I'm definitely saying that it is not hte same as being Christian. As to it being contrary, I'm really too busy with my own sins to worry much about anyone else's. My personal take is that Christ did not single anyone out as being particularly sinful (except the hypocrits) and I'd consider myself a hypocrit if I stood up to decry somebody else's sin as being worse than my own.

"As to arguing against gay marriage this is an area in which a societal more has taken hold in the guise of religious teaching. Check into the history of homophobia, it's pretty interesting in that it pre-dates Christianity in Greco-Roman society by at least 500 years. Anti-Gay graffitti can be found that dates back 2500 years in Greece."

Oh for sure homophobia predates Christianity. No doubt about it. I'm not saying that religion causes these things. I'm saying that value judgements cannot be justified on these terms. I would not accept that homosexuality or abortion is OK simply because Jesus tells me it's OK either. The issue should be considered on less subjective, secular terms.

That's the assumption that I referred to. You labelled my term subjective without looking into any of them specifically. It's really not a tenet of my religion, nor is it required of Christians in general, to base our decision solely on Scripture.

@ Chrisp - I guess the difference i'm getting at is that the hope of the Christian is a hope that is unfailing (whether true or not). It is a hope that in Christ all thing are made perfect, and we have an eternity with a benevolent Father that loves us and awaits us because we are made perfect by Christ.

The things you hope for will undoubtedly fail given enough time. Hope in your fellow man is fine, but on your deathbed, what will it matter? If tragedy strikes, will your hope remain? Should devastation come to you and your family, then where will your hope go?

You have to at least grant that you could see how an eternal hope can be a psychologically powerful thing?

"That's the assumption that I referred to. You labelled my term subjective without looking into any of them specifically. It's really not a tenet of my religion, nor is it required of Christians in general, to base our decision solely on Scripture."

Well that sounds good. I wish you wouldn't base any part of your decision on Scripture. If what you say is true and that you're willing to consider these issues on secular terms than I have little problem with you. It remains that this is not the case for many Christians, and frighteningly enough, not the case for many Christians who hold high political office.

"The things you hope for will undoubtedly fail given enough time. Hope in your fellow man is fine, but on your deathbed, what will it matter? If tragedy strikes, will your hope remain? Should devastation come to you and your family, then where will your hope go?"

Here I was thinking that the nature of hope was in it's uncertainty. If it's certain, than it's not really hope anymore. I can't answer your questions now because I'm not entirely sure, but I don't see myself having a deathbed conversion, nor do I see myself as the sort of person who carries one worldview as long as things are going my way, but completely changes it once a run of bad luck hits me. I'd also point out that when devastation comes to many families, this is when they lose their faith because they can't imagine a God who would subject them to such tragedy. I have a feeling though that if those rats also thought that when they died they were going to rat heaven, maybe they would not have swam so long.

@bartdogg

Lack of knowlege about what happens after death should not inspire fear to an atheistic purist.

Firstly of course, fear of the unknown is irrational, and so is fear of the absolute end of existence (not that we still don't feel fear contemplating it. Oh biology... :P)

But also, contemplation on ones deathbed should be appreciative of that which life has given one, no matter how inconsequential.

After all, whether or not life or soul or whatnot continues, hopefully a good life has been lived, and if it hasn't, well, a graceful and peaceful end is to be hoped for.



Religion can help individuals on thier deathbed, but it is by no means the only answer to our inner confusion and anguish at the thought of mortality.

Looking back I guess you were more concerned with hope or lack thereof, but I believe that my points are still salient.

Now that my posts are becoming meaningless- off to bed!

I didn't have a bad time during the eternity I didn't exist before I was born, I won't after I'm dead either. I'm just very happy to have been given the chance to live. It was really a lottery getting here. =)

Quoting CA "That's the assumption that I referred to. You labelled my term subjective without looking into any of them specifically. It's really not a tenet of my religion, nor is it required of Christians in general, to base our decision solely on Scripture."

Ok, rather than talking about other people's morality systems, which are inevitably comlicated and confused, we should examine the elements that do make up those morality systems, which can at least be defined. So rather than talking about a Christian's morality system we should discuss a Bible-based system. The arguments above refer to only the part of a morality system based upon the Bible and because they don't work (see below for why) your system is left with the rest of your influences.

A biblical morality system doesn't work because the bible contains contradictory statements of morality ("Do not kill"/"Kill these, these and these people") as well as statements that not even Christians agree with ("stone these people for insignificant crimes"). Practically all poeple have made a judgement on these issues, but this judgement could not have come from the Bible because the Bible contains instruction to the opposite choice. Therefore the judgement must have come from outside the bible, and can inform you of all decisions without needing the Bible. Christians are claiming the Bible as one source of morality but simultaneously have used another source to dismiss the worst parts of the bible, which is hypocritical.

Quoting Bartdogg "Seriously, the resurrection is tough to argue against, and is the biggest clue."

Here is my argument, in full, against the ressurection, along with implications of the result. The argument takes the form of Reductio ad absurdum: assuming everything in the opposing argument is true and showing a contradiction occurs.

Assumptions:

Assumption 1: God is all-powerful
Assumption 2: God is all-knowing
Assumption 3: God is just
Assumption 4: Jesus is a force for good and was teaching humanity how to be more moral (admittedly this is one point I agree with, Jesus was probably a very good person and a determined humanitarian)
Assumption 5: The Bible is infallible (can not make an error)

Point one: The crucifiction does not help god towards his aims.

Option 1: If God judges humanity and finds them worthy of forgiveness then no punishment is needed (to punish someone who is worthy of forgiveness is unjust). Reward may be granted, but in no way is killing Jesus a reward because he was helping humanity become better. Any other reward could be done without killing Jesus.

Option 2: If God finds that humanity requires more punishment then his first action should be to decide how much punishment we require. Killing Jesus could be described as a punishment, but it is an unjust one because it punishes humanity by making them less likely to be moral, and it is unjust to punish people by making them less moral, because it is hypocritical. In no other sense does the crucifiction affect how much punishment we recieve.

Therefore God could enact his judgement against humanity without a crucifiction.

Point 2: The crucifiction was an injust act, no matter what God's judgement.

Jesus helped humanity by teaching us how to be more moral. If God is good, then he wants people to be moral, since by making people more moral he reduces the amount of sin they commit, and this would mean God was moral because preventing sin is as moral an act as not committing sin yourself. Jesus was preventing sin by teaching humanity so his death increased the amount of sin that would happen and actions taken to kill Jesus would be effectively causing the other people's sin.

Conclusion 1: Given the 5 assumptions, God did not want Jesus to die. The story of the crucifiction in Christianity is illogical.

Point 3: Given that Jesus's crucificition story is illogical, the Bible has made an error.

Option 1: God did want Jesus dead. This has been shown to be illogical for a benevolent being so God is therefore not omniscient or not benovolent. The Bible claims God to be both so if this option is true the Bible is wrong.

Option 2: Jesus died because of the Roman and Jewish authorities had free will and God did not want this. The Bible claims that Jesus's death was part of God's plan, so if this option is true the Bible is wrong.

(Any other evidence that the Bible is often wrong may be included here)

Conclusion 2. The crucifixion/ressurection story in the bible is in error so assumption 5, that the Bible is never in error, is wrong.

Point 4: Conclusion 2 means that we must make judgements on the Bible rather than rely on it.

If the Bible is fallible then we cannot rely on it to make important moral choices. We must judge what the Bible says before following it or we could be following part of the Bible that proscribes immoral actions.

Point 5: Judging the Bible requires another moral standard.

You cannot judge the Bible using the Bible because we have shown that the Bible is wrong. You must have a standard to judge by, but because this is a non-biblical standard it is another standard.

Point 6: The standard used to judge the Bible must be an ethical standard rather than a judgement of reliability.

A standard of morality should be true for all time otherwise it gets clouded by cultural relativism. If it changes through time then it would justify Roman and African slavery which we have agreed are wrong.
Other sources of the time and would agree with the Bible as they were produced by the same society. Therefore we must use an ethical standard for all time to justify what we agree with in the Bible.

Conclusion 3: Another ethical standard is needed to judge the Bible but we may as well get our morality from this ethical standard.

If you are going to dismiss this argument please say what is logically wrong with it.

@OMG - Ok, I'll try, though I'm a bit lost. It just seemd hard to read laid out that way.

"Option 1: If God judges humanity and finds them worthy of forgiveness then no punishment is needed (to punish someone who is worthy of forgiveness is unjust). Reward may be granted, but in no way is killing Jesus a reward because he was helping humanity become better. Any other reward could be done without killing Jesus"

Nobody is "worthy" of forgiveness in an of themselves. Forgiveness, for it to be true forgiveness, must be given freely as gift, not because someone has earned it or is deemed worthy.

The underlying assumption you're making about Jesus being a good moral teacher is not possible. Jesus claimed to be God. No moral teacher is capable of claiming to be God. If you claim to be God, three possibilities remain for you. 1. You are a liar, and know it. 2. You are a delusional lunatic, and really think you are God. or 3. You are God. If Jesus was a liar than could he really be described as a good moral person? If we was a lunatic then describe the beauty and majesty of His teaching, which has been valued for two millenium. That leaves the third option...

So, this is wrong: "Therefore God could enact his judgement against humanity without a crucifiction."

And this is wrong: "Jesus helped humanity by teaching us how to be more moral. If God is good, then he wants people to be moral, since by making people more moral he reduces the amount of sin they commit, and this would mean God was moral because preventing sin is as moral an act as not committing sin yourself. Jesus was preventing sin by teaching humanity so his death increased the amount of sin that would happen and actions taken to kill Jesus would be effectively causing the other people's sin."

And this is wrong: "Conclusion 1: Given the 5 assumptions, God did not want Jesus to die. The story of the crucifiction in Christianity is illogical" - because Jesus did not leave the option open for us to believe in Him as a good moral teacher.

Then you say, "Option 1: God did want Jesus dead. This has been shown to be illogical for a benevolent being so God is therefore not omniscient or not benovolent. The Bible claims God to be both so if this option is true the Bible is wrong."

Shown to be illogical? God loves the world, the world has become His enemies, to rescue His people and restore their relationship He sends himself to take the just punishment for our rebellion. This is illogical? Would it be illogical to give your life so that others may live? If you could save your family by stepping in front of a moving vehicle for them, it would be illogical to do so, since you value life?

You say, "Option 2: Jesus died because of the Roman and Jewish authorities had free will and God did not want this. The Bible claims that Jesus's death was part of God's plan, so if this option is true the Bible is wrong"

God's desired will and God's actual plan are two entirely different things. Theologians talk of God's two wills. God's desired will and His actual will. His desired will being in a perfect environment. His actual will being in a fallen world, crushed by our rebellion. His desired will was not made possible because of His value of the free will of men, who rebelled, ruining everything. So, everything following is moot. You haven't in the least "shown" that the Bible is wrong.

@OMG : Your 4th point that Jesus was a force of good for humanity is not consistant to core Christianity (ie, salvation by faith - not works).

The purpose of Jesus was to die and to be raised. It was not to be a humanitarian. It wasn't to improve society. It wasn't to make peace or war. It wasn't to be a moral teacher. If anything, he criticized the modern religious groups for being legalistic and going too far.

Also, Jesus claimed to be 100% God AND 100% fully Man. You're assuming he is only 100% God. The difference to this doctrine is significant for debating purposes, and difficult to comprehend.

Oh, and you forgot a huge assumption. You need to add: God is Holy (meaning he cannot tolerate or be around sin, as it is a blatant rejection of God)

Can I just compliment you all by saying this is perhaps the most erudite discussion of this subject I've ever seen in action.

@bartdgg42. Some interesting points. I'll try to go through them all.

"true forgiveness, must be given freely as gift": I suppose "forgiveness" was the wrong word. I was thinking back to your objections about my view earlier where you described a court and mentioned justice, and wanted the 2 options "found guilty" and "found innocent" without being legalistic. In any case, your personal view is option 2 (humans deserve punishment and it is just for God to give us punishment).

"Jesus being a good moral teacher is not possible... the beauty and majesty of His teaching": That is exactly what I mean by good teacher: he gave some good teachings. If God wished to teach us, then he, by definition, is a teacher.

"1. You are a liar, and know it. 2. You are a delusional lunatic, and really think you are God... If Jesus was a liar than could he really be described as a good moral person? If we was a lunatic then describe the beauty and majesty of His teaching": Firstly there is another option (Jesus never claimed to be God and someone added it into the Bible later as a propaganda effort). Also Jesus may have lied and still been a good person because the lie was offset by other moral things he did. Finally Jesus may have been deluded into believing he was god, but sane enough to preach effectively. In the context of diplomacy, a good player could be tricked into believing he won't be stabbed, but that doesn't confuse his tactical ability.

"God loves the world, the world has become His enemies, to rescue His people and restore their relationship He sends himself to take the just punishment for our rebellion... If you could save your family by stepping in front of a moving vehicle for them, it would be illogical to do so, since you value life?"
2 important differences between the situations. God is all powerful while I am not, so whereas I would be forced to make the choice between me and family (I cannot save both) God could do both.
In addition God is the one who delivers the just punishment. If he decides that it is good that humanity doesn't recieve the punishment, all he has to do is not deliver it.

"God's desired will and God's actual plan are two entirely different things." This seems quite a semantical approach, especially seeing as only the actual will is relevant to any situation involving Jesus (Jesus would not have been necessary in the perfect world). The bit of my arguement you quoted said that while the Bible said that God's plan (in the flawed world) was for Jesus to die, it is possible that God did not want Jesus to die, and in that circumstance the Bible is flawed for that reasons.