ReubenSandwich:

I think that's a good way of looking at it. I also think of it as bringing out the best in people, in society, and in the world around us.
I think that the best knowledge of right and wrong is in the words of the God's messengers, but I don't think that people have to believe that God exists to agree about what's right and wrong and to live together peacefully.

The highlighted is where majority lack wisdom {Hosea 4:6} if we are both intelligent beings (humans) our point of view on right and wrong will never agree unless there is a SUPREME BEING whose say is final. For instance let's take the case of FORNICATION (sex before marriage), God's word says it's EVIL but ask each person around you and listen to their opinion as they find excuses to engage in it.
Then watch out as a father or mother who said sex before marriage is OK gets mad at a boy who impregnates their daughter (18+) without marrying her.
The SUPREME BEING is a happy person {1Timothy 1:11} and He always wants us to be happy {Psalms 1:1-3} that's why we need Him, in the absence of the SUPREME BEING humans can never be truly happy rather we will end up thinking about how to manufacture destructive device in order to wipe ourselves due to our disparities, that's why God warned the first couple saying:

"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die" Genesis 2:17

That tree symbolises God's right to decide what is best for our bliss when men increases on the surface of the earth, it's not meant for us even if God never place a curse due to their disobedience mankind will always plan to kill one another due to contradictions in our choice of standards. So there's no way we can continue to cohabit peacefully without the SUPREME BEING: GOD

Thanks for your time!

Wilgrea7:

What exactly makes these people “prophets"? ... and what differentiates the people you regard as prophets from the ones don't regard as such.

Do you regard buddha as a prophet? What about Zoroaster? What about Joseph smith? Muhammad? L. Ron Hubbard?

I’ve revised my way of thinking about that. Now I’m only calling people “prophets” in the context of stories where they are called “prophets,” so I wouldn’t call Buddha a prophet, but I think that the stories about him contain some or all of the same knowledge, wisdom and power that is in the Abrahamic scriptures. I haven’t seen any reason for thinking that about the L Ron Hubbard stories. I’m not sure what to think about the Joseph Smith stories.

MaxInDHouse:

The highlighted is where majority lack wisdom {Hosea 4:6} if we are both intelligent beings (humans) our point of view on right and wrong will never agree unless there is a SUPREME BEING whose say is final.

It looks to me like people who believe in the same God, no matter which God they believe in, disagree about what's right and wrong as much as people who don't believe in any God at all

So there's no way we can continue to cohabit peacefully without the SUPREME BEING: GOD

I think that part of what's needed for people to learn to live together peacefully is learning to live the way Jesus in the Bible gospels says to live. He uses parables to teach us lessons, and sometimes in those parables there is a character called "God" that we can think of as the one who created us and who knows and wants what's best for us, to help us understand and practice what those parables are teaching us. If you're saying that people can't learn to live together peacefully without following God's prescriptions for living, I can agree with that in that context, where the best lessons for living are coming from the characters called "God" in the stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. People can't learn to live together without following that God's prescriptions for living, but they can learn those lessons no matter if they believe or don't believe that He actually exists.

No matter how many people agree on what's right and wrong, with or without believing in the existence of a God, that doesn't mean it will help solve any social problems. I see multitudes of people agreeing about what's right and wrong, with or without believing in the existence of a God, doing things that look to me like adding to the problems and helping to perpetuate them and make them worse. What matters to me is not for people to agree about what's right and wrong. What matters to me is for people to be learning and practicing ways of living that will actually help solve the problems, without adding to them and helping to perpetuate them and make them worse. I think that there are multitudes of people all around the world who are already doing that, and that anyone who wants to can help it happen and be part of it, no matter if they believe in the existence of a God or not.

ReubenSandwich:
No matter how many people agree on what's right and wrong, with or without believing in the existence of a God, that doesn't mean it will help solve any social problems. I see multitudes of people agreeing about what's right and wrong, with or without believing in the existence of a God, doing things that look to me like adding to the problems and helping to perpetuate them and make them worse. What matters to me is not for people to agree about what's right and wrong. What matters to me is for people to be learning and practicing ways of living that will actually help solve the problems, without adding to them and helping to perpetuate them and make them worse. I think that there are multitudes of people all around the world who are already doing that, and that anyone who wants to can help it happen and be part of it, no matter if they believe in the existence of a God or not.

The below settles this issue!

ReubenSandwich:

I think that part of what's needed for people to learn to live together peacefully is learning to live the way Jesus in the Bible gospels says to live.

For your information that's the only reason why a first century Jewish man named "Peter" after careful observation of Jesus said:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16


Some 20 centuries later an India known as Muhatma Gandhi after a thorough meditation on the life and ministry of Jesus said:

"If we all agree on the standard set by this first century Jewish man we will not only solve the problem in our country but that of the whole world" Muhatma Gandhi

And how did Jesus of Nazareth got this great wisdom?

He himself said:

"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." John 5:30

An ancient Israelites through divine inspiration foretold the coming Jesus of Nazareth referring to him as "Wonderful Counselor" Isaiah 9:6

So if Jesus could be that perfect in reasoning and he himself confirmed that a God sent him surely the whole world will be a Paradise if we all agree on the standard set by that God and this could only work out when we believe (trust) in the existence of a SUPREME BEING!

MaxInDHouse:

For your information that's the only reason why a first century Jewish man named "Peter" after careful observation of Jesus said:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16

Agreed. That’s how it looks to me.

So if Jesus could be that perfect in reasoning and he himself confirmed that a God sent him surely the whole world will be a Paradise if we all agree on the standard set by that God and this could only work out when we believe (trust) in the existence of a SUPREME BEING!

Maybe sometimes people wouldn’t agree to follow Jesus without believing in the existence of a God, or at least they think they wouldn’t, but not always. People can think that everything that Jesus says is metaphorical. That actually even makes Him look better to people sometimes.
[/quote]

ReubenSandwich:

Agreed. That’s how it looks to me.
Maybe sometimes people wouldn’t agree to follow Jesus without believing in the existence of a God, or at least they think they wouldn’t, but not always. People can think that everything that Jesus says is metaphorical. That actually even makes Him look better to people sometimes.

Right and Wrong should be determined by a perfect human since we all agreed that we are not perfect!

MaxInDHouse:

Right and Wrong should be determined by a perfect human since we all agreed that we are not perfect!

I don’t think that people need to believe that Jesus is perfect, or to have any other beliefs about Him, to learn to live peacefully together. As long as they are willing to use His teachings to help them learn to live a better life, there will be progress.

ReubenSandwich:


I don’t think that people need to believe that Jesus is perfect, or to have any other beliefs about Him, to learn to live peacefully together. As long as they are willing to use His teachings to help them learn to live a better life, there will be progress.

Please how do you explain the highlighted?

Why consider the teachings of a first century Jewish carpenter if he is not PERFECT?

MaxInDHouse:

Please how do you explain the highlighted?

Why consider the teachings of a first century Jewish carpenter if he is not PERFECT?

Seriously? You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote His teachings without thinking that He was perfect? You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, without thinking that they were perfect?

MaxInDHouse:


First of all i want you to know that the SUPREME BEING has no nation situated in one geographical location that's using His laws today and when talking about success in morality it's obvious you still need some enlightenment on that.
Success in morality is when we live without anyone carrying weapons in our society as law enforcement agents. So where there are law enforcement agents around morality is a failure that's why you need fully armed men to force what you've signed into law on everyone.
In a society where the SUPREME BEING rules we don't need weapons to force ourselves in living by what we've all agreed upon as standard from the supreme being!

But your Supreme being has been ruling for at least 2000 years now and yet law enforcement agents were being used to force people to follow the law.

Even in the Bible, your Supreme being punished Adam and Eve, drowned humanity in a flood, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, used snakes to attack the Israelites in the wilderness and other barbaric ways of enforcing laws your Supreme Being used in the Bible that are so much if I start listing them here.

So if I agree with you that a society that is successful in morality do not need law enforcement agents to force people to live by the law, then dear brother Maximus, your Supreme being fails woefully in that.

ReubenSandwich:


Saying that I think of the words of some prophets metaphorically as words of God doesn't mean that I take them literally. Also, I don't think that we have any way of knowing how well their words were translated and preserved, before they were written into the manuscripts that have been found.
I agree that even if a person is thinking about God metaphorically, they can still be helping to perpetuate the problems.

The bolded still confirms my opinion that you are an Abrahamic theist. As Wilgrea7 asserted, why do you see these people as prophets and not Buddha, or Joseph Smith, or Confucius, or Zoroaster, or even Plato or Aristotle, Socrates, etc.? Because you believe in the God of the Bible even though you claim to take the words of his prophets metaphorically.

ReubenSandwich:


That started me on a new line of thinking about using the word “God.” I might want to practice and promote using it only in the context of understanding what lessons are being taught in Abrahamic scriptures. Thinking of them as collections of parables to teach lessons, with the word "God" being used sometimes as a name for one of the characters in a parable. The "God" in one parable might be a completely different character from the "God" in another one.

You're still helping to perpetuating the problem sir.
You can simply promote these teachings without seeing them as words of God but picking the useful lessons from them, relating them with our present time and teaching them to people in another way.

Moreso, people shouldn't stick with these lessons as absolute truths but should open their minds to new ways of thinking that are useful to them and to their society and more importantly, discover their own truths by themselves (with a foundation in critical thinking and rationality).

ReubenSandwich:


I have a different theory about that, but I don't know if it would be interesting or not to discuss it.

And what is that?

With your statements here, I still think you believe in the Abrahamic God but I would love to still hear your further opinions about his laws and his holy books.

AuthenticKing:

You can simply promote these teachings without seeing them as words of God but picking the useful lessons from them, relating them with our present time and teaching them to people in another way.

Moreso, people shouldn't stick with these lessons as absolute truths but should open their minds to new ways of thinking that are useful to them and to their society and more importantly, discover their own truths by themselves (with a foundation in critical thinking and rationality).

A gri.

AuthenticKing:

I've seen the holy books for what they are: books written by men like you and I to explain what they didn't understand. Using the propensity for man to believe in a supernatural being, they created the concept of gods that suited their culture, time and personal desires and whims.

ReubenSandwich:

I have a different theory about that, but I don't know if it would be interesting or not to discuss it.

AuthenticKing:

And what is that?

I think that there were spiritual teachers who taught with parables, using words which are sometimes translated into English as "God," as names for characters in those parables who represent metaphorically a supreme source of knowledge, wisdom and power who created us and who knows and wants what's best for us. Their parables included parables about themselves as messengers of that God. Their sayings and parables continued circulating among their followers until they were written down. That's my theory about how the Abrahamic scriptures were written.

ReubenSandwich:

Seriously? You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote His teachings without thinking that He was perfect? You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, without thinking that they were perfect?

That's why their practices never yield positive results throughout the world.
The one and only group practicing what Jesus taught is known today as JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES everything Jesus said about his group fits in perfectly with this group because they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the true God: Perfect human! John 3:16

ReubenSandwich:

You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote His teachings without thinking that He was perfect? You don't know about the multitudes of people who practice and promote the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, without thinking that they were perfect?

MaxInDHouse:

… their practices never yield positive results throughout the world.

I don’t believe that you could honestly, sincerely, seriously think that their practices never yield positive results.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that people can learn, and multitudes of people are learning, to practice together the teachings of Jesus, without all of them believing in the existence of a God, and I think that’s helping to reduce the damage now from the ravages of human nature, and part of what will mostly stop them from happening some day. More than that, it’s helping to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society, and in the world around us.

The only reason I'm still posting here is hoping to have some conversations with someone about spiritual training of children, spiritual community development, personal spiritual growth, and/or other ways of helping to reduce the damage now from the ravages of human nature; helping to stop them from happening; and helping to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us. I understand that one way for some people is promoting and defending some religious beliefs, or challenging them, but if religious beliefs are the only topic that anyone wants to discuss here, in relation to human progress and improving the lives of all people everywhere, it isn't enough for me to keep posting here.

ReubenSandwich:

I don’t believe that you could honestly, sincerely, seriously think that their practices never yield positive results.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that people can learn, and multitudes of people are learning, to practice together the teachings of Jesus, without all of them believing in the existence of a God, and I think that’s helping to reduce the damage now from the ravages of human nature, and part of what will mostly stop them from happening some day. More than that, it’s helping to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society, and in the world around us.

Jesus' teachings is just for one purpose:

To unite all adherents of his counsel in LOVE {John 13:34-35} JOY {Luke 10:17} and PEACE! John 14:26-27

This is what will lead them to form a global family of peace loving worshipers as foretold by two prophets! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:13

It's not just for each individual to pick whatever suits him or her them form his or her own personal opinion on what Jesus taught. That will amount to disparities among those claiming believers in Jesus hence LAWLESSNESS! Matthew 7:21-23

MaxInDHouse:

This is what will lead them to form a global family of peace loving worshipers as foretold by two prophets! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:13

I agree, but I think that the people in that family are not the members of any religious organization. They are people in all the religions, and outside of them, all around the world, whenever they are learning together to live the way Jesus says to live, no matter if they believe in the existence of a God or not.

It's not just for each individual to pick whatever suits him or her them form his or her own personal opinion on what Jesus taught.

A gri. People need to study and practice together, and they need to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

ReubenSandwich:

I agree, but I think that the people in that family are not the members of any religious organization. They are people in all the religions, and outside of them, all around the world, whenever they are learning together to live the way Jesus says to live, no matter if they believe in the existence of a God or not.

Lie! They must all be united under one umbrella!

ReubenSandwich:

A gri. People need to study and practice together, and they need to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

That's what is happening today in the only group practicing what Jesus taught: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES!

AuthenticKing:


Reading your comments, I was looking at you as a sort of a Christian Deist, but after reading this particular comment, I'm changing my opinion, you're a theist, an Abrahamic one.

I used to kind of see 'God' this way but not exactly your way. I was not really taking the words of the Bible literally but grabbing the 'metaphorical' meanings from it. I didn't believe the God was real (I sometimes thought he was real but his words were adulterated in many ways) but now, I've seen the holy books for what they are: books written by men like you and I to explain what they didn't understand. Using the propensity for man to believe in a supernatural being, they created the concept of gods that suited their culture, time and personal desires and whims.

Even after discovering this, I could go on telling people to see God 'metaphorically' not literally, grabbing the useful lessons from the holy books and using them to live rightly and throwing out the nonsense but by doing this, I would still be contributing to the problem, helping humans to create a sort of morality that suits them and shielding this morality from being scrutinized by inserting a 'god' in it.

I rather appeal to reality.

First, there is no such thing as a Christian deist. Looking the term up will reveal that it’s hardly distinct from atheism as we know it. The primary practical difference is that it isn’t anti-Christian.

While there are several things wrong with the unsupported conclusions you stated in your post, I’ll just point out that if Paul and Jesus’ disciples were creating a belief system based on their time and culture, it would perhaps have been smarter to create one that wouldn’t have gotten them killed.

ReubenSandwich:


I was thinking about what your main points in this discussion might be. As I understand it, your view is that believing in the God who created us and who knows and wants what's best for us, gives people a better way of knowing what's right and wrong than they can have without believing in Him. Am I understanding you correctly?

My point is that good and bad do not really exist without God.

AuthenticKing:

The bolded is what Endtimer and many Christians have failed to understand. The things we know about morality today were not as a result of God or the Bible, but because Christians (and other people from other faiths or lack of), regardless of what the Bible says, chose to update their views based on recent data, findings and knowledge.

I’ll believe this when you provide an argument proving it.

It doesn't. The first point I made in this thread assumes a God whose objective moral laws are clearly well defined... And we still run into problems.

Hopefully you are not talking about the bacteria and toilet incident and this:

If a God decides that it is moral and good to boil all first babies in hot oil till they die, and humans consider that bad, are they wrong for doing so?

Even if a God, who is the arbiter of good and bad exists, on what basis are we to say that it's definition of good and bad have to be the one we adhere to? If I choose not to boil my child in oil, that will be seen as bad as per the God's standard. But am I really wrong for not wanting to do so?

Why exactly do we need to adhere to this God's definition of right and wrong?

I already addressed this by pointing out that you wrongly assume morality is a 3-dimensional space, say a cube, and that God's morality is an arbitrary point in this space with coordinates (x, y, z). Morality as we've discussed is better imagined as a scale with maximum and minimum values at both ends, God's nature limiting the scale at the maximum end. Therefore God does not have a definition of right and wrong: He is instrumental in defining the concepts to begin with. However you choose to act is relative to God whether you accept it or not because your morality invariably falls on the scale.

Of course we run into obvious problems when we have several books, all claiming to be inspired by this said “God", and giving very conflicting messages. And that's to say nothing about the reliability of the “books" themselves.... Or things like “interpretation"

Like I've said before all one need believe is one god. Let me clarify: what you are demanding is a theistic argument. You are an atheist. This is a valid argument to have and we can have it if you wish although I doubt its productiveness. What I'm saying is that there is no morality on atheism and you will have to cross over (or at least honestly pretend to) to continue this argument for argument sake. My initial motive was to prove that morality exists in theism and that it doesn't on atheism. As such, I am reluctant to continue this discussion along these lines as I have accomplished that motive. To doubly clarify, I expected scrutiny of the level you subject Christianity to after you realized that atheism is morally subjective.

I don't see how the moral argument can stand undaunted, when the issue of “which God“ is yet to be resolved.

You are a smart person, so this should be easy for you. The obvious answer is that "the issue of which God" has nothing to do with morality on its face. If asked to prove which God is real, no one would assume that the argument being raised had anything to do with morality. You seem to be eager to argue about which God exists. This thread is already overloaded, but I'll add that it is relatively simple. All one has to do is prove that Christianity is true. Its exclusive claims would mean that its truth would necessarily invalidate every other religion.

Wilgrea7:

I would love to see a theist prove one God above the rest without any appeal to sentiment or subjective bias. Its something I've been interested in for a long time now.

Like I said, relatively easy. I can pull sources from 2,000 years of tradition and reasoning and be done with it. If you create a new thread for it let me know. Maybe, I'll create the thread myself when I have the time.

Thirdly, this is directly related to your claims about not killing being a Christianized form of morality, I have shown in my former replies, how Christianity borrowed from religions/cultures that existed before it and shown how it was really men that were creating these rules, you can check them out and read them and we can have a discussion about that.

I'll check it out although I suspect I can debunk it right now. If something is true and another religion managed to grasp it, it should be no surprise that Christianity also acknowledges it. Other religions have morsel of truths, but Christianity is the ultimate set of truth, hence some intersection is to be expected. To put it in Aquinas' words: "All truth is God's truth".

I'm not really appealing to what is moral and what is not moral but even though I do not agree with "objective morality" , what I see our society trying to achieve is what will enhance our human experience and extend it to other parts of nature. Beating one's wife or killing unbelievers might not be immoral (according to you) but for now, as long as it causes harm to individuals who suffer from it, it deprives of them the experience they would have had in the world and more importantly those who do so have no justified reasons for their actions, it's wrong .

You contradict yourself. You do not believe in objective morality yet state something to be wrong plainly. Your position seems to be that morals are grounded in advancing the human condition. Advancing the human condition does not constitute morality. You have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does without making appeals to circular logic.

What of Christians that argued on whether slavery should prevail or stop some centuries ago? The both groups appealed to the Bible (with common sense and personal preferences). But which side prevailed? That which would advance the human race and make the society move forward. (This is just one example) It's the same result we would get if I disagree with another non-believer on what morality should be.

You have a very wrong view of history. You seem to be talking mainly about the American civil war. What made the north win was superior military facilities, not fighting to advance humanity. The point I was making is that those Americans could only ever debate whether slavery was right or wrong because they believed in an objective real set of moral values. You can have similar discussions with atheists since you are committed to maintaining the useful fiction that advancing humanity makes something moral (you may not know it but this is an evil basis to ground morality, I will provide examples some other time). What I am saying is that "advancing humanity" is a circular answer to "what makes something good?" because it assumes that "advancing humanity" is good. It is therefore circular.

AuthenticKing:

A God (or gods) who hasn't been visible and consistent in his commands throughout history. A God (or gods) who gives commands we find incredulous today. The theist's answer is just an unreliable shield to hold onto.

The first statement is wrong. The second betrays a lack of understanding of the topic being discussed and the groundwork we have laid so far. The third is a conclusion drawn from false premises.

Endtimer:

My point is that good and bad do not really exist without God.

My point is that a person doesn't have to believe in the existence of any God to be as honest, trustworthy, responsible, fair, caring, monogomous, faithful, pure and chaste as any person who believes in one, or to have as much of any other qualities and virtues that people associate with morality. Are you disagreeing with that?

MaxInDHouse, you can think whatever you want to about Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm just saying that there are multitudes of people all around the world, in all the religions and outside of them, possibly including some Jehovah's witnesses but not all of them, learning together to live the way Jesus says to live, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Wilgrea7, AuthenticKing, I agree that the existence of a God does not solve any moral dilemma.

From some of your posts it looks to me like you think that challenging some religious beliefs will help solve some social problems. Maybe it will, if you are practicing and promoting good behavior in those discussions, and doing it in the right spirit and for the right reasons. However that may be, I'm saying that those beliefs don't need to change before people can start learning to work together to solve all our social problems. There are multitudes of people all around the world who have those same beliefs, and who are working side by side with people whose beliefs are opposed to theirs, learning together with them to help solve the problems.

ReubenSandwich:

My point is that a person doesn't have to believe in the existence of any God to be as honest, trustworthy, responsible, fair, caring, monogomous, faithful, pure and chaste as any person who believes in one, or to have as much of any other qualities and virtues that people associate with morality. Are you disagreeing with that?
MaxInDHouse, you can think whatever you want to about Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm just saying that there are multitudes of people all around the world, in all the religions and outside of them, possibly including some Jehovah's witnesses but not all of them, learning together to live the way Jesus says to live, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not talking about conscientiousness, each human was born with all those qualities you highlighted but then as we are growing older circumstances beyond our control begin to change our mentality it's little that our imperfect human parents can do because they're also facing the same situation so they can't train a child to the point of avoiding bad habits in the face of difficult situations, then comes the biggest threat to man's existence: POLITICS

How can imperfect humans keep their virtues when they're faced with the issue of choosing a good leader? Even though you try to be nice politics will break your integrity.
That's what makes Jehovah's Witnesses unique!

ReubenSandwich:


My point is that a person doesn't have to believe in the existence of any God to be as honest, trustworthy, responsible, fair, caring, monogomous, faithful, pure and chaste as any person who believes in one, or to have as much of any other qualities and virtues that people associate with morality. Are you disagreeing with that?

MaxInDHouse, you can think whatever you want to about Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm just saying that there are multitudes of people all around the world, in all the religions and outside of them, possibly including some Jehovah's witnesses but not all of them, learning together to live the way Jesus says to live, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Honesty, trustworthiness, purity, faithfulness, chastity, virtue and morality... Where do these qualities come from? Anyone claiming not to believe in God yet claims to possess these qualities is a liar cos they are nor expressed automatically. These are not something that we see in a selfish, evil, materialistic, pleasure loving society today. Where does morals come from? Altruism, love and kindness stem from?
One who does not believe in creation likely believe in evolution but the theme of evolution is survival of the fittest that tends to promote selfishness. Why then do we hate injustice? Why do doctors and nurses struggle to help their patients with sweat and tears? Why do we hate selfish, greedy, violent people but get drawn to those who are loving, sharing and peaceable?
This is because of Genesis 1:26,27. We're made in the image of God, that's is we reflect his qualities like love, wisdom, compassion and empathy. We're not made in the image of brute beasts

Endtimer:


First, there is no such thing as a Christian deist. Looking the term up will reveal that it’s hardly distinct from atheism as we know it. The primary practical difference is that it isn’t anti-Christian.

Christian Deism is different from atheism, Sir Endtimer. But I would still like to read your opinion, how is it hardly distinct from atheism?

Endtimer:

While there are several things wrong with the unsupported conclusions you stated in your post, I’ll just point out that if Paul and Jesus’ disciples were creating a belief system based on their time and culture, it would perhaps have been smarter to create one that wouldn’t have gotten them killed.

Well, I'm a complete novice as to evidence about the new testament characters (the existence of Jesus, his disciples and Paul outside the Bible are very contradictory, questionable and not verified) so I wouldn't say anything about it for now. My conclusion was based on the old testament, the Jewish Tanakh and other holy books and how they were written. Examining these books would show a close correlation with the culture of the people at the time.

Endtimer:


Hopefully you are not talking about the bacteria and toilet incident and this:

I already addressed this by pointing out that you wrongly assume morality is a 3-dimensional space, say a cube, and that God's morality is an arbitrary point in this space with coordinates (x, y, z). Morality as we've discussed is better imagined as a scale with maximum and minimum values at both ends, God's nature limiting the scale at the maximum end. Therefore God does not have a definition of right and wrong: He is instrumental in defining the concepts to begin with. However you choose to act is relative to God whether you accept it or not because your morality invariably falls on the scale.

I think I'm familiar with this view of morality. And while I think it makes logical sense, I don't think it defeats the argument I put forward.

Even if morality is imagined as a scale, set by God's nature, it still doesn't exclude the possibility of God's nature, being something that supports an act we would consider, at least subjectively, morally wrong.

I want to use the example of the old testament and sabbath day workers, or people wearing mixed fabric. Let's assume for a minute that Christ never came to earth, neither was it in the Christian God's plan to ever send him down.

Working on the sabbath, or wearing mixed fabric would be wrong, as per it deviates from God's nature, and the punishment would be death. I'm not arguing that. The point I was trying to make, was that there's no reason to believe that "God's nature" is automatically something that supports human wellbeing, and thus is something that we must necessarily strive to adhere to, or try to emulate.

I'm not denying that conforming to said nature would be right and deviating from it would be wrong. That's already established once we accept that God exists.

Like I've said before all one need believe is one god. Let me clarify: what you are demanding is a theistic argument. You are an atheist. This is a valid argument to have and we can have it if you wish although I doubt its productiveness. What I'm saying is that there is no morality on atheism and you will have to cross over (or at least honestly pretend to) to continue this argument for argument sake. My initial motive was to prove that morality exists in theism and that it doesn't on atheism. As such, I am reluctant to continue this discussion along these lines as I have accomplished that motive. To doubly clarify, I expected scrutiny of the level you subject Christianity to after you realized that atheism is morally subjective.

I understand your motive, but I don't think the alleged absence of morality in atheism has been the focus of this thread. I really love how you said all one needs to do is to believe in one God. That's the exact assumption I've made since the beginning of this thread, and we still ran into moral problems.

You are a smart person, so this should be easy for you. The obvious answer is that "the issue of which God" has nothing to do with morality on its face. If asked to prove which God is real, no one would assume that the argument being raised had anything to do with morality. You seem to be eager to argue about which God exists. This thread is already overloaded, but I'll add that it is relatively simple. All one has to do is prove that Christianity is true. Its exclusive claims would mean that its truth would necessarily invalidate every other religion.

I completely understand you, but I think I need to define my position on the "which God" argument, so as to not be misunderstood. And I think the best way to do it is with a simple analogy. I think I've given something like this here before.

Let's take a guy, who grew up without his father. One day, he wakes up to find 3 people at his doorstep, all claiming to be his father. Of course we know that they can't all be. We know only one person can be the father. But we also know it doesn't necessarily have to be one of the 3 people too.

All we know, is that by virtue of the biological processes required to procreate, he indeed has a father. the father could be one of the 3 men at his doorstep, or he could be someone else entirely, somewhere else.

I think the same analogy applies when thinking about a God. The question of "which God" isn't a question of just choosing one from the ones we have available. It's also accepting the possibility, that the "true God" (permit me using that phrase) could also not be among the ones we hear about today. But nonetheless, the identity of the "true God" needs to be determined.

Like I said, relatively easy. I can pull sources from 2,000 years of tradition and reasoning and be done with it. If you create a new thread for it let me know. Maybe, I'll create the thread myself when I have the time.

I don't know what I did to offend the nairaland overlords recently. I've been getting bans on my account simply for just relying people's posts. But I think it would be best if you created the thread, since you're the one trying to make a case for your specific God. Feel free to do so whenever you have the time. It'll always be a pleasure to engage.