So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[joobz]

Maybe this requires a definition. Does "ungodly" mean God is against it, or does it simply mean that God is not involved?

I hate to break my own promise, but I must clarify this.
BAsed upon the context to which I took DOC's previous statement, it is clear "ungodly" simply means that god is not involved.

The above might not be Christians but do you have any sources that they are atheists and not agnostics.

And any money people give to ungodly causes will ultimately be a detriment to humanity. For example if Jolie adopting a foreign child and bringing that child to the US is not of God, it will do more harm than good even if on the surface it looks like a good deed. Hopefully it is a Godly act, I don't know for sure. But I do believe anything not of God will ultimately fail, and I think history bears that out. For example, the atheistic Soviet Union was definitely not of God and it failed.

bolding mine.


again, I apologize to everyone for propogating this point. I just do not like my credibility being questioned.
I think it only right for DOC to apologize for wrongly insinuating that I would be dishonest.

 

[articulett]

DOC apologize? As if! Has a theist preaching here ever apologized?

 

[DOC]

Maybe this requires a definition. Does "ungodly" mean God is against it, or does it simply mean that God is not involved?

My definition of an ungodly activity is that The God, that is revealed to us in the New Testament, would not approve of that activity.

 

[joobz]

My definition of an ungodly activity is that The God, that is revealed to us in the New Testament, would not approve of that activity.

Ok, so anything that is given approval of in the new testament would be deemed a godly act?

So is slavery a godly act?

 

[DOC]

Ok, so anything that is given approval of in the new testament would be deemed a godly act?

So is slavery a godly act?

Where does it say in the New Testament that God approves of slavery.

 

[joobz]

Where does it say in the New Testament that God approves of slavery.

well you have
Ephesians 6:5-10

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

and

Timothy 6:1-2

1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

and
Jesus uses slavery as a parable to illustate a point
Luke 12:46-57

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Seems odd. If god didn't approve of slavery, then why were their so many rules about how a servant/master were to behave. You'd think god would have said something like, "Slavery is bad...ok. You shouldn't have slaves...mmkay."

 

[DOC]

well you have
Ephesians 6:5-10


and

Timothy 6:1-2


and
Jesus uses slavery as a parable to illustate a point
Luke 12:46-57


Seems odd. If god didn't approve of slavery, then why were their so many rules about how a servant/master were to behave. You'd think god would have said something like, "Slavery is bad...ok. You shouldn't have slaves...mmkay."

Well this thread is not really about slavery in the bible, but since you brought it up this website goes into depth about it from a Christian standpoint. Also notice endnote #8 which is a secular Roman source. Notice the willingness of some Christian slaves of the time to die rather than recant their faith. Also notice they were already (around 100 AD) having one day a week to worship and to sing hymns to Christ.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

 

[joobz]

Well this thread is not really about slavery in the bible, but since you brought it up this website goes into depth about it from a Christian standpoint. Also notice endnote #8 which is a secular Roman source. Notice the willingness of some Christian slaves of the time to die rather than recant their faith. Also notice they were already (around 100 AD) having one day a week to worship and to sing hymns to Christ.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

You said what god approved of in the new testament is godly. It is clear that jesus never said, "don't have slaves." Nor did he say, "I'm against slavery." Rather, the new testament gives rules on how master's and slaves are to behave. In orther words, he didn't forbid christian's from holding slaves. No amount of apologetics will avoid this fact (btw, why is born into slavery less terrible than being sold into slavery?). the god of the new testament approved of slavery, otherwise he would have banned or forbidded the practice. Since he didn't, slavery is godly by your claims.

You're in a bit of pickle here.

Either Ungodly means things that are not approved by god, which means that slavery is godly.

or

Ungodly means things which do not involve god, which means that you must apologize to me for falsely accusing me of misrepresenting your position.

You have to either apologize or you defacto admit that your god holds immoral views.

 

[zooterkin]

It's a simple matter of knowing that you equate non-martial sex as evil to see the logical conclusion.

Onward Christian soldiers...

 

[joobz]

Onward Christian soldiers...

Well it would be civilian sex, right?

 

[DOC]

You said what god approved of in the new testament is godly. It is clear that jesus never said, "don't have slaves."

That's because He said Love your neighbor as yourself. And do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's a very obvious inference.

Do you really think Martin Luther King whose holiday we recently celebrated would have been a Christian pastor if he thought Jesus and God approved of slavery. And do you really think Barack Obama would go out of his way to let people know he was a devout Christian if he or blacks believed Jesus and God approved of slavery.

 

[m_huber]

I am amazed at how fast this thread has moved. Really a shame, since so many interesting posts are buried in here.

Well, Pascal was a bit of an enigma. I don't know if he changed between the time he made his famous "wager" and the time he made this quote (taken from the book that both you and I own) or if he was alternately lucid and loony.

Since graduating college, I have pulled out my philosophy book more than any other. I did again for this question.

From Norman Lillegard, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy:

After a religious experience in 1654, Pascal joined the ascetic Jansenist religious order and devoted most of his writing to theology.
...
And, even though he strongly attacks religious skepticism, he nevertheless believes that the traditional arguments for God's existence fail: There is "too much to deny, yet too little to be sure." Religious belief, then, is a matter of faith and not reason. The most famous part of the work [Thoughts] is the "wager": When reason is neutral on the issue of God's existence, the balance of positive and negative consequences of believing versus disbelieving in God should psychologically compel us to believe that God exists.

So, Pascal changed his views later in life, but he was still doubtful of religion (hence the wager).

btw, Joobz, I went to college at UT Martin, so I'm quite familiar with your part of the world. My favorite part was how 80% of a town would go to church, yet the preachers would talk about how they were losing the town. The only thing to top that was when the Southeast was having a drought, and the preachers were talking about how it represented the "end times." Oh, those Baptists...

 

[cyborg]

Do you really think Martin Luther King whose holiday we recently celebrated would have been a Christian pastor if he thought Jesus and God approved of slavery. And do you really think Barack Obama would go out of his way to let people know he was a devout Christian if he or blacks believed Jesus and God approved of slavery.

No. And that's why we all tend to think that Christians avoid the inconvenient parts of their Holy Books.

 

[DOC]

No. And that's why we all tend to think that Christians avoid the inconvenient parts of their Holy Books.

The vast majority of Christians focus on the big picture and the "main essence" of the bible. As Norman Geisler says in his 3 volume book Systematic Theology some people forget that the Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics. Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired but it goes through 40 different human authors with 40 different personalities and literary styles to get to us. If all the Old Testaments authors had complete revelation of God, Christ would have never needed to come.

And we still only have partial revelation from God. Christ said in the Gospel of John 16:8 and John 16:13 that after He was gone he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all truth. That process of the Holy Spirit teaching us all truth is still happening.

 

[H'ethetheth]

If there were no objective moral truths then international law would be impossible. Yet there it is.

According to my ethics class, the word you're looking for is "intersubjective". That is, most humans agree on these morals. Are they, however, identical on Omicron Persii-8? Are they only applicable to members of the same species? If so, why, and what is a species? If not, then why is nature the way it is; full of organisms eating, destoying other organisms, cannibalism, parasites etc?

 

[cyborg]

The vast majority of Christians focus on the big picture and the "main essence" of the bible.

Big picture? Seems more like a blurry one to me.

As Norman Geisler says in his 3 volume book Systematic Theology some people forget that the Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics.

I think most people here would say it is a "Human Book with Human Characteristics" full-stop.

Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired but it goes through 40 different human authors with 40 different personalities and literary styles to get to us. If all the Old Testaments authors had complete revelation of God, Christ would have never needed to come.

And if the New Testament authors had complete revelation of God, Mohammed would never needed to come.

And if Mohammed has complete revelation of God, Joseph Smith would never needed to come.

Your case isn't looking any better.

And we still only have partial revelation from God. Christ said in the Gospel of John 16:8 and John 16:13 that after He was gone he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all truth. That process of the Holy Spirit teaching us all truth is still happening.

You are familiar with the concept of "lying" right? Or perhaps the less egregious - in some instances - concept of "making it up" right?

Ah, no. That would be too much to expect.

 

[DOC]

And if the New Testament authors had complete revelation of God, Mohammed would never needed to come.

And if Mohammed has complete revelation of God, Joseph Smith would never needed to come.

Mohammed certainly needed the Bible because much of the Koran has biblical characters. The same goes for Joseph Smith. In other words much of the Bible is in the Koran and other Mormon texts but none of the additional parts of the Koran and the Morman texts are in the Bible. So it can be said they needed the Bible but the Bible didn't need them.

If People (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) don't completely understand the message of Christ they fill it with something else. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times, that is before he saw something that made him very bold. The same goes for Doubting Thomas and Paul, who at one time approved of the killing of Christians. Then they got a hold of the message and here we are 2000 years later getting ready to possibly elect another very Christian president.

 

[Tricky]

And we still only have partial revelation from God. Christ said in the Gospel of John 16:8 and John 16:13 that after He was gone he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all truth. That process of the Holy Spirit teaching us all truth is still happening.

Uh oh DOC. You've just revealed a gaping hole in Christianity's armor. The Holy Spirit is still teaching? Wouldn't that imply that some of the things you thought were true haven't actually been taught yet? Wouldn't that imply that morality changes as more "lessons are learned"? Wouldn't that imply that some of the things you or Plumjam might now consider truth or "objective morality" are in actuality untrue, but will be covered in a later lesson? Supoose you later learn that the vegetarians were right and killing any animal for food is murder? Better put down that hamburger, just in case.

My, what an interesting concept. Following the changes in God's unchanging word.

 

[Lothian]

Mohammed certainly needed the Bible because much of the Koran has biblical characters. The same goes for Joseph Smith. In other words much of the Bible is in the Koran and other Mormon texts but none of the additional parts of the Koran and the Morman texts are in the Bible. So it can be said they needed the Bible but the Bible didn't need them.

If People (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) don't completely understand the message of Christ they fill it with something else.

You forget that the Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics. Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired but it goes through 40 different human authors with 40 different personalities and literary styles to get to us. If all the Old Testaments authors had complete revelation of God, Christ would have never needed to come.

And we still only have partial revelation from God. Christ said in the Gospel of John 16:8 and John 16:13 that after He was gone he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all truth. That process of the Holy Spirit taught Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

 

[Nogbad]

Mohammed certainly needed the Bible because much of the Koran has biblical characters. The same goes for Joseph Smith. In other words much of the Bible is in the Koran and other Mormon texts but none of the additional parts of the Koran and the Morman texts are in the Bible. So it can be said they needed the Bible but the Bible didn't need them.

If People (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) don't completely understand the message of Christ they fill it with something else. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times, that is before he saw something that made him very bold. The same goes for Doubting Thomas and Paul, who at one time approved of the killing of Christians. Then they got a hold of the message and here we are 2000 years later getting ready to possibly elect another very Christian president.

Hillary?