The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

^ there is animal sacrifice in the Old Testament of the Bible, however it was stopped in the New Testament.

I am fully aware of this but the animal sacrifice in the Old Testament was a practise of Judaism and pointed to a time where it would no longer exist as there would be a sacrifice for once and for all. Christianity believes that Jesus of the New Testament was this sacrifice and as such blood sacrifice of any kind is no longer needed.

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Law nor the Prophets...so who abolished the ANIMAL SACRIFICE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT? Paul?

Jesus was an adult Jew, I wonder if he practised animal sacrifice himself...growing up in a Jewish society and all.

[Habit7]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus did say he didn't come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but He then said in the same verse that he came to fulfil it. So to the one that repents of their sin and puts their faith in Christ, they put their faith in the fact that they have failed to live up to the Law but they trust that because Jesus has fulfilled the Law, His righteousness can be imputed to their account, giving them perfect righteousness.

Plus in the Law, blood sacrifice never appeased sin, it simply covered it. But Jesus is seen as the once and for all sacrificed Lamb that not just covers sin but appeases the wrath of God. The animal sacrifice of the OT always pointed to Christ, so that in Christ he both upholds the Law and fulfils it.

[AdamB]

^^^Crazy ppl logic. Would the Jewish explanation (from an actual Jew) agree with your statement?

Perfect righteousness MY FOOT!!! Leave perfection to GOD. Man cannot achieve perfection, certainly by not acting / by not doing good deeds!

[Chimera]

Adam I saw you post in the other thread where the imams son got bounced down that it was his time and he would have died within hours from something else anyway. Because it was his time to die. Why do Muslims go to hospitals then? Or even take medication to prolong life.

[Habit7]

Well I know why you will disagree, but you asked and I answered.

This is why the Bible represents Jesus as 100% man and 100% God. As man he is the second Adam (no pun intended) imputing righteousness and life, while the first Adam before imputed sin and death. And as God the Son He is able appease the wrath of God for sin by standing in place of those who would believe in Him, God the Father pours out His wrath on Christ (not just in His death on the cross, but Christ absorbs the wrath one deserves in an eternity in Hell, something not man can do), Christ lays down His life, and takes it back up again, and ascends back to Father being both Lord and Saviour. This is the gospel message of Christianity, prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Christ who is both just and the justifier of the wicked.

So AdamB if you reject this, tell me how can Allah of the Qur'an choose to forgive your sin, not punish you, you possibly go to heaven and yet Allah can still be just?

[metalgear2095]

^ there is animal sacrifice in the Old Testament of the Bible, however it was stopped in the New Testament.

I am fully aware of this but the animal sacrifice in the Old Testament was a practise of Judaism and pointed to a time where it would no longer exist as there would be a sacrifice for once and for all. Christianity believes that Jesus of the New Testament was this sacrifice and as such blood sacrifice of any kind is no longer needed.

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Law nor the Prophets...so who abolished the ANIMAL SACRIFICE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT? Paul?

Jesus was an adult Jew, I wonder if he practised animal sacrifice himself...growing up in a Jewish society and all.

Well if Jesus did it wouldn't be a problem seeing that he didn't yet die for our sins at the time.

[Gladiator]

[Habit7]

^^^lol

The two "most peaceful" Asian countries at one time waged brutal, aggressive wars against their religious neighbours. All the rest had centuries of Christianity shaping its moral culture before they recently espouse atheism. In facet some of them still have Christian crosses on their national flag.

BTW how can an atheist say which nation is more "peaceful" than the other? That is a moral call which would predetermine a federal moral law giver. Since atheism doesn't acknowledge a moral law giver, then what an atheist considers to be peaceful is just an individual's opinion.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ how do you suppose atheists acquire morals then?

Different religions have varying moral values - what makes one right and the other wrong?
Not opinion?

[Habit7]

^ how do you suppose atheists acquire morals then?

Well you need them to answer that. All I am saying an atheist can't borrow a moral standard from a moral law giver, to then judge someone else in an attempt to prove there is no moral law giver. In an atheist's world there is no moral standard for all, just one's opinion over another.

Different religions have varying moral values - what makes one right and the other wrong?
Not opinion?

Well within each religion their moral values are determined by its giver, and right and wrong is seen through the lens of that religion's morality.
But in the case of different religions I would say eternally it all comes down to which ever religion is right or wrong. I for one do not believe that all are correct, either there is one that is correct and all else are false or all religions are false. Religions so starkly contradict each other to the point where they can never have this "all roads lead to God" ecumenism that everybody loves to preach.

So whether one's religion says to have one wife, beat your wife or have as many wives as you can, their is only one true moral law, and only one true moral law giver, and I propose that He is the God of the Bible, and He will eternally judge right and wrong.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

mor·al [mawr-uh l, mor-]
adjective

founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom

humans have had moral ideals without religion. Also religions such as Egyptian, Aztec, Vedic etc. have had similar morals to what we know today. However morals are based heavily on social customs. It is not morally correct to carry out human sacrifice in modern society, however this was a normal practice for the Mayans and other ancient religions.

Atheists choose their morals based on what they consider to be logical. I am sure social customs affect their decisions for what is morally right, but you cannot claim because they share some of the same moral values as a religious person, that they have subscribed to that religion. That is illogical!

Also what other than your own opinion makes you correct that the law giver IS the God of Christianity?

[pioneer]

wow countries still practice sharia law

it's a good thing muslims have no say here, top local imams wanted the government to implement sharia law in certain districts

democracy>cave dwellers

[Habit7]

I dont know if you misunderstood me but I am not saying that atheists don't have morals. I am saying that atheists cannot sit in judgement of others on the basis of a common moral standard. Even in the case of a nation's law, I am sure both atheists and the religious would agree that once the law overlaps their moral law, their moral law trumps it. So an atheist's morals whether derived from the variables of logic, culture, religion, etc. are all subjective to his perception and interpretation of these variables.

But to the religious there is an objective standard, it might allow strict adherence in one area, freedom in another, but in all a common basis for judgement. So even in the case of national law, we may accuse the other but whether atheist or religious one might say I disregard that law. But for some religious people their morals tells them to obey national law, and for some atheists they agree with the national law. All this to say, an atheist's morals (opinions) are subjective and a religious morals (laws/tenants/doctrine) are objective.

Also what other than your own opinion makes you correct that the law giver IS the God of Christianity?

Well a number reasons, but just limited to:
1. He said he is.
2. The God of the Bible is the only deity that deals with the problem of moral conviction and guilt with judgement yet supplies atonement and justification to His believers. (see responses to AdamB above)
3. The Bible's supernatural ability chart the history of man's moral downfall and prophesy a solution through God Himself.

Otherwise I should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I die, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.1 Cor 15:17-19

[AdamB]

Adam I saw you post in the other thread where the imams son got bounced down that it was his time and he would have died within hours from something else anyway. Because it was his time to die. Why do Muslims go to hospitals then? Or even take medication to prolong life.

The WHEN is pre-decreed not the HOW. We ACT instead of NOT ACTING, for what is written for us will come to pass.

Someone may spend months alive in a coma but may get medical attention and be alive, conscious, for all that time. It's also making a choice...

[Chimera]

If its pre decreed then how are you making a choice. By going to a hospital or seeking medical care, doesn't that show that you are not trusting Allahs plan for u?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I dont know if you misunderstood me but I am not saying that atheists don't have morals. I am saying that atheists cannot sit in judgement of others on the basis of a common moral standard. Even in the case of a nation's law, I am sure both atheists and the religious would agree that once the law overlaps their moral law, their moral law trumps it. So an atheist's morals whether derived from the variables of logic, culture, religion, etc. are all subjective to his perception and interpretation of these variables.

But to the religious there is an objective standard, it might allow strict adherence in one area, freedom in another, but in all a common basis for judgement. So even in the case of national law, we may accuse the other but whether atheist or religious one might say I disregard that law. But for some religious people their morals tells them to obey national law, and for some atheists they agree with the national law. All this to say, an atheist's morals (opinions) are subjective and a religious morals (laws/tenants/doctrine) are objective.

how is it objective?

you said in a previous post that only ONE set of moral code is correct - and that you believe it to be that of Christianity. That claim in itself is subjective!

That is YOUR belief. Believing in something does not make it true or fact.

Also what other than your own opinion makes you correct that the law giver IS the God of Christianity?

Well a number reasons, but just limited to:
1. He said he is.
2. The God of the Bible is the only deity that deals with the problem of moral conviction and guilt with judgement yet supplies atonement and justification to His believers. (see responses to AdamB above)
3. The Bible's supernatural ability chart the history of man's moral downfall and prophesy a solution through God Himself.

Otherwise I should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I die, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.1 Cor 15:17-19

ok that is also subjective. A Muslim could make the same claim of Islam and a Hindu could make the same claim for Hinduism, both quoting their relevant scripture on how to be saved and ensured life eternal.

your first point follows the same logic as this napkin

[AdamB]

the napkin...LOL

[AdamB]

If its pre decreed then how are you making a choice. By going to a hospital or seeking medical care, doesn't that show that you are not trusting Allahs plan for u?

Certain MAJOR EVENTS are pre-decreed like time of birth, death, not HOW you live and HOW you die!

You choose to smoke and then suffer for years with cancer until you die OR you choose to NOT smoke and die of "natural causes" at the same time but with much better quality of life.

[Habit7]

Duane you are mixing matters here so I will try and lay it out for you.

What is objective:
Moral standards of a religion (strict adherence in one area, freedom in another)
National law of a country (strict adherence in one area, freedom in another)

What is subjective:
An atheist morals which is founded in his opinion
One's choice of who their law giver is
My choice of who the eternal law giver is

I have subjectivity chosen Christianity and I adhere to its objective morality. If I am wrong in my subjective choice, then my quote of 1 Cor 15:17-19 comes into play there.

[maj. tom]

Currently under review by CNN editors so it may be removed and link won't work. So here's the quote.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c3.

It's just a good read on this thread despite whatever the current beatup is about, and one should just think a bit about it before the usual rah-rah-rah about free will that is the triumphant end of all arguments for some people. Remember this woman is in Texas.




"CNN PRODUCER NOTE: TXBlue08, a mother of two teenagers in Texas, blogs about raising her children without religion. She said she shared this essay on CNN iReport because 'I just felt there is not a voice out there for women/moms like me. I think people misunderstand or are fearful of people who don’t believe in God.' What are your thoughts on this iReport? Share your written response via our Sound Off assignment.
- dsashin, CNN iReport producer"


Why I Raise My Children Without God

When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. Where is it? How do people walk without a body? How will I find you? You know the questions that kids ask.

For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn’t believe about heaven. Like most parents, I love my child so much that I didn’t want him to be scared. I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But the trade-off was that I would have to make stuff up, and I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn’t make sense, stories that I didn’t believe either.

One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa—to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God.

And so I thought it was only right to be honest with my children. I am a non-believer, and for years I’ve been on the fringe in my community. As a blogger, though, I’ve found that there are many other parents out there like me. We are creating the next generation of kids, and there is a wave of young agnostics, atheists, free thinkers and humanists rising up through the ranks who will, hopefully, lower our nation’s religious fever.

Here are a few of the reasons why I am raising my children without God.

God is a bad parent and role model.
If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Good people don’t stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don’t condone violence and abuse. “He has given us free will,” you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.

God is not logical.
How many times have you heard, “Why did God allow this to happen?” And this: “It’s not for us to understand.” Translate: We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue. Take for example the senseless tragedy in Newtown. Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God. He had a reason. He wanted more angels. Only he knows why. We write poems saying that we told God to leave our schools. Now he’s making us pay the price. If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind? Doesn’t this go against everything Christ taught us in the New Testament?

The question we should be asking is this: “Why did we allow this to happen?” How can we fix this? No imaginary person is going to give us the answers or tell us why. Only we have the ability to be logical and to problem solve, and we should not abdicate these responsibilities to “God” just because a topic is tough or uncomfortable to address.

God is not fair.
If God is fair, then why does he answer the silly prayers of some while allowing other, serious requests, to go unanswered? I have known people who pray that they can find money to buy new furniture. (Answered.) I have known people who pray to God to help them win a soccer match. (Answered.) Why are the prayers of parents with dying children not answered?

If God is fair, then why are some babies born with heart defects, autism, missing limbs or conjoined to another baby? Clearly, all men are not created equally. Why is a good man beaten senseless on the street while an evil man finds great wealth taking advantage of others? This is not fair. A game maker who allows luck to rule mankind’s existence has not created a fair game.

God does not protect the innocent.
He does not keep our children safe. As a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot. We protect our little ones as much as possible. When a child is kidnapped, we work together to find the child. We do not tolerate abuse and neglect. Why can’t God, with all his powers of omnipotence, protect the innocent?

God is not present.
He is not here. Telling our children to love a person they cannot see, smell, touch or hear does not make sense. It means that we teach children to love an image, an image that lives only in their imaginations. What we teach them, in effect, is to love an idea that we have created, one that is based in our fears and our hopes.

God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
A child should make moral choices for the right reasons. Telling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will be externally focused rather than internally structured. It’s like telling a child to behave or Santa won’t bring presents. When we take God out of the picture, we place responsibility of doing the right thing onto the shoulders of our children. No, they won’t go to heaven or rule their own planets when they die, but they can sleep better at night. They will make their family proud. They will feel better about who they are. They will be decent people.

God Teaches Narcissism
“God has a plan for you.” Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness. “No matter what I do, God loves me and forgives me. He knows my purpose. I am special.” The irony is that, while we tell this story to our kids, other children are abused and murdered, starved and neglected. All part of God’s plan, right?

When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine–whether that machine is nature or society–the influence we have is minuscule. The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.

I understand why people need God. I understand why people need heaven. It is terrifying to think that we are all alone in this universe, that one day we—along with the children we love so much—will cease to exist. The idea of God and an afterlife gives many of us structure, community and hope.

I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs. It’s a personal effect, like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes. It’s not something to be used or worn by strangers. I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair—not on what they believe an imaginary God wants.

[maj. tom]

1 Timothy 2:12

Hey... those are morals to live by...

[Habit7]

1 Timothy 2:12

Hey... those are morals to live by...

They are morals to live by...within a church. Outside of a church Christians allow actions contradictory to this occur freely.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

If its pre decreed then how are you making a choice. By going to a hospital or seeking medical care, doesn't that show that you are not trusting Allahs plan for u?

Certain MAJOR EVENTS are pre-decreed like time of birth, death, not HOW you live and HOW you die!

You choose to smoke and then suffer for years with cancer until you die OR you choose to NOT smoke and die of "natural causes" at the same time but with much better quality of life.

a baby is born with a hole in the heart, is it going against God's plan to mend the heart with surgery?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Duane you are mixing matters here so I will try and lay it out for you.

What is objective:
Moral standards of a religion (strict adherence in one area, freedom in another)
National law of a country (strict adherence in one area, freedom in another)

What is subjective:
An atheist morals which is founded in his opinion
One's choice of who their law giver is
My choice of who the eternal law giver is

I have subjectivity chosen Christianity and I adhere to its objective morality. If I am wrong in my subjective choice, then my quote of 1 Cor 15:17-19 comes into play there.

I am not mixing matters at all

I am saying that it is also subjective to claim that the moral standards of a religion and the national law of a country are absolutely objective.

China's "one child" law, that is considered very subjective today, as it was the opinion of the Chinese authorities in the 70's and there are studies today that show that entire generations of Chinese grew up as only-children and lack social skills usually common in people with siblings.

Anyway I've been through this much earlier in this thread. You have faith that the religious laws you follow are objective. You have faith that your beliefs are the one true set of beliefs and it is fact that you cannot argue with faith since faith is not based on fact.

[DFC]

If its pre decreed then how are you making a choice. By going to a hospital or seeking medical care, doesn't that show that you are not trusting Allahs plan for u?

Certain MAJOR EVENTS are pre-decreed like time of birth, death, not HOW you live and HOW you die!

You choose to smoke and then suffer for years with cancer until you die OR you choose to NOT smoke and die of "natural causes" at the same time but with much better quality of life.

Do you think, where you are born and the state you are born in is also pre-ordained by Allah?

[Habit7]

I am saying that it is also subjective to claim that the moral standards of a religion and the national law of a country are absolutely objective.

They are objective with the caveat of "strict adherence in one area, freedom in another." Your example more speaks of lack of enforcement rather if those people are violating the law.

You have faith that your beliefs are the one true set of beliefs and it is fact that you cannot argue with faith since faith is not based on fact.

Faith is based on fact, we both have the same evidence in front of us, I might come to one conclusion, you to another. But we either one of us is right or both of us are wrong.

[Dizzy28]

Decided to limit my input into the Religion thread for the new year. Would just like to leave a bit of Gandhi Ji.

I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all religions were true, and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism … So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, that not a Christian should become a Hindu, or if we are Moslems that not a Hindu or a Christian should become a Moslem, nor should we even secretly pray that anyone should be converted, but our inmost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Moslem a better Moslem and a Christian a better Christian … I broaden my Hinduism by loving other religions as my own

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I am saying that it is also subjective to claim that the moral standards of a religion and the national law of a country are absolutely objective.

They are objective with the caveat of "strict adherence in one area, freedom in another." Your example more speaks of lack of enforcement rather if those people are violating the law.

ok I think you need to spell out for me exactly what you mean by "strict adherence in one area, freedom in another".

You have faith that your beliefs are the one true set of beliefs and it is fact that you cannot argue with faith since faith is not based on fact.

Faith is based on fact, we both have the same evidence in front of us, I might come to one conclusion, you to another. But we either one of us is right or both of us are wrong.

faith [feyth]
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:

If something is fact or there is proof that it is fact then faith in it being true is not required!

I am not saying what you believe in is wrong. I am saying that it is only YOUR opinion that it is right.

[Habit7]

"strict adherence in one area, freedom in another" means murder of the innocent is objectivity wrong whether religious morals or national law. Speech however, is limited to whether it causes offence, deception, etc based on how it is perceived.


I am guessing you are getting you definitions from http://www.dictionary.com and while there are 8 definitions for faith you chose 2 that fitted your rebuttal. But since the context is religion I think its best to use the definition of faith that relates to religion, and that was the faith I was referring to. Plus even your highlighted definitions' example on the page, doesn't match the context you were speak of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

My faith is based in the historical fact of a historical individual detailed in the most historically accurate book of antiquity. I admitted since the page before that I subjectively believe I am right. But so say my belief is not based on evidential fact is wrong.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

"strict adherence in one area, freedom in another" means murder of the innocent is objectivity wrong whether religious morals or national law. Speech however, is limited to whether it causes offence, deception, etc based on how it is perceived.

in Nazi Germany it was legal to kill Jews. Today we consider those Jews to be innocent - again all based on perception.

I am saying that it is ALL based on perception. It is ALL subjective.

I am guessing you are getting you definitions from http://www.dictionary.com and while there are 8 definitions for faith you chose 2 that fitted your rebuttal. But since the context is religion I think its best to use the definition of faith that relates to religion, and that was the faith I was referring to. Plus even your highlighted definitions' example on the page, doesn't match the context you were speak of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

My faith is based in the historical fact of a historical individual detailed in the most historically accurate book of antiquity. I admitted since the page before that I subjectively believe I am right. But so say my belief is not based on evidential fact is wrong.

no I chose the one that dealt with the words "fact" and "proof" - which are the words we were talking about since you said "Faith is based on fact" and I was showing you that based on the definition of faith it is not. Again if something was fact, faith in it would not be needed.

An you are saying the definition of faith is not the proper context? that is the definition, that is what the word means!

Faith has nothing to do with fact - it only has to do with belief.
Alot of kids have faith that Santa Claus exists. The kids may THINK they have proof, but adults know better.