Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

[Matthias]

Then isn't it good to "Brainwash" children in loving others, not lying or stealing or cheating and taking care of those around you? If God really is real all the better. If not, the kids learn some good ethical (ethics with no God ) lessons and that is that

.

Well, they don't need God to learn that, so lying to them makes no sense, and causes its own set of problems.

No there's no actual proof of love or friendship. You can't hand me a "piece of friendship" to see and hold and test and examine. There are only things that indicate love and friendship and I choose to believe that those things mean that someone loves me or wants to be my friend. It's all faith based regardless.

Of course friendship exists as a social concept. I'm not exactly sure what being able to hold something or not has to do with its existence. Friendship describes something that actually exists, certain types of social relationships.

Actually for me God is a feeling just as love is. It isn't a "concrete term." This is something taught in western theology where they try to fit the infinite in a box and label it. The west has lost their concept of "Mystery" and think it's just "something we haven't figured out yet" and frantically try to do so.

Well, the Bible describes God as more than just love. I mean, he order the genocide of certain cities. That's where people run into issues.

Actually to me science, the more and more complex it shows everything to be only further suggests to me a God. The issue I think is what YOU think God is. Very often people have a very small god.

That's fine to have as an opinion, but complexity isn't proof of anything, given the subjective idea that it is.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well, they don't need God to learn that, so lying to them makes no sense, and causes its own set of problems.

You can not justify ethics without God. That is not to say I am going to kill people if I did not believe in God, but without God who else but someone that can stop me, give me reason to stop? Nobody.

Of course friendship exists as a social concept. I'm not exactly sure what being able to hold something or not has to do with its existence. Friendship describes something that actually exists, certain types of social relationships.

You cannot prove friendship anymore than you can prove God. Show me friendship in the same manner you would like to see God.

Well, the Bible describes God as more than just love. I mean, he order the genocide of certain cities. That's where people run into issues.

And if God exists and he is real and he is all knowing and all powerful, does he not have the right to do what he wants? In such a context what is death except a transition? It's really pointless to argue. If God exists he is right in his actions, even if you don't comprehend them. If he doesn't exist then you are arguing against a fictitious character.

That's fine to have as an opinion, but complexity isn't proof of anything, given the subjective idea that it is.

Didn't say it was proof.

[Matthias]

You can not justify ethics without God. That is not to say I am going to kill people if I did not believe in God, but without God who else but someone that can stop me, give me reason to stop? Nobody.

Ethics and morals are simply rules societies make, and can indeed be justified without God. All morals and ethics are subjective though, so it is a matter of priorities and opinions when it comes to what morals and ethics a person holds. Who besides God can stop you? Well, yourself for one. And society for another. Your beliefs and ideology can stop you, and you don't need to believe in God.

You cannot prove friendship anymore than you can prove God. Show me friendship in the same manner you would like to see God.

Let's say I claim frienships exist. Friendships are a close relationship between two people who care about each other's welfare. I can show you numerous examples of this. Now, I say that God exists. Well, the first issue is that there is no universal definition of God. But let's go past that. Let's look at God as described in the Bible, as creator of the universe. What proof is there that anyone created the universe, much less God?

Friendship simply describes relationships we see every day. God is a much more etheral concept that tries to explain lots of things of which there is no real understanding or proof of yet. That's why it's hard to prove God exists. More than that, God used to be used to explain things we now more fully understand.

And if God exists and he is real and he is all knowing and all powerful, does he not have the right to do what he wants?

Why? Aren't "rights" a completey subjective man-made concept? Does might = right?

In such a context what is death except a transition? It's really pointless to argue. If God exists he is right in his actions, even if you don't comprehend them. If he doesn't exist then you are arguing against a fictitious character.

What does it mean to be "right in his actions"? How do you know? Isn't that completely subjective? Where are the objective morals? I mean, the Bible itself contradicts morals often enough. God says do not kill, but committs genocide.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Ethics and morals are simply rules societies make, and can indeed be justified without God. All morals and ethics are subjective though, so it is a matter of priorities and opinions when it comes to what morals and ethics a person holds. Who besides God can stop you? Well, yourself for one. And society for another. Your beliefs and ideology can stop you, and you don't need to believe in God.

Nothing can be justified without God. And I am not saying "nothing can not be justified without a bearded man in the sky" I am talking about an infinite perfect source that is unknowable. You have to get away from the "small god" notion and adapt to "God" in the big sense. See the question really is do you believe there are absolute truths or do you believe it's all relative non sense and yes can mean no and up can mean down? Relativism leads us to some very Orwellian situations imo.

Let's say I claim frienships exist. Friendships are a close relationship between two people who care about each other's welfare. I can show you numerous examples of this. Now, I say that God exists. Well, the first issue is that there is no universal definition of God. But let's go past that. Let's look at God as described in the Bible, as creator of the universe. What proof is there that anyone created the universe, much less God?

Friendship simply describes relationships we see every day. God is a much more etheral concept that tries to explain lots of things of which there is no real understanding or proof of yet. That's why it's hard to prove God exists. More than that, God used to be used to explain things we now more fully understand.

You're still not proving friendship. You are describing it.

Why? Aren't "rights" a completey subjective man-made concept?

No.

Does might = right?

No. That is what relativism teaches.

What does it mean to be "right in his actions"? How do you know? Isn't that completely subjective? Where are the objective morals? I mean, the Bible itself contradicts morals often enough. God says do not kill, but committs genocide.

If he is a perfect entity then by definition his actions are always correct. The bible doesn't contradict itself. It says not to murder, not not to kill. And God isn't limited to human laws. Laws for humans are for humans. This is another thing people need to understand. Humans are below God the same way a private is below an officer. You can't place them on the same level.

[Menelik_I]

Let's assume this debate is only relevant to believers. Don't believe? Then don't argue. You're not forced to believe.

I actually asked this question as a Believer, a protestant Baptist to be precise, What does it change in anything if either side of this debate wins ?

I don't think that salvation is going to come to us because we our church as the most perfect Biblical cannon or not, but because of the Lord mercy over our souls, so I don't really see the point in scorched earth inter-christian squabbling. I agree with the necessity of discussing subjects of heresies with people, and I have done it myself with Catholics, Jehovah witnesses and some wacky dude declared me son of Satan on earth, but I don't think that my church is particularly superior or that we are the only ones who are going to be saved.

But that is just me.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I actually asked this question as a Believer, a protestant Baptist to be precise, What does it change in anything if either side of this debate wins ?

I don't think that salvation is going to come to us because we our church as the most perfect Biblical cannon or not, but because of the Lord mercy over our souls, so I don't really see the point in scorched earth inter-christian squabbling. I agree with the necessity of discussing subjects of heresies with people, and I have done it myself with Catholics, Jehovah witnesses and some wacky dude declared me son of Satan on earth, but I don't think that my church is particularly superior or that we are the only ones who are going to be saved.

But that is just me.

What "inter-christian" squabbling? And we discuss these things for valid reasons. It isn't about winning or not.

[Matthias]

Nothing can be justified without God. And I am not saying "nothing can not be justified without a bearded man in the sky" I am talking about an infinite perfect source that is unknowable. You have to get away from the "small god" notion and adapt to "God" in the big sense. See the question really is do you believe there are absolute truths or do you believe it's all relative non sense and yes can mean no and up can mean down? Relativism leads us to some very Orwellian situations imo.

Alright, you believe in a perfect God or what have you, with absolute truths. So, what are the absolute truths? Provide me with them. And provide proof they are indeed the absolute truths. Because a person wouldn't want to follow false absolute truths I'm guessing...

I honestly don't know how relativism leads to Orwellian situations... I would think belief in "absolute truths" leads to some very oppressive situations though, and it does, as history has provided.

Yes, every opinion is relative, this is just fact. If you are raised in a culture that believe it's OK to cut off the clitoris of females, well, your absolute truths are different from others, to say the least. But I think it is possible to argue that certain moralities and values give rise to happier and more just societies in general, no doubt about it, if that is one's priorities in the first place.

You're still not proving friendship. You are describing it.

No, I am definitely proving friendships exist. Do you know of anyone who has a close personal relationship with another person and care about each other's welfare? Well then, it is proved! Unless you live in a cave... but you have the internet. I mean, it seems you are arguing ridiculous things to try and shy away from the fact that there is no proof of God.

If he is a perfect entity then by definition his actions are always correct.

What is the proof he is a perfect entity (or a he) or that he even exists? I mean, following an unproven "perfect entity" seems like quite a risk to be taking, doesn't it? Especially when all knowledge of this "perfect entity" came from man, the lowly subject that he is... hmmm.

The bible doesn't contradict itself. It says not to murder, not not to kill.

Alright, so it says do not murder (according to some translations), then God committs genocide, simply murder on a mass scale. Contradictions. He murdered innocent babies.

And God isn't limited to human laws. Laws for humans are for humans. This is another thing people need to understand. Humans are below God the same way a private is below an officer. You can't place them on the same level.

Right right. So what laws does God abide by? I mean, there are absolute truths, right (and you still haven't provided them)? Does he abide by them? How convenient that God is assumed perfect with no proof, and even assumed to exist with no proof. Hell, one doesn't even have to define what it means to be perfect! It's all so illogical and silly, no wonder it can't be argued against. But, that is of course the whole point of dogmatic believers. They don't want to address uncomfortable issues, so they will use nonsense to just ignore the issues and pretend they aren't there.

[Tankbuster]

Nothing can be justified without God. And I am not saying "nothing can not be justified without a bearded man in the sky" I am talking about an infinite perfect source that is unknowable. You have to get away from the "small god" notion and adapt to "God" in the big sense. See the question really is do you believe there are absolute truths or do you believe it's all relative non sense and yes can mean no and up can mean down?

The existence of objective or absolute truths is actually fairly uncontroversial, I think. If I look in the sky and see the sun, either it really is there or it isn't. We can quibble about what I mean by "sun", but ultimately we have to admit that my belief is either right and wrong, and there's a sun or there is not. One of the two has to be absolutely true.

The real question is, is it possible to get to these absolute truths, that is, to know that you've reached absolute truth to the extent that you could not possibly be wrong?
And I don't see how God is going to help you out there, at all. As far as I can tell the existence of an external perfect source of goodness is indistinguishable from an external perfect source of misdirection, so how does this differ from you just assuming you're probably not being misdirected in the first place?

Relativism leads us to some very Orwellian situations imo.

As Matthias pointed out, many Orwellian situations could have been avoided if their perpetrators were a little less sure that the voice they hear inside their head might not necessarily be an envoy of the absolute and unalterable truth.
I can see total relativism leading to problems too (though not Orwellian). But this argument from consequences very much cuts both ways.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

As per the atheist objections in this thread... I'll go slightly OT.

Relativism and social liberalism are so shallow, incoherent and spoiled doctrines they are not even worth discussing, let alone in this thread. All the liberal writers together, from Mill to Rousseau and Paine, together do not have the perspicacity or the keen discernment of a single De Maistre or Donoso Cortes, let alone of an Ortega y Gasset or a GK Chesterton.

Today, the world is going back to its religious roots. The idols of the past: the economy, liberalism, nationalism, humanism - are being exposed for all what they are: clay idols of no lasting scope or importance. As a result a spiritual battle is being fought between modern religions, especially in grounds that used to be Christian but are now secularized. The total vacuity of a secularized existence in a brutally meaningless, shallow world filled with irrelevant distractions and exertions is beginning to exert its toll: unless Christianity becomes again self-conscious, and does so fast, as it has been doing in areas where it is actually succeeding (vis Africa and some parts of Asia), it will die in Europe against hostile and foreign forces, such as Islam - which has had in the past decade a staggering growth and a staggering number of converts.

Secularism alone no longer presents a barrier. The idealism which kept secular regimes in the past centuries is dead: notice how there is no longer any support for Communism and how the commie-capitalist nexus no longer is as strong a rabble-rouser as it used to be. Secularized continents such as Europe are not even just spiritually, culturally and morally dead, they are beginning to suffer the material effects: their populations are aging, dying, their economies are beginning to falter, their influence is gradually but steadily waning.

As such, I could just dismiss all the secularist complaints for the future or for "results" with Hillaire Belloc's, who was by the way one of the greatest social conservatives of the 20th century together with Chesterton, words:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...on/cc0112.html

"Islam has not suffered this spiritual decline (as in the West); and in the contrast between the religious certitudes still strong throughout the Mohammedan world, as lively in India as in Morocco, active throughout North Africa and Egypt, even inflamed through contrast and the feeling of repression in Syria — more particularly in Palestine — lies our peril....

"These lines are written in the month of January, 1937; perhaps before they appear in print the rapidly developing situation in the Near East will have marked some notable change. Perhaps that change will be deferred, but change there will be, continuous and great. Nor does it seem probable that at the end of such a change, especially if the process be prolonged, Islam will be the loser"

That story (of Islamic victory) must not be neglected by any modern, who may think, in error, that the East has finally fallen before the West, that Islam is now enslaved — to our political and economic power at any rate if not to our philosophy. It is not so. Islam essentially survives, and Islam would not have survived had the Crusade made good its hold upon the essential point of Damascus. Islam survives. Its religion is in tact; therefore its material strength may return. Our religion is in peril and who can be confident in the continued skill, let alone the continued obedience, of those who make and work our machines? (16)

Religion is not just an accessory. It is central to man, it is man; once political religions like Communism or Liberalism and the Scientistic credo no longer inspire anyone, man will turn to other sources for central beliefs. It is not man that makes the belief, but belief that makes the man - Silly putty liberalism, silly putty modern ideas manage to invent, reify and cloud themselves with complete inversions of the normal and sane structures of reality. Ironically, they themselves are not an exception to these structures, even when they nominally deny them.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Alright, you believe in a perfect God or what have you, with absolute truths. So, what are the absolute truths? Provide me with them. And provide proof they are indeed the absolute truths. Because a person wouldn't want to follow false absolute truths I'm guessing...

You want me to tell you everything that is true on an internet forum?

I honestly don't know how relativism leads to Orwellian situations... I would think belief in "absolute truths" leads to some very oppressive situations though, and it does, as history has provided.

No it hasn't. Really read 1984 and you will see how the meaning of terms becomes relative.

Yes, every opinion is relative, this is just fact. If you are raised in a culture that believe it's OK to cut off the clitoris of females, well, your absolute truths are different from others, to say the least. But I think it is possible to argue that certain moralities and values give rise to happier and more just societies in general, no doubt about it, if that is one's priorities in the first place.

That our perception is relative, yes that is the case. But truth is not relative. So someone can believe that, but that doesn't make it a truth.

No, I am definitely proving friendships exist. Do you know of anyone who has a close personal relationship with another person and care about each other's welfare? Well then, it is proved! Unless you live in a cave... but you have the internet. I mean, it seems you are arguing ridiculous things to try and shy away from the fact that there is no proof of God.

A close personal relationship? Can you send me some? I want to test and inspect it. Oh wait you can't do that. Again you are describing something, not proving it.

What is the proof he is a perfect entity (or a he) or that he even exists? I mean, following an unproven "perfect entity" seems like quite a risk to be taking, doesn't it? Especially when all knowledge of this "perfect entity" came from man, the lowly subject that he is... hmmm.

Yeah it can be a risk, along with just about every other thing people do or people believe that you cannot prove.

Alright, so it says do not murder (according to some translations), then God committs genocide, simply murder on a mass scale. Contradictions. He murdered innocent babies.

You don't know who is innocent or not. And also those laws are for humans, not God. Why do you keep thinking that those laws are applicable to everyone?

Right right. So what laws does God abide by? I mean, there are absolute truths, right (and you still haven't provided them)? Does he abide by them? How convenient that God is assumed perfect with no proof, and even assumed to exist with no proof. Hell, one doesn't even have to define what it means to be perfect! It's all so illogical and silly, no wonder it can't be argued against. But, that is of course the whole point of dogmatic believers. They don't want to address uncomfortable issues, so they will use nonsense to just ignore the issues and pretend they aren't there.

I'm honestly not trying to use non sense to ignore it. I'm trying to tell you that you'll sooner place the ocean in a shot class than understand God. The concepts of God to me make sense as taught by the Orthodox Church. The laws God abides by are that he can not deny his own nature. And that's about it.

The existence of objective or absolute truths is actually fairly uncontroversial, I think. If I look in the sky and see the sun, either it really is there or it isn't. We can quibble about what I mean by "sun", but ultimately we have to admit that my belief is either right and wrong, and there's a sun or there is not. One of the two has to be absolutely true.

The real question is, is it possible to get to these absolute truths, that is, to know that you've reached absolute truth to the extent that you could not possibly be wrong?
And I don't see how God is going to help you out there, at all. As far as I can tell the existence of an external perfect source of goodness is indistinguishable from an external perfect source of misdirection, so how does this differ from you just assuming you're probably not being misdirected in the first place?

Maybe I am.

As Matthias pointed out, many Orwellian situations could have been avoided if their perpetrators were a little less sure that the voice they hear inside their head might not necessarily be an envoy of the absolute and unalterable truth.
I can see total relativism leading to problems too (though not Orwellian). But this argument from consequences very much cuts both ways.

Sure I don't disagree. And again I am not in the situation of arguing religion vs non religion but rather Orthodoxy vs all. Everything else is simply a varied degree of non-Orthodoxy.

@ Jean, it seems to me that religion, be it an evolutionary mechanism or a divine inspired aspect built into our blue print, is going to be here for a while. Even atheists have their gods.

[Tankbuster]

Maybe I am.

Then surely our epistemological situation is pretty much the same?

Sure I don't disagree. And again I am not in the situation of arguing religion vs non religion but rather Orthodoxy vs all. Everything else is simply a varied degree of non-Orthodoxy.

Gotcha.

@ Jean, it seems to me that religion, be it an evolutionary mechanism or a divine inspired aspect built into our blue print, is going to be here for a while. Even atheists have their gods.

Well not literal "Gods" obviously.
But I think you're actually fairly close to understanding an important point of my perspective (and yes, I am now going to completely hi-jack this response to Jean). Yes, humans seem to have an instinctual urge to worship, to idolise and to put someone or something up on a pedestal. Ditto for black-and-white thinking, strong emotional biases, confirmation bias, etcetera. Simply dropping your belief in God is by no means an antidote to these phenomena, as the amount of Jesus Mythicists or devoted acolytes of Dawkins clearly demonstrate.
It's also the reason atheists aren't very impressed at references to Stalin or Hitler as perpetrators of the "atheist worldview". For many of us, the blind faith in dogma and suspension of skepticism and individuality in favour of a dogma is precisely what we fled religions from in the first place. So we largely regard dogmatic communism and dogmatic nationalism the same way as we regard dogmatic religions: the application of our instinct to worship gone berserk.

Where I think a secular perspective is better (in the long run) than a religious one, is because we recognise these biases and actively scorn them. I often tell atheists that their blind faith in and idolatry of Dawkins has led them to a stupid conclusion; at the very least, that will give them pause, because they know that if that were to be true, it would be a bad thing. Even though most atheists succumb to one or more of the many cognitive biases and instincts that we have, you'll scarcely find one who will admit that these are good things.
Whereas in religion, these aspects are the name of the game and are lauded.

The world would be a better place if we didn't pretend to have the most important answers in life already on offer. And I don't see anything but a secular culture leading to that world.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Then surely our epistemological situation is pretty much the same?

Yes, we don't really know one way or another. Or at least we cannot prove it to the other. Like i've always said, faith is like love. When you have it, no one can tell you other wise. Neither can you convince someone else to have it too. Neither can you prove it and force it on others.

Well not literal "Gods" obviously.
But I think you're actually fairly close to understanding an important point of my perspective (and yes, I am now going to completely hi-jack this response to Jean). Yes, humans seem to have an instinctual urge to worship, to idolise and to put someone or something up on a pedestal. Ditto for black-and-white thinking, strong emotional biases, confirmation bias, etcetera. Simply dropping your belief in God is by no means an antidote to these phenomena, as the amount of Jesus Mythicists or devoted acolytes of Dawkins clearly demonstrate.
It's also the reason atheists aren't very impressed at references to Stalin or Hitler as perpetrators of the "atheist worldview". For many of us, the blind faith in dogma and suspension of skepticism and individuality in favour of a dogma is precisely what we fled religions from in the first place. So we largely regard dogmatic communism and dogmatic nationalism the same way as we regard dogmatic religions: the application of our instinct to worship gone berserk.

Where I think a secular perspective is better (in the long run) than a religious one, is because we recognise these biases and actively scorn them. I often tell atheists that their blind faith in and idolatry of Dawkins has led them to a stupid conclusion; at the very least, that will give them pause, because they know that if that were to be true, it would be a bad thing. Even though most atheists succumb to one or more of the many cognitive biases and instincts that we have, you'll scarcely find one who will admit that these are good things.
Whereas in religion, these aspects are the name of the game and are lauded.

The world would be a better place if we didn't pretend to have the most important answers in life already on offer. And I don't see anything but a secular culture leading to that world.

I don't think it is lauded, at least in my personal experience. And your criticism of black and white thinking should lead you to the possibility that, at least in Orthodoxy, that is not the case. I don't pretend to try to speak for the others.

[Tankbuster]

I don't think it is lauded, at least in my personal experience. And your criticism of black and white thinking should lead you to the possibility that, at least in Orthodoxy, that is not the case. I don't pretend to try to speak for the others.

I don't think it applies to all adherents of Orthodoxy, certainly (though I can point one or two fingers).

But Orthodoxy does worship God and views him as -in your own words- an infinite perfect source, correct? That certainly sounds like the attitude that I criticized.

[Menelik_I]

What "inter-christian" squabbling?

The vile arguments between Protestants and Catholics in some of the replies.

And we discuss these things for valid reasons.

No problem if it is truly important or someone is blatantly lying.

It isn't about winning or not.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I don't think it applies to all adherents of Orthodoxy, certainly (though I can point one or two fingers).

But Orthodoxy does worship God and views him as -in your own words- an infinite perfect source, correct? That certainly sounds like the attitude that I criticized.

I was referring to the biases which secularists claim to scorn while religion somehow lauds them. Without God nihilism really wins out though. And nothing has a purpose. You say you make your own purpose but that's playing pretend. Like when you are little and you pretend that you are in this and that situation. Doesn't change your bed time one bit.

The vile arguments between Protestants and Catholics in some of the replies.

Most of the discussion has actually been between Orthodox Christians and Protestants and the latter's lack of comprehending terms and what defines them.

[Menelik_I]

I was referring to the biases which secularists claim to scorn while religion somehow lauds them. Without God nihilism really wins out though. And nothing has a purpose. You say you make your own purpose but that's playing pretend. Like when you are little and you pretend that you are in this and that situation. Doesn't change your bed time one bit.

I wasn't called into this, but one interesting thing is that secularist claim that you don't need religion to have morality, which might even be true, but then what compels them to be moral ? Absolutely nothing that could compel them to act on the moral except themselves, which is nihilism in itself.

Most of the discussion has actually been between Orthodox Christians and Protestants and the latter's lack of comprehending terms and what defines them.

I wasn't aware that it was Orthodox Christians and Protestants discussing
What is interesting that Protestants have the same attitude towards Catholics, so don't be too harsh with them they kind of have this bad habit of bad mouthing other church while having poor comprehension. I am saying that as a Protestant myself.

I never been to an Orthodox Church, might go one of this days to see how it is.

[Tankbuster]

I was referring to the biases which secularists claim to scorn while religion somehow lauds them.

Perhaps biases is too strong of a word. I'm talking about the instinct to worship, to see specific sources (God) as infinitely good and laudable, to associate all goodness with one source and all evil as either a seperate entity or the absence of said source, to see the information coming from specific sources to be divinely inspired and sacred, etcetera.

Secularists think this is bad software to have running in your friend, but it is pretty much the bread and butter of religion, is it not?

Without God nihilism really wins out though.

I'm getting tired of people asserting that.

Nihilists openly profess to find no meaning in life whatsoever. Most atheists do find meaning in their lives. You can find their meanings silly or not strong enough or wrong-headed, but they do find them and so they are not nihilists.

And nothing has a purpose. You say you make your own purpose but that's playing pretend. Like when you are little and you pretend that you are in this and that situation. Doesn't change your bed time one bit.

Sometimes I wish we could really break things down in this forum, because I am truly mystified at this reasoning even though I hear it so much. As far as I can tell the only way one can conceivably criticize the meaning an atheist can find in his life (given that he is going to die and the universe is going to die of heat death) is to say that (i) all 'meaningful' actions must have some recognizable impact for all eternity or (ii) all 'meaningful' actions must be able to be recalled indefinitely.

So consider the case where I take ten minutes of my time to cheer up a friend who's having a bad day. Now, realistically speaking, when she is on her death bed she won't be able to recall me cheering her up 60 years ago, and I won't be able to recall the experience either; this is true for both theism and atheism: it's just the reality of memory. Nevertheless I think my action would be a meaningful way of my life, if only because I made her happier than she would have been without me. I'm assuming you find this meaningful as well, so what is the difference between my view and yours where you would have a basis for finding it meaningful but I don't? Unless God changes either (i) or (ii) I don't see the difference.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I wasn't called into this, but one interesting thing is that secularist claim that you don't need religion to have morality, which might even be true, but then what compels them to be moral ? Absolutely nothing that could compel them to act on the moral except themselves, which is nihilism in itself.

You really don't have a reason or any argument other than "cause I said so" without God.

I wasn't aware that it was Orthodox Christians and Protestants discussing
What is interesting that Protestants have the same attitude towards Catholics, so don't be too harsh with them they kind of have this bad habit of bad mouthing other church while having poor comprehension. I am saying that as a Protestant myself.

I never been to an Orthodox Church, might go one of this days to see how it is.

Probably the best Orthodox I have seen were former protestants or non-Orthodox.

Perhaps biases is too strong of a word. I'm talking about the instinct to worship, to see specific sources (God) as infinitely good and laudable, to associate all goodness with one source and all evil as either a seperate entity or the absence of said source, to see the information coming from specific sources to be divinely inspired and sacred, etcetera.

Secularists think this is bad software to have running in your friend, but it is pretty much the bread and butter of religion, is it not?

You can put it that way. Or as I put it, you either believe there is an infinite perfect source of all of this, or you believe there is not.

Sometimes I wish we could really break things down in this forum, because I am truly mystified at this reasoning even though I hear it so much. As far as I can tell the only way one can conceivably criticize the meaning an atheist can find in his life (given that he is going to die and the universe is going to die of heat death) is to say that (i) all 'meaningful' actions must have some recognizable impact for all eternity or (ii) all 'meaningful' actions must be able to be recalled indefinitely.

So consider the case where I take ten minutes of my time to cheer up a friend who's having a bad day. Now, realistically speaking, when she is on her death bed she won't be able to recall me cheering her up 60 years ago, and I won't be able to recall the experience either; this is true for both theism and atheism: it's just the reality of memory. Nevertheless I think my action would be a meaningful way of my life, if only because I made her happier than she would have been without me. I'm assuming you find this meaningful as well, so what is the difference between my view and yours where you would have a basis for finding it meaningful but I don't? Unless God changes either (i) or (ii) I don't see the difference.

Well regardless of your memory that action does echo onward in your relationship. The same way you may have feelings toward someone but not be sure where they originated. It isn't about me finding it more meaningful than you. In truth regardless of how you feel and regardless of what proof can be brought forth there is a God. So your actions are meaningful regardless if you think that there is no eternity.

Now what you are asking perhaps is not a contrast between me and you finding something meaningful, but rather the instance between the same action happening in a scenario where there is God and when there is not a God. In which case I would yet again say that without God you're writing a book with a stick in the sand. I don't mean to sound poetic or whatever but that's really the best way to describe it. So no my friend, your actions are meaningful even if you don't believe in God, but because of God and because of us and our divine connection to God.

I think it was Augustine iirc that said the only unforgivable sin to God is when people do something thoughtlessly. I don't know if I agree or not but it doesn't seem like your action would be thoughtless.

[Matthias]

Relativism and social liberalism are so shallow, incoherent and spoiled doctrines they are not even worth discussing, let alone in this thread. All the liberal writers together, from Mill to Rousseau and Paine, together do not have the perspicacity or the keen discernment of a single De Maistre or Donoso Cortes, let alone of an Ortega y Gasset or a GK Chesterton.

So... how do you know you are following the word of God again? I think I've discovered how "deep" religious thought goes.

[Admiral Piett]

As per the atheist objections in this thread... I'll go slightly OT.

Relativism and social liberalism are so shallow, incoherent and spoiled doctrines they are not even worth discussing, let alone in this thread. All the liberal writers together, from Mill to Rousseau and Paine, together do not have the perspicacity or the keen discernment of a single De Maistre or Donoso Cortes, let alone of an Ortega y Gasset or a GK Chesterton.

And this shallow, incoherent, spoiled doctrine is what gives you the ability and the freedom to believe and espouse whatever moral absolutism, social traditionalism (whether it be homophobia, anti-femininsm, etc) you want to believe in. Militant atheism is not social liberalism, btw. Rousseau and Paine have a far greater long-reaching influence on modern politics and social contract than any Maistre or Cortes, so regardless of your perception of it, your assertion that these 'liberal' (what a laughable label to slap on it by the way) writers added so little the equation is historically and politically ignorant. You might as well go ahead and say that Aquinas was more important than Locke. You'll probably get laughed at by any person with an education in this field. Your anti-intellectualism does not make you a rebel nor does it mean you are righteous above the liberal masses, it just makes your position wholly uniformed.