouldn't mind so much but the "unanswerable" questions seem to be pretty bad questions to begin with, which adds an air of silliness to the proceedings ("You didn't answer my question about God having sex with a space monkey because you were unable to answer it, I think that demonstrates my point pretty clearly!!!"). They don't seem to be demonstrating a point. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Jackass cannot answer the question, more than he couldn't be bothered. I should add that I'm not attacking the questions, I ask stupid questions as much as anyone, simply the assumption that your question was so good that it has stumped someone completely and now they are ignoring you.

The fact that this really seems to annoy people is rather interesting.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

No way. If Jakkass was to stop contributing, porn might once again overtake religious discussion in total internet traffic.:)

.. er, that's not to suggest that if Jakkass wasn't posting on Boards that he'd be off downloading porn.

Dades

kipperhell, TheInquisitor, et al ... by all means put Jakkass on ignore but stop harping on about how he doesn't respond to this post or that.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not talking about the British Empire. I'm talking about the period from 500 - 1000AD in England with the Angles and the Saxons and the Celtic tribes coming together as the "English" due to the Christianisation of the country by both Rome and the Celtic Christians. Channel 4 in their "Christianity: A History" series did an episode on it.

Your talking about a time when changing religion was done for political reasons more than belief :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Just for you TheInquisitor, I'm not sure if you were referring to Sams or your post so I'll answer both.



They aren't different. The moral laws are pretty much the same. What differs is the penalties for the laws. It is still a sin to carry out an act of sorcery, but the penalty is not to stone that individual to death. That has been fulfilled since the Crucifixion of Christ and the role of mercy which followed on from that crucifixion. It's the penalty that is different. I can't think of moral laws which have been fulfilled by Christ.

You know that the law is broken down into:
Moral - rights and wrongs.
Ceremonial - what to eat, what is clean or unclean, how should I shave my beard. These things were about the identity of the Jews and how they were to keep distinct from other nations. The wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down as a part of the New Covenant (Ephesians 2).
Judicial - the criminal law of Israel that was dealt with by the Sanhedrin. I have already explained that Jesus is our only high priest in Christianity. Therefore His judgement counts and His judgement is grace which is also in Ephesians 2.

I hope that clears it up for you Sam, and apologies for not being able to get around to all your posts.

While I thank you for responding to me it doesn't really clear up the problem. When God first revealed himself he laid down all the rules for his people to follow. He singled out these people as chosen over all others, gave them very specific rules by which to live their lives and did things like instruct them to go into a city, kill all the inhabitants and keep the valuable items for the temple

The god of the new testament on the other hand instructs his followers to embrace all peoples and spread the word, told them to forget about all those silly old rules that he laid down before and wouldn't dream of instructing them to commit genocide.

The god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are like two different people, the former being a jealous, childish, genocidal, nut job as I previously mentioned. So how can an omnipotent being that lives outside time have such a massive change of heart?

TheInquisitor

Time to bring the fight to the christian section im feeling lucky. Lets see how fast it takes to get banned!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055565227

Thread started ftw

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I thank you for responding to me it doesn't really clear up the problem. When God first revealed himself he laid down all the rules for his people to follow. He singled out these people as chosen over all others, gave them very specific rules by which to live their lives and did things like instruct them to go into a city, kill all the inhabitants and keep the valuable items for the temple

Yes He did. As for killing the inhabitants the reason that is given in the Biblical text is that these tribes had sinned and defiled the land, hence why they were to be punished for their sins. Prior to the invasion of Israel by Joshua in the Old Testament, the Israelites had been ambushed by the Amalek (Exodus 17) in this account we are told that God helped Moses prevail over the Amalek. They had also been denied entry into Edom and Moab and various countries along the route so often military action was to defend the Israelites as they were entering the land of Israel to claim it. On the route some Israelites found the land of Gilead (on the eastern bank of the Jordan) to be favourable so this land was granted to them on the assurance that they would also assist their brethren in conquering the rest of Israel. That's the main jist of what we are talking about here from the Bible.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The god of the new testament on the other hand instructs his followers to embrace all peoples and spread the word, told them to forget about all those silly old rules that he laid down before and wouldn't dream of instructing them to commit genocide.

This was to seize the land of Israel. There was several periods in Israelite history, especially under the rule of King Solomon where there was peaceable relations between Israel and the surrounding peoples and nations. The tribes which inhabited Israel if they were willing to live under Jewish customs and Jewish law were to be respected and indeed were. We see interactions between King David and Ornan the Jebusite in purchasing the site for the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem of which the Wailing Wall is left standing. I think you are only taking the God of the Old Testament that you want to see. I can clearly reference a merciful and a loving God in the Old Testament, but one that is a God of justice and a God who will punish for transgressions. It is believed in Christianity that God will still punish people for their sins in the New Covenant.

I don't see a diachotomy. As for "silly old rules". I don't consider them silly I think every Torah law had a purpose in God's over all plan for the world.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are like two different people, the former being a jealous, childish, genocidal, nut job as I previously mentioned. So how can an omnipotent being that lives outside time have such a massive change of heart?

I don't think there was a change of heart. God was always a loving God in the Old Testament. I must ask, have you read all of the Old Testament? I see a God of love and justice in there the whole way through. I can cite numerous cases of the same character exhibited in the New Testament in the Old Testament as clear as day. I'm currently reading the Jewish prophet Isaiah and the amount of God's character that is in common with the New Testament is extrordinary, likewise with the book of Psalms. Even in the Torah you will find elements of God's nature which is the same.

You must really be confused about how the Jews can believe in a God like theirs if you think it is only the New Testament that redeems Christianity.

Zillah

So why did God go from "I'll have my servants punish you now with a sword" to "I'll do all the judging when you die so don't kill people in my name"?

philologos

Zillah: A lot of it would have to do with the method of atonement between the Jews and the Christians changing. However God didn't punish anyone immediately in the Old Testament. Infact in the Old Testament when God was going to punish the nations of Israel and Judah for their sins, He waited entire generations and sent prophets according to the text. He did the same for those living in Nineveh (which was in Assyria) too if we are to take the account of Jonah to be correct.

It says in one of the Epistles of Peter that God is waiting so that as many souls may be saved before the final Judgement as possible and that one day can be like a thousand years in God's eyes.

Feel free to ask more but I think I'll call it a day until tomorrow