I don't get the whole heaven thing

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why be an atheist?

Because you don't believe there is a God, maybe

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Kucinich
But doing good things isn't a part of atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there have been atheists.

But doing good things isn't a part of christianity either. Christianity has nothing to do with morality.

The bible teaches us that we are not capable of living a moral life (both christians and non-christians)
We should not try to live a moral life, we should give our lives to Jesus.
Living a good life should be an automatic result that comes from that. But it's not a goal in itself.

Paul teaches us that: "I had not known sin, but by the law", romans 7 teaches us that the first purpose of the law is opening our eyes to our sinfull nature. Not to set a moral standard we should try to live to. Hence, Paul says: "that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

We should be renewed, and live a renewed life. We should not read old letters on paper and live to that. That's the message of the christian faith.

Unfortunately not understood by many christians

[bipolarbear]

Is heaven merely the acceptance of God's goodness? Or is it actually being in his presence or whatever? Why can't he give us the opportunity to have all the good stuff of heaven? Or why can't he provide a fun "alternate activity" for those of us who opt out?

In third grade, I went to a very small(less than fifty kids in the school, and it ran kindergarten and Pre School and throuhg high school so I mean small.) fundamentalist christain school. Very full of what in my Area, we call ACF'ers(ApplegateChristainFellwoship)
Basically a cult traininground for all of Jesus's little Technicolor Rainbow Children.
The teacher ther ,along with convincing us that the world was going to end, also told us, when we weren't memorizing bible verses, about god, and Heaven, and nobody spoke up, b/c one kid did, and he was the demon seed, and Damien incarnate.
She told us that Heaven was a paradise of physical pleasures, and you got anything, and everything yo ucould ever want ,and it was ll happiness, and everyone is there, and you breathe underwater, and anything cna happen, but you wnao't care, b/c you'll be too busy worshipping god.
I used to think that was total horse crap, b/c as far as i know she meant going to church, nad I think flying w/ a jet pack and shooting McGriddles out of my fingertips sounds much better than church. To some degree I still think it is horsecrap, b/c I don't think that religions are for everyone, but that's another ranting tirade.
Basically, after taking my world religions class, and studying many religions, including christainity, I have come to the conclusion that heaven or moksha, or whatever, is actually just a state of being equal w/ god. We are all god, adn are all gods. Kind of a sort of Walt Whitman type thing.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
what is living with god?...what does god do for a christian?...i never understood that...and dont give me anything mystical or magical...explain it to me please

The sex. One hasn't truly been rimmed until one has been rimmed by God.

[bipolarbear]

@ leo

what is living with god?...what does god do for a christian?...i never understood that...and dont give me anything mystical or magical...explain it to me please

It is kind of hard to define in such logicla terms. To explain it w/ words is to limit it.

*Bipolar holds up a flower and smiles

This is taken from my understnading of how Eastern Religions see it.
It is, as I understand it, an all loving nuturing and quite unexplainable force of love, and ultimate serence beauty. Happiness of the highest level. A warmth that surpasses all others. Once you attain oneness/moksha/nirvana/et al you relaize how petty everything is. But you are happy.
Just smoke pot and it'll all make sense. Or you do what Tim Leary did, and take a bunch of Acid.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you don't believe there is a God, maybe

Cyber made the logical response in his post. Christianity is not about living up to a moral code, but about believing and trusting in God.

No different from the atheists in that regard, who distrust and reject God.

Why then hold the Christians to a standard that you do not abide by yourself?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why be an atheist?

Because it's the honest thing to do. Some of us have morals, ya'kno', and don't lie to ourselves about the existence of happy-go-lucky supernatural.

[Ben Kenobi]

that Heaven was a paradise of physical pleasures, and you got anything, and everything yo ucould ever want ,and it was ll happiness, and everyone is there, and you breathe underwater, and anything cna happen, but you wnao't care, b/c you'll be too busy worshipping god.

I once had a thread on this... What would heaven mean to you?

We get glimpses, from time to time, of the real thing. That's the way I see things. Nothing that we are here is really real, but rather, shadows. We are living in the shadows, and one day we will step out into the sun.

[bipolarbear]

Cyber made the logical response in his post. Christianity is not about living up to a moral code, but about believing and trusting in God.

I think that in the end, doing what you ultimately felt in your sonscience was truly right, is what matters the msot. If that includes god, so be it.

Because it's the honest thing to do. Some of us have morals, ya'kno', and don't lie to ourselves about the existence of happy-go-lucky supernatural.

I used to feel the smae way Leo, but then i discovered something while meditating. I don't define it or limit it. I just experience it. It is wonderful, but by saying it at all, I'm removing so many other beautiful parts from it that ....its better if I stop now.

We get glimpses, from time to time, of the real thing. That's the way I see things. Nothing that we are here is really real, but rather, shadows. We are living in the shadows, and one day we will step out into the sun.

I've been arriving at the same thing. I actually see myself, spiritually going lots of places where Christainity talks about going, but on my own. I fel that personally by doing this alone, it is meaning more to me, than it ever could in a church. I understnad the value of a community, but I ahve felt the vlaue of solitary spiritual enlightenment.
OS ben, if I am following the same path as Christainity, but not accpeting god/mohammed/et al the same way, am I living in the shadows?

[Ben Kenobi]

I fel that personally by doing this alone, it is meaning more to me, than it ever could in a church. I understnad the value of a community, but I ahve felt the vlaue of solitary spiritual enlightenment.

They compliment each other. Different methods for both, but they both work to the same goal.

OS ben, if I am following the same path as Christainity, but not accpeting god/mohammed/et al the same way, am I living in the shadows?

Well, there's plenty hinging on the words, 'in the same way.'

Christianity holds a meditative tradition inside itself, so the fact that you have taken to contemplation has no bearing on the question of salvation, pro or con.

[bipolarbear]

But I'm not accepting god, or jesus, or the bible, or any of that stuff. I go w/o definition.

[Robert Plomp]

I think that in the end, doing what you ultimately felt in your sonscience was truly right, is what matters the msot. If that includes god, so be it.

yeah, that's the lie that's spread in our society these days: we can decide on good and evil. We have the power to live the right life.

It's a amazing that after thousands of years of chaos, war, hate and unrightiousness people still claim that we should do what we think we should do.

That's the 'original sin', wanting to decide over good and evil, and be as god.
But we can't. It's a lie. We screwed up. What makes you think that we can fix it?

If that includes god, so be it.

So, you reverse things.
You make the truth dependant on your opinion.
But the truth is independant. There is one truth. Pherhaps that truth is indeed that everything is true.
But that truth can as well exclude any other theory.

We don't know much about the truth, more than what has been delivered to us from the past, and of course the divine messages people claim to get these days.
But instead of listening to people who at least claim to have witnessed divine interventions from the past, we make our own truth.

And worst of all, we believe that the truth will be that what we like most, and fits most into our interpertation of the universe, and even worse, the world outside our imaginational borders.

Hey, I wish I got a porche, now I say that it's the truth that I got a porche, and if I want to have a porche I do have a porche. The truth is dependant on my opinion. And eventhough I have no clue about porches, how they work and are manufactured, I still think that my opinion about me having a porche is that superior that when I'll walk outside my door in some or another way, there will be a porche. And if you don't want me to have a porche, than I don't have one in your reality. So in my reality I do have a porche, and in yours I don't.

And anybody who claims that only one of us can be right is a stupid fundamentalist
We should get rid of those dudes asap.

And we should stick to our personal opinion, and that that's the opinion of all billion of people in the wester-world doesn't matter. It's still my personal opinion and I'm not influenced by all those people who've indocrtinated me from birth on.

Nooooo, those people who say different things than the rest of us, THEY are indoctrinated! Those fundamentalists!

Now I'm off, riding my porche!

CyberShy

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But doing good things isn't a part of christianity either. Christianity has nothing to do with morality.

Uh, yes it does, obviously...

The bible teaches us that we are not capable of living a moral life (both christians and non-christians)
We should not try to live a moral life, we should give our lives to Jesus.

... and this is it.

The bible says how you should act. Atheism says nothing about how you should act. Atheism is nothing more than the statement "there is no god".

[Kuciwalker]

[q] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Cyber made the logical response in his post. Christianity is not about living up to a moral code, but about believing and trusting in God.

And part of that is obeying God, like "love your neighbor". In fact, just telling you to love God - telling you that you should love God - is a moral statement.

No different from the atheists in that regard, who distrust and reject God.

Atheists don't mistrust and reject God, they think he isn't there. Satan mistrusts and rejects God, but Satan also knows God exists (obviously).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy
yeah, that's the lie that's spread in our society these days: we can decide on good and evil. We have the power to live the right life.

If I believe that the "right thing to do" is to try and garner as much of an advantage over others as possible, then certainly I can live what I think is the right life.

Why can't we decide on good and evil? Why can this "God" do so? Are you simply reducing good and evil to God's will? If so, then wouldn't torturing and killing people be good if God commanded you to do so?

I'm sickened by people who acknowledge a Supreme Being but consider it superior to a Supreme Good.

It's a amazing that after thousands of years of chaos, war, hate and unrightiousness people still claim that we should do what we think we should do.

Strawman. Rather, there's the rather obvious and tautological claim that we think we ought to do what we think we ought to do.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The bible says how you should act. Atheism says nothing about how you should act. Atheism is nothing more than the statement "there is no god".

I prefer "There are no gods".

Anyways, I would hardly consider someone who believes in ghosts, demons, or pixies an atheist either.

IMHO, "supernatural" covers the whole shebang nicely as in "There is no Supernatural".

[Ben Kenobi]

But I'm not accepting god, or jesus, or the bible, or any of that stuff. I go w/o definition.

Then to what end do you contemplate?

You would not expect spiritual enlightenment to lead you to Christ, if you start off by rejecting him.

[Ben Kenobi]

and this is it.

The bible says how you should act. Atheism says nothing about how you should act. Atheism is nothing more than the statement "there is no god".

But there are certain presuppositions that emerge from that statement.

The first question, is if there is no God, then what is morality?

So to argue that christianity is all about morality, and atheism is not infers a specific definition of morality that relies upon the existence of God.

In short, if you say that 'there is no god' ays nothing about morality, then you assume that there is no connection between God and morality.

Secondly, I want to make clear that cyber and I are using the term morality in different ways. Cyber is applying the term morality to mean an explicit moral code to which one can gage one's actions. He has in his mind the Mosaic Code. In this sense, Christianity does not adhere to such a morality.

[asleepathewheel]

God
sinners

[Berzerker]

But there are certain presuppositions that emerge from that statement.

The first question, is if there is no God, then what is morality?

The same thing as if there is a God, right as opposed to wrong...

So to argue that christianity is all about morality, and atheism is not infers a specific definition of morality that relies upon the existence of God.

Not all moral systems rely on the existence of God, Christianity is not just about morality, it's about claiming some guy who allegedly died ~2,000 years ago was God. Atheists are among those who reject this notion, not the notion of right behavior as opposed to wrong behavior.

In short, if you say that 'there is no god' ays nothing about morality, then you assume that there is no connection between God and morality.

Read the Old Testament and tell me there is a connection between God and morality A better question, if God is the epitome of morality for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, how can you defend the blatantly immoral acts committed by God in the OT?

Secondly, I want to make clear that cyber and I are using the term morality in different ways. Cyber is applying the term morality to mean an explicit moral code to which one can gage one's actions. He has in his mind the Mosaic Code. In this sense, Christianity does not adhere to such a morality.

Here's an interesting question, if Jesus was not God as Jews and Muslims believe, does that make Christians out to be atheists or agnostics since they obviously don't believe in God?

[Uncle Sparky]

The christian concept of heaven and hell was created by early church leaders to sell the religion. If you join us you are saved and get to go to a really nice place forever. If you aren't saved you get to go to a really bad place forever. For the first 1500 years of the Church, this could also apply to your ancestors; you could buy there salvation if you had the money.

This was simple, straight forward and good news for the illiterate often enslaved people of the time.

[Robert Plomp]

CyberShy: But doing good things isn't a part of christianity either. Christianity has nothing to do with morality.

Kucinich: Uh, yes it does, obviously...

Don't mix up what christians do and what the christian teachings teach.
But you're right that living a good life is important. But it's not the main focus of christianity. You can't 'earn' heaven by doing good deeds.

And as I've mentioned before, living a good life is not an order, a command as in: you shall live a good life.
It's a result of a change.

I think you mix the jewish fate too much up with the christian faith. The jews see the 10 commandments as the moral thing to do. While the New Testament teaches that the 10 commandments were mostly important to show the sinfull nature of man. Besides that the entire law of Moses was the law for the state of Israel. Not a relious law, but a state-law.

The bible says how you should act.

You have no clue about what the Bible says about how you should act. Read the letter to the Romans, by Paul.

But unfortunately much christians have christianity made into another religious moral way to live.
Take in example the first letter from Pete, he teaches that christians shouldn't get into the business of other people by telling them what to do.

And what do most christians do? Push their moral values up to other people. That's against the Bible.

I've studied this issue very deeply. If you're interested, read the letters to the Romans, the Galatians. The letter of Pete. Take the letter to the Hebrews in which is said: "God shall write his laws into the hearts of his followers, and not on stone tables anymore" which means that it's a change from within, not a moral code that is put upon people from outside.

Atheism says nothing about how you should act.

Carpe Diem
But in fact atheism is exactly like christianity.
Atheism doesn't come with a moral code, but the result of atheism does. If one becomes an atheist, that does have effect on his life.

As with christians. It does affect our lives indeed, from within ourselves.

Atheism is nothing more than the statement "there is no god".

True. While it should be: "The existance of gods has not been proven yet", that would be a sanefull vision.
But unfortunately for most atheists it's more like you said it. As if they know everything.

Atheists don't mistrust and reject God, they think he isn't there. Satan mistrusts and rejects God, but Satan also knows God exists (obviously).

well said.

But, it must be said that most atheists do say that they would reject god if he would exist. I have only met one atheist so far who told me that he wished the Bible was true. Most say: "Even if God does exist, I think he's a lunatic and I don't want to follow him"

Much people use atheism to establish their own antipation to god. (as much atheists use the evolution theory to 'prove' their point)
But again, that's not because that's the nature of atheism.

Atheism indeed doesn't come with a moral value, and doesn't come with a rejection of god.
For that reason atheism and christianity do share much. As in that their 'followers' don't live up to it, and make things up that atheism/christianity doesn't teach. (well, atheism doesn't teach much anyway )

Originally posted by CyberShy
yeah, that's the lie that's spread in our society these days: we can decide on good and evil. We have the power to live the right life.

Kucinich: If I believe that the "right thing to do" is to try and garner as much of an advantage over others as possible, then certainly I can live what I think is the right life.

Sorry, I don't get your point...

Why can't we decide on good and evil? Why can this "God" do so?

What is good, what is evil?
Good for a commercial company is anything that raises the profit. If not taking care for the enviroment results in much people rejecting to buy goods from that company, not taking care for the enviroment is not good for that company.

Good for the universe is that what makes things better for the universe. For humans it is what makes things better for humans, in general and per person.
What makes us happier, most of all I think.

God knows the very best what makes us happier, how we would live a very good life. He knows because he designed us. We think we know how we can live the happiest life. I think we can be right on issues. But in general, God knows what is the best for us.

Are you simply reducing good and evil to God's will? If so, then wouldn't torturing and killing people be good if God commanded you to do so?

Something isn't good because God says so.
God says something because it's good.

This world is broken. Sometimes there is no good. What is good? torturing terrorists to gain info to prevent an act of terror and save 1000 lives? Or is it better to not torture them and have 1000 people die?

What is better, if a baby dies peacefully after 2 months, or raise the baby in a broken family, in which it will be abused. It'll raise as a criminal and muder many people, and die bc of a drug-overdose.

What is better? I do not dare to say what is better in both cases. And in the baby case, how can I know what will happen with a 2 months old baby in the future. And I'm happy that I don't know, since I wouldn't know what to do with that info anyway.

We, humans, no so little. And still we think we know so much. God knows it all, he has the sight on everything. He knows the result of any action. How can we question Him? I think we can question Him though. Rightious people in the Bible did so. But we should do with all respect, and in a very humble manner. How can we humans who have so little insight and have done so many wrongfull acts, question God like a father questions his son?

Something isn't good because God says so.
God says something because it is good. And He knows what is good for us. He designed us.

I'm sickened by people who acknowledge a Supreme Being but consider it superior to a Supreme Good.

you shouldn't that easily be sickened.
In any debate people on both side sometimes are bothered by the other party, bc they can't deliver their argument, eventhough they try.
That's part of our broken nature. We can't even communicate the proper way, and we sicken each other.

The thing is, dare to try to leave your own solid opinion and ideas, and wonder, is the other person right or not?
I try to do. Pherhaps I fail doing that.

But I can see your point from your position. But I think it's a very traditional position. Like in the middle ages everybody got the roman catholic position, and couldn't imagine that anybody would think different.

Fortunately you guys are better, since you won't burn people who disagree with you
Thanks for that! Don't burn me!

CyberShy:
It's a amazing that after thousands of years of chaos, war, hate and unrightiousness people still claim that we should do what we think we should do.

Kucinich: Strawman.

How can we debate meta-reality without strawmen?

Rather, there's the rather obvious and tautological claim that we think we ought to do what we think we ought to do.

And we should do what we ought to do. What else can we do? But we should do it humbly, and admit to ourselves, and if you believe in God, to God, that we try, but we can't succeed. And ask Him to help us.

IMHO, "supernatural" covers the whole shebang nicely as in "There is no Supernatural".

Please visit Africa one day.
I can't understand that people deny the existance of 'spirits' and 'supernatural acts and miracles'

Not all moral systems rely on the existence of God

It relies on the existance of any sence of life.
Animals have no morality. Survival of the fittest is all that counts for them. A true atheist should act no different than any animal. What purpose does it have to feed children in africa who'll die within 100 years anyway. To me it has a purpose, since I believe life make sence. But if life has no sence, why live to any moral code? But thank God that you, atheist guys, don't see that

Life would be a hell if you guys discover this. (why am I telling you this? bc you won't admit it anyway, that's why. In fact you guys do value life, eventhough life has no sence. Why do you value life? why why why?)

Christianity is not just about morality, it's about claiming some guy who allegedly died ~2,000 years ago was God.

But WHY did he die? Why did God come?
Because we cannot live the good life ourself. So He must come to help us, to do it for us.

But what's morality? Why would God invent morality?
Why not put us on earth and say: do whatever you like, it'll serve you well.

I think the answer is: bc only if we live a good life, we'll be ultimately happy. It's as if one would name cleaning his car very well so it'll drive very good the moral thing to do.

That's what morality is.

A better question, if God is the epitome of morality for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, how can you defend the blatantly immoral acts committed by God in the OT?

How can you decide on what is moral or not, if you hardly know the facts, the results, the circumstances and the things that would have happened if the act would not have happened?

If somebody would have killed Adolf Hitler as a 1 year old baby, in those days everybody would have said that would be an inmoral act. But now we might even say: "I wish that would have happened"

Is killing a baby the moral thing to do, bc the baby might be a dictator that kills many? No, bc we don't know if the baby will. And even if the baby will become that dictator, and we know it. Does that mean that it is the moral thing to do?

On earth we do not even agree on penalties for murderers. In america they're killed in some states. In Europe sometimes they are freed after 8 years of prison. What's the moral thing to do? We have no clues. People who have studied the matter for years disagree with each other.

And you know that what God did in the OT was inmoral? To my standards: yes it is inmoral. I can't understand that God orders nations to be slaughtered in the OT. But I know that in fact I have no clue. I can only say to God: "Lord God, I don't understand your actions, but I can't do anything but admit that you must surely know it better than me"

The number of people that are killed bc of the commandment of God is very small compared to the number of people that have been killed by the commandment of people. How do we dare to question God.

It's as if Adolf Hitler asks Dutroux: "What did you do?"
But even worse, since I don't believe we can compre God to dutroux

Here's an interesting question, if Jesus was not God as Jews and Muslims believe, does that make Christians out to be atheists or agnostics since they obviously don't believe in God?

If Jesus was not God, we are clearly wrong.
We're still not atheists, but we obviously would follow a message that is wrong. We would be silly.

The christian concept of heaven and hell was created by early church leaders to sell the religion.

You were there I guess.........?
In the mind of the early church fathers, and you saw them thinking: "What if tell them there's a hell....?"

Besides that: please read the thread before you post this kind of.......... posts

[Berzerker]

It relies on the existance of any sence of life.
Animals have no morality. Survival of the fittest is all that counts for them. A true atheist should act no different than any animal.

Why? Does not a moral sense require intelligence? Animals seemingly lack this intelligence (although I'd be hardpressed to say animals do more evil than us ), and people (most anyway) don't.

What purpose does it have to feed children in africa who'll die within 100 years anyway. To me it has a purpose, since I believe life make sence. But if life has no sence, why live to any moral code? But thank God that you, atheist guys, don't see that

I'm not an atheist, but to answer your question, does preventing death by starvation make you feel good? People help each other because they feel good about their deeds... No God is required... In fact, I'm a bit more impressed by the atheist who does good without the expectation of some heavenly reward or fear of a God angered by evil deeds... Telling people they should do good deeds because they will be rewarded or punished takes even more away from the act of doing good than the "selfish" feeling of enjoyment one has from helping others...

Life would be a hell if you guys discover this. (why am I telling you this? bc you won't admit it anyway, that's why. In fact you guys do value life, eventhough life has no sence. Why do you value life? why why why?)

Why does life have no value or sense for the atheist? I value life because I enjoy living, it's pleasurable... Rather sensible if you ask me...

But WHY did he die? Why did God come?
Because we cannot live the good life ourself. So He must come to help us, to do it for us.

He died because he pissed off some religious fundies who didn't like the competition.

But what's morality? Why would God invent morality?

Right as opposed to wrong. Why do you assume God invented it? If there is a God, the "invention" of morality was hardwired into us.

Why not put us on earth and say: do whatever you like, it'll serve you well.

As long as this "commandment" recognises that acts like murder prevents the victim from doing as they like and therefore the act of murder violates this commandment, that seems quite moral to me (as opposed to the alternative anyway).

I think the answer is: bc only if we live a good life, we'll be ultimately happy.

If that makes you happy, aren't you following the commandment you just indicted in your last sentence?
The relevant question becomes: who is best qualified to determine what makes you happy? Church elders who might have an agenda anti-thetical to your happiness or you?

That's what morality is.

What is "the good life"? You've merely replaced morality with a set of undefined terms.

How can you decide on what is moral or not, if you hardly know the facts, the results, the circumstances and the things that would have happened if the act would not have happened?

Why am I responsible for knowing all that? Are you suggesting God was moral when he wiped out virtually all land life in a flood because of some allegedly immoral people? Did that "solution" solve the problem of immoral people? Nope... And if God created us, then immorality was a product of God's actions. Was God moral when he commanded the Israelites to slaughter and enslave countless peoples? Or do you suppose the Israelites were just like any other group of thugs using "God" as their justification for evil? I think the latter...

If somebody would have killed Adolf Hitler as a 1 year old baby, in those days everybody would have said that would be an inmoral act. But now we might even say: "I wish that would have happened"

You're playing the "what if" game to excuse "God's" crimes. Were all those people murdered and enslaved by the Israelites "Hitler's" in waiting? Why did God slaughter the first born of Egypt? Because of Pharaoh's hardened heart and desire to screw Moses and the Hebrews! That's the reason according to the Bible. Not because all those first born Egyptians were Hitler's in the making... So, is it moral to murder babies because some dictator is committing acts of evil? That's what "God" did...

Is killing a baby the moral thing to do, bc the baby might be a dictator that kills many? No, bc we don't know if the baby will. And even if the baby will become that dictator, and we know it. Does that mean that it is the moral thing to do?

Yup.

On earth we do not even agree on penalties for murderers. In america they're killed in some states. In Europe sometimes they are freed after 8 years of prison. What's the moral thing to do? We have no clues. People who have studied the matter for years disagree with each other.

We have clues, the fact one person or group is wrong doesn't mean others are also wrong.

And you know that what God did in the OT was inmoral?

Yup.

To my standards: yes it is inmoral.

Isn't God the source of your morality? If so, how can you have standards that contradict the source of your morality when you claim to be clueless?

I can't understand that God orders nations to be slaughtered in the OT.

I can, God didn't issue the orders. People then did what people do now, they claimed God ordained their crimes.

But I know that in fact I have no clue.

But you do have a clue or you wouldn't have reached the correct conclusion. Did not Jesus tell his disciples that they were like God and that they would achieve even greater good than Jesus himself? Did not Jesus tell people to judge others but to do so wisely and without hypocrisy? Wisdom and consistency is what we need, not divine omniscience or words allegedly written by "God".

I can only say to God: "Lord God, I don't understand your actions, but I can't do anything but admit that you must surely know it better than me"

How moral was God when he was bragging to Satan about how good Job was only to accept a bet that put Job through a mess of pain just to prove a point? God used Job as a pawn for some petty competition with Satan...

The number of people that are killed bc of the commandment of God is very small compared to the number of people that have been killed by the commandment of people. How do we dare to question God.

And that makes God an authority on morality? I'd say the person who never murders has more authority than someone (including God) who murdered a few million.

If Jesus was not God, we are clearly wrong.
We're still not atheists, but we obviously would follow a message that is wrong. We would be silly.

But your belief in God would be false, i.e., agnostics who have tricked themselves into believing they are gnostics. You wouldn't believe in God, you would believe in a falsehood which is what religious folk think of atheists and agnostics...

[Berzerker]

The christian concept of heaven and hell was created by early church leaders to sell the religion.

Heaven comes from ancient mythology, very ancient. Hell comes from "sheol", hebrew for the grave. It only took on the more modern connotations of a bad place when Christianity was hellenised. Reading Dante we see "Hell" was a celestial phenomenon guarded or bordered by a red river accompanied by two "companions" - an apt description of Mars and it's 2 moons.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The first question, is if there is no God, then what is morality?

As I mentioned before, there can be a concept of a Supreme Good without that of a Supreme Being.

So to argue that christianity is all about morality, and atheism is not infers a specific definition of morality that relies upon the existence of God.

Nope. Christianity is not ALL about morality; it's just a significant fraction of your holy text and beliefs are concerned with morality.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kucinich
As I mentioned before, there can be a concept of a Supreme Good without that of a Supreme Being.

How? What determines this "supreme good"? On what grounds is it derived, and why specifically should it be followed-to what end? All the arguments I've ever heard for this boil down to an idea for selflessness almost as grounded in selfishness as any "heaven". Like ensuring the stability of civilization, bettering the condition of humanity, and all that mickey mouse crap. If morals exist for any end beyond themselves, they are simply an extension of another concern, and limited by the context of that concern. If morals exist in a vacuum of purpose for their own sake, what you have is just a concept of God without self-awareness. I guess my question for you is, if there is no heaven, why should we be moral at all?

But I do agree with you that CyberShy isn't making sense. He seems to be taking something like theiosis-the concept of oneness with god-and removing the more difficult moral aspect from it, to turn it into some kind of Far East mysticism attained by self-discovery alone...

[Kuciwalker]

How? What determines this "supreme good"? On what grounds is it derived, and why specifically should it be followed-to what end?

All moralities are based on certain fundamental assumptions. Christianity's assumes "One ought to do what God says."* On what grounds do you say that? A libertarian believes "One ought not to do something that violates someone else's liberty." A utilitarian believes "One ought to do that which will result in the greatest total happiness." And so on.

All the arguments I've ever heard for this boil down to an idea for selflessness almost as grounded in selfishness as any "heaven".

Nope, because heaven is basically a reward for doing good (or what God says is good). Other moralities emphasize doing good for the sake of doing good. Christianity says "do good because in the end it pays off BIG". In that, it really trivializes morality to self-interest.

(If heaven is not intended as a reward for doing good, then why is it denied to bad people? Would it be denied to a good person who was only good in order to get into heaven? In fact, this was the question in my opening post - on one hand, Christianity reduces morality to self-interest, on the other, God is arbitrarily cruel.)

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


So you have to want it bad...well, not too bad, but seriously enough....but not too seriously ...

how much again?

as i understand it it's not a matter of intensity but of purpose. u dont do it to get your neat little reward, you do because you are it.

[Bereta_Eder]

or, correction, you strive to be it but not for heaven, because it is god's will.
(i buy some of it, from an anthropological point of view more but also a pinch of the divine, but anyway i'm not your man to talk religion, elok knows more about it and practises it so)

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Not all moral systems rely on the existence of God, Christianity is not just about morality, it's about claiming some guy who allegedly died ~2,000 years ago was God. Atheists are among those who reject this notion, not the notion of right behavior as opposed to wrong behavior.

True, but to say that morality can exist without God, is making a moral statement in itself. It is a meta-ethical claim as opposed to a normative one.

Read the Old Testament and tell me there is a connection between God and morality A better question, if God is the epitome of morality for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, how can you defend the blatantly immoral acts committed by God in the OT?

Is it immoral for God to kill people?

Here's an interesting question, if Jesus was not God as Jews and Muslims believe, does that make Christians out to be atheists or agnostics since they obviously don't believe in God?

The Christians do not reject the God of Abraham, in accepting Christ as the Son of God.