Why follow God and what makes it moral?

So we see above, a set of double standards. On the one hand it is OK for a secular individual to allege the existence of some other person, but on the other hand, when it comes to Religion (non secular) it is not OK for someone to write about the existence of another person.

In the case of the Religious writings, it is all fairy tale (according to folks such as some atheists) but the same type (fictitious) writing on secular matters is given the seal of approval by folks (such as some atheists). Both types (secular and religious) in the cases mentioned should be grouped in the same category in the libraries.... Fictional... That would place them all on equal footing considering that they were written by fictitious persons.

In effect you have no argument against my claims because the same argument can be mirrored against your claims when it come to the teachings of A, P and S. I include A and P in that grouping because they are the two responsible for spreading the fairy tale about S.

 

You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

I see, so you know the motives and hidden thoughts of every person on the planet. Your understanding of religion such that you can glean virtual omniscience from the few people you have seen practicing religion is breathtaking. Though, I have to say, given your irrational reverence for a piece of cloth gussied up with stars and bars and referred to as a flag, I can't really take your pretense at knowledge based on reasoning very seriously.

 

So do you disagree that there are universally preferred behaviors? I can name a few to prove you wrong if you do disagree, but I'll see what your answer is first. And no, not all of them are part of the social fabric.

 

On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount and some of the teachings, such as on forgiveness and the nature of God, by Jesus do not stand or fall on the existence of Jesus. Much of Christianity would fall if Jesus is not the Son of God, but there are branches of Christianity that do not hold Jesus as God, or, at least, don't really consider it important.

 

I have never discounted the existence of Jesus. I have discounted religious writings as being evidence of Jesus' existence. HUGE difference, my friend.

There is no reason that Jesus should not have existed. There's just no evidence.

Religious writings are fairy tales because that is the nature of religion, Incorporeal, not because the people who wrote them down or the people (people, not gods) that appear in such tales are necessarily fictional. As has been said so many times by now on this forum, that something is fiction does not exclude the use of real people, places or events. And that real people, places or events appear in fiction does not make fiction non-fictional.

 

That is true. The phrase "more or less" was carefully considered.

 

Which is it then 'More' or 'less'? That kind of statement of yours causes others to look upon your comment as one that was made by someone who had no real idea of what he was talking about. In other words, you cannot validate that statement with any type of empirical evidence.

 

With an infinity of interpretations of writings about Jesus, you expect me to say something else than "more or less" about all parts predicated upon the existence of Jesus? Are ya bonkers?

 

Unfortunately for all concerned, the historicity of Jesus is well documented and period experts have, with near unanimous consensus, deemed the Jesus Myth to be a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy.

So, the question as to whether things hang on the existence of Jesus is moot. Jesus was a real man, and he said things that are collected in the Bible.

You know this BB - stop feeding the conspiracy theorists.

I will remind you of the unbpardonable sin BB. You KNOW. And to preach against it anyway? Well, that is certainly something you will be called to account for some day.

 

Are you suggesting that you do not know enough about the Bible (that part about Jesus and his teachings) to enable you to be qualified to give such an informed statement of understanding?

 

Cop out.

There is far more agreement between the various denominations then there are disagreements.

As is typical of atheism, you claim a mantel of expertise that is simply absent in reality.

#1 - you are clearly ignorant of teh historicity of Jesus. To deny this wide, and near unanimous academic opinion, is tantamount to the three monkeys. It is the opposite of expertise.

#2 - to avoid taking an opinion on the teachings of Jesus is just a cop out. Someone who has apparently studied the documentation to the point that they would reject accepted paradigms and yet be unable to form tangent opinions about something is nothing short of a charlatan - quite the opposite of an expert.

Again, to disagree with religion is one things. To be an ass about it is just silly. There is a huge difference between valid criticism and obvious obstinancy.

 

Have a discussion. Leave the threats on the sidelines, please.

 

There are vast differences in interpretation, even among devout believers. Why would acknowledging this be a cop out? Why would it cause you to strike out and call someone an "ass"?
The only accepted paradigms are the ones we individually accept. In reality, it's all up to interpretation.

 

Its not a threat - its in the Bible.

Its a promise brother.

You choose what you want to do, but YOU KNOW. And you preach against it anyway.

 

No serious scholar doubts the historicity of Jesus. Not one.

And no, there is no serious disagreement about things like the fruits of the spirit, the Holy Ghost, the different views of the manifestation of God (Trinity) is markedly similar for all its differences in denominations.

All are love centered, all preach compassion (save the church of Jesus Christ Christian), and all preach the power of forgiveness.

How do you know which one is correct? Ask God. Listen to the holy spirit. Any of them that helps you build a relationshiup with God is a good one. Any of them that helps you find standards and wisdom to be a better person is a good one.

 

Neutral... you must have forgotten. BB is one that 'no longer believes' in what he used to preach. If in fact he preached what the Bible says. He might have been preaching something else.

 

Speculation in lieu of good argumentation.
We've been down this road before.

 

Simply stating that the Bible is inerrant and so your threats are justified is weak argument, because you can't provide proof, only your faith.
I don't KNOW what you think you do. We have come to different conclusions. I don't want to change what you believe nor will I waste my time trying to convince you of anything.
To me, we spend hours arguing about the unknowable, which is stated often in your Bible, actually.
That is why I am neither an atheist or a believer.
Your promise is from your faith, not some demonstrable truth. For me it is simply a threat.
Can we leave it at that?

 

No speculation. Just an advisory to a friend based on my opinion. On the other hand, your statements above are evidence of your continued travel down the road of ignorance of the subject matter. You think you know me, but you don't know me well enough that you can interpret either my thoughts or my intentions.

 

But you think you can determine what I used to preach, based on what?
Do you see the logical disconnect in what you are doing?
Your thoughts and intentions remain a mystery to many who read what you write on here.
I agree.

 

Did I attempt to make a determination? No! I merely made a suggestion of a probability. Look at my statement again:
"Neutral... you must have forgotten. BB is one that 'no longer believes' in what he used to preach. If in fact he preached what the Bible says. He might have been preaching something else.

First emphasized text above: "no longer believes": your own admission.
Second emphasized text above: "If": creates an immediate hypothetical.
Third emphasized text above: "might have been"; again creating another hypothetical.

All probabilities..

"logical disconnect"? Well of course. You no longer adhere/believe strong enough to preach the teachings of the Bible, therefore, there would be a logical disconnect. You have converted to rationalization ... a tool of the religion of science,,, as opposed to using the logic used by the Christ.

 

I didn't say the the Bible is inerrant did I? I believe I referrenced a specific admonition from the Bible.

I said those who know God is real, really know it, and seek to undermine it anyway?

"28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:28-29)

You know brother, and you seek to deny the historicity of Jeses and pick and choose which parts of the Bible you find valid. You know.

You make your choices BB, but you above all the atheists on this forum know better and choose it anyway. And you know the consequences of your choices.

 

No, Neutral.
I know what YOU think the consequences are. That's all.

 

Talk all you want BB.

You know what the Bible says and you know God is real. Sell the snake oil to the atheists you can fool.

 

From preaching to mind reading. Quite a shift.