Hebrews 10:17 Then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Going to the bible one can pull a verse to prove just about anything.
WW’s verse is quite damning and declares it would be better for a person to die than cause a little one to sin.
My two verses show a God that is very forgiving, and willing to forgive all indiscretions.
I guess it all depends on how you might feel on any given day. Do you want to come down hard on someone, or is your plan to exercise discretion and treat the sinner gently?
You can choose A,B, or C, or all of the above.
I think it IS true, no matter who said it, that pulling one verse out and isolating it from its context can make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually said.
(The same is true of all literature. "Now is the winter of our discontent" is taken to mean that the speaker is now unhappy. The sentence read "Now is the winter of our discontent MADE GLORIOUS SUMMER by this sun of York." So, the speaker was now HAPPY.)
As for Matthew 18: 6-7, the context doesn't affect the meaning- so the most obvious reading of those verses is what I said it was, as just about anyone can see if they try honestly. (My condolences to those whose reading abilities aren't up to that task, or for reading my posts for that matter.)
As for I John 1:9, even the quoted verse makes it clear that the forgiveness is dependent upon the sinner CONFESSING. The context spells out that it's about the sinner repenting- since the preceding and especially following chapter go into how a follower of Jesus is to do what he says, and that we have an advocate in Jesus if and when we sin.
So, those verses don't contradict to me. Those people like vpw who cause the "little ones" to stumble don't do one act in one instant- they set up plans and elaborate snares- like vpw did. These aren't people who are sorry for hurting others- they may get sorry FOR GETTING CAUGHT, but not for sinning. So, the forgiveness of I John 1:9 has nothing to do with them. That's for a sincere follower who slips, not an evil plagiarizing rapist whose main regrets are either getting caught, or regrets he couldn't rape MORE.
Hebrews 10 is a much more complicated matter. Hebrews 10:17 is part of a passage contrasting the Mosaic Law and the post-Pentecostal covenant.
"16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD : I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says,17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
In fact, if you keep reading the chapter, what sounded like Christians getting a blank check on sinning sounds like nothing of the kind.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
So far, it's all fairly consistent. The follower who stumbles and repents gets forgiveness, and the one who claims to be a follower but causes the followers themselves to stumble aren't followers- so they don't repent and they don't get forgiveness. I find that comforting, but not everyone would. Certainly someone like vpw who caused the little ones to stumble wouldn't like it, but they won't repent of the evil of their actions, either.
Not that the way I look at the issue matters to anyone (no homework assignment here ) but I see the question of raising a child as an atheist is a question distinct from but still sort of related to morality without religion.
Lots of good stuff on this thread. Thank you all. Rocky, I watched the Sagan video and I was glad to see it. I've often had similar thoughts when confronted with the idea of how the universe appeared out of "nothing." I see no evidence that the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" by any philosophical definition, and the definition in physics is something I fail to grasp. I trust that physicists know physics better than I do, so when someone like Lawrence Krauss (sp?) discusses the subject, I feel compelled to yield to his expertise even though it sounds ad hoc to me.
All of which is to say, I do not believe the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" to begin with, and I am just as justified and making that presumption as a theist is in saying "well God exists outside of time and space and matter." You have to establish that there is such a thing as "outside of time and space and matter" to make such an assertion, and you can't. It's beyond our capability as human beings with brains.
I do see, however, that part of this discussion has looked at the issue of morality, being and doing good. I had a rather clumsy thread about the subject a few years ago called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" The thread became problematic, as is sometimes the case (especially with my hothead). But it was a good dive into a complicated question that, at least to me, has a simple resolution once you realize the "trick" that is being attempted.
And this goes directly to teaching children about morality. We teach children that they are always being watched. By their parents, by their teachers, by Santa Claus, by God. This is our way of modifying their behavior by suggesting that there will be some accountability for their actions. With children, well, they really ARE being watched almost all the time. So at some point, a mature person must wrestle with the realization that there are times when they are NOT being watched. Morality is our capacity to do the right thing when we are NOT being watched.
Religion, in my view, robs us of this avenue of growth by insisting there is never a time we are not being watched and that all of our actions will either be penalized or rewarded.
And those of us who do not believe in a deity are chastised because we do not believe in (what they call) "objective morality."
That's the trick. To get people to subscribe to "objective morality" and then to assert that such a thing is impossible without a God.
I agree: Objective morality is impossible without a God.
I also do not believe there is a God (certainly not a relevant one to this discussion: a deist God might as well not exist so I don't spend much time thinking about his preferences).
So I believe objective morality is impossible.
Of COURSE it's impossible.
Objective morality is as pointless as "objective beauty." There is no such thing. Finding something "beautiful" is an opinion. You and I may both recognize that Jennifer Love Hewitt is more beautiful than, say, Kathy Griffin, but that does not make our assertion objectively true, no matter how much we may think it is.
The fact that something is subjectively true does not make it any less true! And that's what religion fails to understand about the nature of morality. The fact that morality is subjective does not make it less binding or less true, especially when you BASE your morality on a value that other humans share. [The opposite is also true: The fact that masses of people subjectively think something is moral does not make it so, even if their holy book says it is].
For the atheist, morality is a system of value judgments, and value judgments are inherently subjective. For the humanist, the best moral system of value judgments confers the greatest good to the greatest number of people without causing any or much corresponding, avoidable harm. We would never sacrifice a virgin to a volcano to please a god and guarantee a bumper crop of corn or tobacco.
For the theist, the idea that morality is objective and prescribed by a God absolves the individual of the responsibility of making the value judgment by which we decide something is moral. Homosexuality is wrong because God said so end of discussion and if you don't agree then you are immoral. Divorce is wrong because God said so end of discussion. Picking up sticks after sunset on Friday night is an offense worthy of death. I didn't write the book!
I think theists are just as moral as atheists. But I think they are wrong to credit God with their morality. I think most people here are moral DESPITE scripture, not because of it.
And YES, there are scriptures that cause one to aspire to be good. But would you still be good if He were not watching, with His ledger, keeping track, ready to reward you as surely as he's ready to punish those who defy Him?
I submit that you would. Just as I submit you would dismiss scriptures that conflict with your personal morality. You would (and do) find some way to explain "well it was another time" and "that was necessary then because of their culture," ignoring the fact that He had no problem prohibiting inconsequential things like cheeseburgers.
My wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. But my younger son knows I am not a believer and we talk often about doing right because it is right, regardless of who is watching, rewarding or punishing.
This is the fear Christians must deal with every thought. Not only must a Christian be aware of physical sins they have performed, but also must be aware their God keeps track of every nasty thought they think.
I have heard testimonies of Christian adults (especially males) where they shared how they struggled with Matthew 5:28 as teens and young adults. The guilt of having normal, human sexual thoughts was a tremendous burden to bear.
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Because of the purity culture within churches, many parents find it difficult to discuss healthy sexuality with their kids. Then there is how sick vp taught such matters in his Christian family and sex class which many teens took. I've also heard testimonies of Christian adults (especially women) who struggled with their sexuality once they married.
Then there's what Paul writes: 1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
What kind of advice is this to give young adults who again are having natural sexual desires?
As I was driving the other day it occurred to me how freeing it would be for a child to be raised as an atheist.
The child would not have to be concerned about which of the hundreds of gods is the correct one to obey.
The child would not have to figure out why he/she was being held responsible for the sin of biting into an apple, by a couple they never knew or met, in an imaginary garden, thousands of years ago?
If he or she happened to see a man hanging on a crucifix, they would not have to be overwhelmed by the thought they somehow caused him to be murdered.
He would not believe that Alluh would provide him 70 virgins if he murdered the infidels.
She would not be forced to wear clothing covering her entire body except for a slit to see through. Nor would she have to be concerned with her family murdering her if they determined she was disobeying god.
The child would not have to be dunked in a river to clear the sin away they supposedly caused to get that guy murdered hanging on the crucifix.
Thanks for starting this thread a decade ago of which I now find relevant to my life. This post, however, is looking at the topic from the other side of the coin. My children left their Christian upbringing in their teens and now as adults, two of them are atheists and one has no interest in God. As a believing parent, I was concerned for them and over the years, I have prayed for them and made small attempts at changing their minds. The thought of them being left behind, going through the Great Tribulation and not having eternal life was distressful to say the least.
Now that I am an atheist myself, that crazy way of worrying is no longer an issue for me. I am happy to discuss evolution with them, and I'm sure they're relieved that I have stopped saying "I'll pray for you" whenever they're dealing with life problems. We all see my deconversion as being "better late than never."
I enjoyed reading most of the posts on this thread.
As for Matthew 18: 6-7, the context doesn't affect the meaning- so the most obvious reading of those verses is what I said it was, as just about anyone can see if they try honestly. (My condolences to those whose reading abilities aren't up to that task, or for reading my posts for that matter.)
As for I John 1:9, even the quoted verse makes it clear that the forgiveness is dependent upon the sinner CONFESSING. The context spells out that it's about the sinner repenting- since the preceding and especially following chapter go into how a follower of Jesus is to do what he says, and that we have an advocate in Jesus if and when we sin.
Hebrews 10 is a much more complicated matter. Hebrews 10:17 is part of a passage contrasting the Mosaic Law and the post-Pentecostal covenant.
"16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD : I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says,17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
In fact, if you keep reading the chapter, what sounded like Christians getting a blank check on sinning sounds like nothing of the kind.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
According to the bible, if someone is guilty of Matthew 18:6a (offending one of these little ones which believe in me) and later sincerely confesses his sin, then 1 John 1:8-9 trumps Matthew 18:6a for Matthew's verse is not called an unforgivable sin.
Two things concerning the Hebrew 10:26-31 verses (parts in blue are my doing): 1) as an atheist, I don't don't believe them to be true; and 2) the concept of such "severe" punishment for choosing to change one's mind concerning a god who made sin and death for all mankind the result of one disobedient act which itself was because of a most cunning spiritual being allowed to roam freely after his rebellion is a main reason I became an atheist. Besides, who wants to worship such an authoritative love-me-or-suffer-then-die god?
This "wise saying" reflects the nature of story much more so than that what's in the bible is the inerrant words of a God... IMO.
That's good to hear Rocky. But for those who take it as the inerrant words of God, it often results in fearful and shameful beliefs being taught to children and who then reaffirm those beliefs to themselves once they are grown.
That's good to hear Rocky. But for those who take it as the inerrant words of God, it often results in fearful and shameful beliefs being taught to children and who then reaffirm those beliefs to themselves once they are grown.
Didn't I (this morning) just read that you consider yourself atheist? I hope you are not still taking the words in the bible as the inerrant words of God. Even if so, I hope you can recognize the need to re-evaluate that position.
OTOH, are you suggesting it to be problematic how believer parents indoctrinate their children with that biblical perspective?
If so, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. But YOU do not own what those parents are doing to their children. You and I have enough of a burden figuring out how to cope with our own foibles and make adjustments to our own attitudes, beliefs, and actions without taking on the burdens of others in that way.
The link is to a YT short. It won't post the preview because there's a forbidden character in the preview title. What a PITA.
Anyway, it's about 6 practices of stoics. I don't flatter myself by saying it means I have a high IQ, but anyone can build these practices into their lives if they find them valuable.
Believers AND unbelievers can do these things and see benefit in their lives.
Didn't I (this morning) just read that you consider yourself atheist? I hope you are not still taking the words in the bible as the inerrant words of God. Even if so, I hope you can recognize the need to re-evaluate that position.
OTOH, are you suggesting it to be problematic how believer parents indoctrinate their children with that biblical perspective?
If so, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. But YOU do not own what those parents are doing to their children. You and I have enough of a burden figuring out how to cope with our own foibles and make adjustments to our own attitudes, beliefs, and actions without taking on the burdens of others in that way.
No, I haven't changed my mind. My post was concerning those who take the bible as the inerrant words of God when raising their children."
You bring up a point I've been thinking about recently. As a young atheist, I am learning about displaced anger. It still feels like my anger at times is towards God, and yet I believe there is no proof that God even exists. I'm finding then that my anger is really with the bible – that although I consider it as a book written by men, it proclaims to have divine truth and godly instructions for living.
So, just as believers are free to speak about what's in the the bible, I think atheists are free to speak their thoughts about the bible as well.
I'm not saying you are implying I'm not free to speak, but it explains where I am coming from when I do.
Edited by Charity Removed off-limit portion of post
I get it. I've been at this (developing my hopefully more mature perspective on spiritual and religious matters) for more than 30 years.
It can take time for a person to make such changes.
Yeah, when it comes to replacing (as opposed to improving) a belief, you are letting go of one thing in favour of a different one. Letting go is not easy until you have become convinced it's of no value anymore.
FIRST: NO RULES WERE VIOLATED. We did, however, drive past the politics exit and made a note of one of the flags on politics property.
NO POLITICS MEANS NO POLITICS.
Yes, I am WILDLY overreacting, but only because it is SO EASY to do the politics thing on the atheism threads.
I receive a Google alert every time a news story mentions atheism or atheists. I keep meaning to start a thread about it. But then I remember that I can't because so many of those articles are about political issues, like disagreements about whether and where to draw the line separating church and state.
Let's just keep our distance.
Criticizing Christians for using the state to enforce their beliefs is off limits. Criticizing atheists for trying to tear down any mention of God in the public square is likewise out of line.
FIRST: NO RULES WERE VIOLATED. We did, however, drive past the politics exit and made a note of one of the flags on politics property.
NO POLITICS MEANS NO POLITICS.
Yes, I am WILDLY overreacting, but only because it is SO EASY to do the politics thing on the atheism threads.
I receive a Google alert every time a news story mentions atheism or atheists. I keep meaning to start a thread about it. But then I remember that I can't because so many of those articles are about political issues, like disagreements about whether and where to draw the line separating church and state.
Let's just keep our distance.
Criticizing Christians for using the state to enforce their beliefs is off limits. Criticizing atheists for trying to tear down any mention of God in the public square is likewise out of line.
Thanks for starting this thread a decade ago of which I now find relevant to my life. This post, however, is looking at the topic from the other side of the coin. My children left their Christian upbringing in their teens and now as adults, two of them are atheists and one has no interest in God. As a believing parent, I was concerned for them and over the years, I have prayed for them and made small attempts at changing their minds. The thought of them being left behind, going through the Great Tribulation and not having eternal life was distressful to say the least.
Now that I am an atheist myself, that crazy way of worrying is no longer an issue for me. I am happy to discuss evolution with them, and I'm sure they're relieved that I have stopped saying "I'll pray for you" whenever they're dealing with life problems. We all see my deconversion as being "better late than never."
I enjoyed reading most of the posts on this thread.
Your journey to realizing there is no god sounds similar to mine in that it took a longer period of time and did not happen over night.
As a boy and man I was totally sold on the concept of worshipping a loving god in the RC religion, and it was a very high priority. I attended daily mass two times each day, served as an alter boy, sang in the church choir, and volunteered my time at church events.
After becoming disillusioned with the RC’s I quit going to church, but always wanted to please god in my mind. Then a fellow sat down next to me while eating lunch and convinced me his group knew the word of god like no other. God has audibly spoken to its founder and assured him god would teach him the bible like it had not been known since the first century.
I was sold and bought into the whole idea by taking all the classes offered, gave what little money I had on a regular basis, and went WOW for two years.
Over the years, approximately 25, I did not see the signs, miracles, and wonders the group spoke of coming into fruition. I abundantly shared but my needs were not being met. But I dared not question any of this because others had and were severally chastised for doing so.
I quit the Way and slowly figured out all religions are the same. They all chase some invisible being, but each has its own rules for pleasing their god. Which one is correct? Christian, Jew, Alluh, etc etc. Flip a coin I guess and come to the conclusion none have any truth.
This realization there is no god did not happen over night, but after years of disappointment and disillusionment. Now I lead the best life I know and am not concerned about pleasing some imaginary god.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
24
23
8
Popular Days
Oct 4
26
May 29
13
Oct 6
11
Oct 7
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 25 posts
Stayed Too Long 24 posts
chockfull 23 posts
Charity 8 posts
Popular Days
Oct 4 2023
26 posts
May 29 2024
13 posts
Oct 6 2023
11 posts
Oct 7 2023
7 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
When I was a young man raised in the Catholic Church I so much wanted to please God. But the biggest thing the church taught me was condemnation. When ever I would have a sinful thought it would send
WordWolf
I noticed earlier in the thread, you mentioned growing up Roman Catholic, and that there was a lot of guilt and condemnation served up with everything else. That's a shame, but hardly universal among
Nathan_Jr
I'm not saying I'm raising him to be an atheist or a Christian or a Buddhist or an adherent to any ideology. He knows if he wants to talk about any of it, I'm here to talk about it. I hope I'm ra
Posted Images
WordWolf
I think it IS true, no matter who said it, that pulling one verse out and isolating it from its context can make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually said.
(The same is true of all literature. "Now is the winter of our discontent" is taken to mean that the speaker is now unhappy. The sentence read "Now is the winter of our discontent MADE GLORIOUS SUMMER by this sun of York." So, the speaker was now HAPPY.)
As for Matthew 18: 6-7, the context doesn't affect the meaning- so the most obvious reading of those verses is what I said it was, as just about anyone can see if they try honestly. (My condolences to those whose reading abilities aren't up to that task, or for reading my posts for that matter.)
As for I John 1:9, even the quoted verse makes it clear that the forgiveness is dependent upon the sinner CONFESSING. The context spells out that it's about the sinner repenting- since the preceding and especially following chapter go into how a follower of Jesus is to do what he says, and that we have an advocate in Jesus if and when we sin.
So, those verses don't contradict to me. Those people like vpw who cause the "little ones" to stumble don't do one act in one instant- they set up plans and elaborate snares- like vpw did. These aren't people who are sorry for hurting others- they may get sorry FOR GETTING CAUGHT, but not for sinning. So, the forgiveness of I John 1:9 has nothing to do with them. That's for a sincere follower who slips, not an evil plagiarizing rapist whose main regrets are either getting caught, or regrets he couldn't rape MORE.
Hebrews 10 is a much more complicated matter. Hebrews 10:17 is part of a passage contrasting the Mosaic Law and the post-Pentecostal covenant.
"16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD : I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says,17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
In fact, if you keep reading the chapter, what sounded like Christians getting a blank check on sinning sounds like nothing of the kind.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
So far, it's all fairly consistent. The follower who stumbles and repents gets forgiveness, and the one who claims to be a follower but causes the followers themselves to stumble aren't followers- so they don't repent and they don't get forgiveness. I find that comforting, but not everyone would. Certainly someone like vpw who caused the little ones to stumble wouldn't like it, but they won't repent of the evil of their actions, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What happens when society stops worshipping God?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zuckerman
https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/phil-zuckerman/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not that the way I look at the issue matters to anyone (no homework assignment here
) but I see the question of raising a child as an atheist is a question distinct from but still sort of related to morality without religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Lots of good stuff on this thread. Thank you all. Rocky, I watched the Sagan video and I was glad to see it. I've often had similar thoughts when confronted with the idea of how the universe appeared out of "nothing." I see no evidence that the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" by any philosophical definition, and the definition in physics is something I fail to grasp. I trust that physicists know physics better than I do, so when someone like Lawrence Krauss (sp?) discusses the subject, I feel compelled to yield to his expertise even though it sounds ad hoc to me.
All of which is to say, I do not believe the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" to begin with, and I am just as justified and making that presumption as a theist is in saying "well God exists outside of time and space and matter." You have to establish that there is such a thing as "outside of time and space and matter" to make such an assertion, and you can't. It's beyond our capability as human beings with brains.
I do see, however, that part of this discussion has looked at the issue of morality, being and doing good. I had a rather clumsy thread about the subject a few years ago called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" The thread became problematic, as is sometimes the case (especially with my hothead). But it was a good dive into a complicated question that, at least to me, has a simple resolution once you realize the "trick" that is being attempted.
And this goes directly to teaching children about morality. We teach children that they are always being watched. By their parents, by their teachers, by Santa Claus, by God. This is our way of modifying their behavior by suggesting that there will be some accountability for their actions. With children, well, they really ARE being watched almost all the time. So at some point, a mature person must wrestle with the realization that there are times when they are NOT being watched. Morality is our capacity to do the right thing when we are NOT being watched.
Religion, in my view, robs us of this avenue of growth by insisting there is never a time we are not being watched and that all of our actions will either be penalized or rewarded.
And those of us who do not believe in a deity are chastised because we do not believe in (what they call) "objective morality."
That's the trick. To get people to subscribe to "objective morality" and then to assert that such a thing is impossible without a God.
I agree: Objective morality is impossible without a God.
I also do not believe there is a God (certainly not a relevant one to this discussion: a deist God might as well not exist so I don't spend much time thinking about his preferences).
So I believe objective morality is impossible.
Of COURSE it's impossible.
Objective morality is as pointless as "objective beauty." There is no such thing. Finding something "beautiful" is an opinion. You and I may both recognize that Jennifer Love Hewitt is more beautiful than, say, Kathy Griffin, but that does not make our assertion objectively true, no matter how much we may think it is.
The fact that something is subjectively true does not make it any less true! And that's what religion fails to understand about the nature of morality. The fact that morality is subjective does not make it less binding or less true, especially when you BASE your morality on a value that other humans share. [The opposite is also true: The fact that masses of people subjectively think something is moral does not make it so, even if their holy book says it is].
For the atheist, morality is a system of value judgments, and value judgments are inherently subjective. For the humanist, the best moral system of value judgments confers the greatest good to the greatest number of people without causing any or much corresponding, avoidable harm. We would never sacrifice a virgin to a volcano to please a god and guarantee a bumper crop of corn or tobacco.
For the theist, the idea that morality is objective and prescribed by a God absolves the individual of the responsibility of making the value judgment by which we decide something is moral. Homosexuality is wrong because God said so end of discussion and if you don't agree then you are immoral. Divorce is wrong because God said so end of discussion. Picking up sticks after sunset on Friday night is an offense worthy of death. I didn't write the book!
I think theists are just as moral as atheists. But I think they are wrong to credit God with their morality. I think most people here are moral DESPITE scripture, not because of it.
And YES, there are scriptures that cause one to aspire to be good. But would you still be good if He were not watching, with His ledger, keeping track, ready to reward you as surely as he's ready to punish those who defy Him?
I submit that you would. Just as I submit you would dismiss scriptures that conflict with your personal morality. You would (and do) find some way to explain "well it was another time" and "that was necessary then because of their culture," ignoring the fact that He had no problem prohibiting inconsequential things like cheeseburgers.
My wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. But my younger son knows I am not a believer and we talk often about doing right because it is right, regardless of who is watching, rewarding or punishing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I have heard testimonies of Christian adults (especially males) where they shared how they struggled with Matthew 5:28 as teens and young adults. The guilt of having normal, human sexual thoughts was a tremendous burden to bear.
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Because of the purity culture within churches, many parents find it difficult to discuss healthy sexuality with their kids. Then there is how sick vp taught such matters in his Christian family and sex class which many teens took. I've also heard testimonies of Christian adults (especially women) who struggled with their sexuality once they married.
Then there's what Paul writes: 1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
What kind of advice is this to give young adults who again are having natural sexual desires?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks for starting this thread a decade ago of which I now find relevant to my life. This post, however, is looking at the topic from the other side of the coin. My children left their Christian upbringing in their teens and now as adults, two of them are atheists and one has no interest in God. As a believing parent, I was concerned for them and over the years, I have prayed for them and made small attempts at changing their minds. The thought of them being left behind, going through the Great Tribulation and not having eternal life was distressful to say the least.
Now that I am an atheist myself, that crazy way of worrying is no longer an issue for me. I am happy to discuss evolution with them, and I'm sure they're relieved that I have stopped saying "I'll pray for you" whenever they're dealing with life problems. We all see my deconversion as being "better late than never."
I enjoyed reading most of the posts on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
I agree it's a wise saying and offers hope to parents, but it's not always true. And in some cases, it's even a good thing when it isn't.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
According to the bible, if someone is guilty of Matthew 18:6a (offending one of these little ones which believe in me) and later sincerely confesses his sin, then 1 John 1:8-9 trumps Matthew 18:6a for Matthew's verse is not called an unforgivable sin.
Two things concerning the Hebrew 10:26-31 verses (parts in blue are my doing): 1) as an atheist, I don't don't believe them to be true; and 2) the concept of such "severe" punishment for choosing to change one's mind concerning a god who made sin and death for all mankind the result of one disobedient act which itself was because of a most cunning spiritual being allowed to roam freely after his rebellion is a main reason I became an atheist. Besides, who wants to worship such an authoritative love-me-or-suffer-then-die god?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This "wise saying" reflects the nature of story much more so than that what's in the bible is the inerrant words of a God... IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
That's good to hear Rocky. But for those who take it as the inerrant words of God, it often results in fearful and shameful beliefs being taught to children and who then reaffirm those beliefs to themselves once they are grown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Didn't I (this morning) just read that you consider yourself atheist? I hope you are not still taking the words in the bible as the inerrant words of God. Even if so, I hope you can recognize the need to re-evaluate that position.
OTOH, are you suggesting it to be problematic how believer parents indoctrinate their children with that biblical perspective?
If so, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. But YOU do not own what those parents are doing to their children. You and I have enough of a burden figuring out how to cope with our own foibles and make adjustments to our own attitudes, beliefs, and actions without taking on the burdens of others in that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
https://youtube.com/shorts/d2U-UZRTRuE?si=TKKE2oXYayHuv61_
The link is to a YT short. It won't post the preview because there's a forbidden character in the preview title. What a PITA.
Anyway, it's about 6 practices of stoics. I don't flatter myself by saying it means I have a high IQ, but anyone can build these practices into their lives if they find them valuable.
Believers AND unbelievers can do these things and see benefit in their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
No, I haven't changed my mind. My post was concerning those who take the bible as the inerrant words of God when raising their children."
You bring up a point I've been thinking about recently. As a young atheist, I am learning about displaced anger. It still feels like my anger at times is towards God, and yet I believe there is no proof that God even exists. I'm finding then that my anger is really with the bible – that although I consider it as a book written by men, it proclaims to have divine truth and godly instructions for living.
So, just as believers are free to speak about what's in the the bible, I think atheists are free to speak their thoughts about the bible as well.
I'm not saying you are implying I'm not free to speak, but it explains where I am coming from when I do.
Edited by CharityRemoved off-limit portion of post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I get it. I've been at this (developing my hopefully more mature perspective on spiritual and religious matters) for more than 30 years.
It can take time for a person to make such changes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Yeah, when it comes to replacing (as opposed to improving) a belief, you are letting go of one thing in favour of a different one. Letting go is not easy until you have become convinced it's of no value anymore.
Carry on developing Rocky...
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Let's nip this in the bud.
FIRST: NO RULES WERE VIOLATED. We did, however, drive past the politics exit and made a note of one of the flags on politics property.
NO POLITICS MEANS NO POLITICS.
Yes, I am WILDLY overreacting, but only because it is SO EASY to do the politics thing on the atheism threads.
I receive a Google alert every time a news story mentions atheism or atheists. I keep meaning to start a thread about it. But then I remember that I can't because so many of those articles are about political issues, like disagreements about whether and where to draw the line separating church and state.
Let's just keep our distance.
Criticizing Christians for using the state to enforce their beliefs is off limits. Criticizing atheists for trying to tear down any mention of God in the public square is likewise out of line.
Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Good catch! I've edited the post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Your journey to realizing there is no god sounds similar to mine in that it took a longer period of time and did not happen over night.
As a boy and man I was totally sold on the concept of worshipping a loving god in the RC religion, and it was a very high priority. I attended daily mass two times each day, served as an alter boy, sang in the church choir, and volunteered my time at church events.
After becoming disillusioned with the RC’s I quit going to church, but always wanted to please god in my mind. Then a fellow sat down next to me while eating lunch and convinced me his group knew the word of god like no other. God has audibly spoken to its founder and assured him god would teach him the bible like it had not been known since the first century.
I was sold and bought into the whole idea by taking all the classes offered, gave what little money I had on a regular basis, and went WOW for two years.
Over the years, approximately 25, I did not see the signs, miracles, and wonders the group spoke of coming into fruition. I abundantly shared but my needs were not being met. But I dared not question any of this because others had and were severally chastised for doing so.
I quit the Way and slowly figured out all religions are the same. They all chase some invisible being, but each has its own rules for pleasing their god. Which one is correct? Christian, Jew, Alluh, etc etc. Flip a coin I guess and come to the conclusion none have any truth.
This realization there is no god did not happen over night, but after years of disappointment and disillusionment. Now I lead the best life I know and am not concerned about pleasing some imaginary god.
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Very interesting…..destroys the concept that a nation must believe in god for there to be peaceful coexistence in that country.
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.