How true is the Bible?

[basics]

Hell yeah, good works are for suckers. I dig that. Be bad, baby!

Gromovnik,

You don't have to be bad as you already are in the sight of God. It's why Jesus Christ came and died for us and rose again that them that believe might do the same.

[conon394]

Gromovnik,

You don't have to be bad as you already are in the sight of God. It's why Jesus Christ came and died for us and rose again that them that believe might do the same.

Why again am I. I mean I did not screw up in the Garden. Anyway what if you are technically a Calvinist like my wife so see predestination, or like my daughter a catholic school girl - the Pope's got her back via confession...

[Calypze]

Jesus Christ came and died for us and rose again that them that believe might do the same.

How do you know that is true?

[basics]

Why again am I. I mean I did not screw up in the Garden. Anyway what if you are technically a Calvinist like my wife so see predestination, or like my daughter a catholic school girl - the Pope's got her back via confession...

conon394,

When Adam screwed up in the garden that one event brought sin and death down upon all creation not just mankind and that's how its been ever since. What do you mean " technically " a Calvanist? The word predestination is a result of all things being done and dusted in heavenly time us in our time still playing things out and played out just as heaven already knows. So hopefully if your good lady is a Calvanist she is most likely born again of the Spirit of God. The sad thing is though that your daughter has come under the influence of Rome which is not Christian apart from name only.

Calypze,

I know it's true because I was given to see Jesus' last moments on that cross.

[Gromovnik]

conon394,

When Adam screwed up in the garden that one event brought sin and death down upon all creation not just mankind and that's how its been ever since. What do you mean " technically " a Calvanist? The word predestination is a result of all things being done and dusted in heavenly time us in our time still playing things out and played out just as heaven already knows. So hopefully if your good lady is a Calvanist she is most likely born again of the Spirit of God. The sad thing is though that your daughter has come under the influence of Rome which is not Christian apart from name only.

Calypze,

I know it's true because I was given to see Jesus' last moments on that cross.

Why were animals punished for something that Adam did? That's not very fair.

[Akar]

For that matter, why was anyone else punished for Adams actions? That's not very fair.

[Himster]

For that matter, why was anyone else punished for Adams actions? That's not very fair.

Justice/fairness and theology cannot mix. By the reckoning of the religious: God is justified in all of his actions by virtue of him being all powerful and objective in the most absolutist of terms and therefore is defined as "good", from the religious perspective anything he does is automatically "good". Any dissention or even sincere examination/questioning is relegated to the sphere of the subjective, which cannot compare to the league that their god is in.

[Cope]

Justice/fairness and theology cannot mix. By the reckoning of the religious: God is justified in all of his actions by virtue of him being all powerful and objective in the most absolutist of terms and therefore is defined as "good", from the religious perspective anything he does is automatically "good". Any dissention or even sincere examination/questioning is relegated to the sphere of the subjective, which cannot compare to the league that their god is in.

According to your own standards, "justice/fairness" are necessarily "relegated to the sphere of the subjective". So don't act as if it's somehow being imposed on you "by the reckoning of the religious".

[Himster]

According to your own standards, "justice/fairness" are necessarily "relegated to the sphere of the subjective". So don't act as if it's somehow being imposed on you "by the reckoning of the religious".

I'm saying when the discussion comes to issues of fairness and justice concerning some god or other: the religious necessarily have such a radically different conception of these ideas that they're mutually unintelligible.
While justice and fairness are necessarily relegated to the sphere of the subjective, it is possible to implement schema which can in fact make them object focused, that is to say: practical. Therefore there is no need to suppose that there is anything imposed upon me "by the reckoning of the religious", quite the opposite in fact.

[Cope]

I'm saying when the discussion comes to issues of fairness and justice concerning some god or other: the religious necessarily have such a radically different conception of these ideas that they're mutually unintelligible.

I understand the "conception" of moral relativism. I just call it liberal hokum.

While justice and fairness are necessarily relegated to the sphere of the subjective, it is possible to implement schema which can in fact make them object focused, that is to say: practical.

Not according to atheist rationale there isn't: you might, for instance, say something like the avoidance of suffering is "object focused", but you have no objective way of accounting for whether suffering is bad or not. That, according to your own reasoning is, and always will be, a subjective judgement.

Therefore there is no need to suppose that there is anything imposed upon me "by the reckoning of the religious", quite the opposite in fact.

Which is exactly what I said. Your belief in fluid morality has, contrary to your previous point, nothing to do with religious people relegating your "examinations" to the subjective. You do that on your own.

[Himster]

I understand the "conception" of moral relativism. I just call it liberal hokum.

Not according to atheist rationale there isn't: you might, for instance, say something like the avoidance of suffering is "object focused", but you have no objective way of accounting for whether suffering is bad or not. That, according to your own reasoning is, and always will be, a subjective judgement.

I didn't say anything about moral relativism or John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism.

Which is exactly what I said. Your belief in fluid morality has, contrary to your previous point, nothing to do with religious people relegating your "examinations" to the subjective.

I don't have a belief in fluid morality.

You do that on your own.

Morality that is not done on your own is not morality: it is brainwashing, or at best, conditioning. Either way it is the elimination of the essential component that gives morality its sole criteria: agency.

[Cope]

I didn't say anything about moral relativism or John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism.

A belief in moral relativism is an inevitable extension from the argument that "Justice and fairness" belong "to the sphere of the subjective".

I don't have a belief in fluid morality.

Since subjectivity is fluid, so too must be subjective morality.

Morality that is not done on your own is not morality: it is brainwashing, or at best, conditioning. Either way it is the elimination of the essential component that gives morality its sole criteria: agency.

By which logic everyone is fundamentally amoral. According to nonreligious arguments, our perception of morality is an extension, first of our biological self (our physiology and neurology) and second of our "conditioning" (familial, social and educational influences). We have no control over the former and very limited control over the later. That you may believe yourself to be enlightened by your own agency is itself a consequence of the aforementioned physiological and environmental elements.

[basics]

The thing is that to most the Bible is only the dead letter but to those who are born again of the Sprit of God it becomes the living Word, an exciting insight as to how God wants us to be. Follow it and find eternal life with God for the alternative is not a good thing.

[Akar]

Word salad.

[Himster]

A belief in moral relativism is an inevitable extension from the argument that "Justice and fairness" belong "to the sphere of the subjective".

Since subjectivity is fluid, so too must be subjective morality.

By which logic everyone is fundamentally amoral. According to nonreligious arguments, our perception of morality is an extension, first of our biological self (our physiology and neurology) and second of our "conditioning" (familial, social and educational influences). We have no control over the former and very limited control over the later. That you may believe yourself to be enlightened by your own agency is itself a consequence of the aforementioned physiological and environmental elements.

Moral relativism on the grand social scale is the inevitable extension of the human condition. My moral principles are going to be different to someone who subscribes to a different philosophical school of thought. The same must be said about the religious. Your principles vary radically from Buddhists', Muslims', Catholics' etc. Principles.

Subjectivity is not necessarily fluid.
Look at religion, that exists in the sphere of the subjective, yet there are many aspects of it that do not change.
The same, very much, applies to practically all ethical models.
That being said: Most atheists are Utilitarian, ie. SJWs and/or hedonists, which for anybody who takes ethical philosophy seriously will find repugnant. So I can see your point, but it doesn't apply to me (I'm only a hedonist for a few hours on Saturdays) and it does not apply universally to the non-religious.

If you want to have a proper discussion on free-will versus materialistic-determinism, we should start a new thread as it is at least two steps removed from and many times larger than what is outlined in the OP of this thread.
But I will say this: No matter what, we have the agency to choose how we regard situations. We can choose to comply or rebel without any regard for our conditioning, biology, family situation etc.
A Nazi war criminal is not excused when he says that he didn't have a choice: "I was brainwashed, I didn't know what I was doing, I had to follow orders or I'd die, everyone else was doing it, I was defending my race, Gott mit uns, it was God's will or a divine destiny, etc." No, there's ALWAYS a choice, even if it's a hard choice riddled with all sorts of limitations.

Does that mean everyone is amoral? No. Does it mean that people who don't think about morality are amoral? Perhaps.

[conon394]

conon394,

When Adam screwed up in the garden that one event brought sin and death down upon all creation not just mankind and that's how its been ever since. What do you mean " technically " a Calvanist? The word predestination is a result of all things being done and dusted in heavenly time us in our time still playing things out and played out just as heaven already knows. So hopefully if your good lady is a Calvanist she is most likely born again of the Spirit of God. The sad thing is though that your daughter has come under the influence of Rome which is not Christian apart from name only.

Why exactly? So Adam and Eve screwed up why does everything have to suffer. I mean if my daughter spills chocolate milk all over the carpet and hides it rather than clean it up I do not punish my other two kids, wife and pets... and the neighbors and all my property. The fact is god seems a tad irrational since its on his watch that he failed to secure the Garden from temptation the first place and vectors for it.

[basics]

Why exactly? So Adam and Eve screwed up why does everything have to suffer. I mean if my daughter spills chocolate milk all over the carpet and hides it rather than clean it up I do not punish my other two kids, wife and pets... and the neighbors and all my property. The fact is god seems a tad irrational since its on his watch that he failed to secure the Garden from temptation the first place and vectors for it.

conon394,

Well if that happened in our house or in my parents house, wife or mum would have banned any more drinking where there was a carpet applying to all of us. Drink at the table or not at all and it would have been and was a good lesson in being careful or facing the consequences. Did it work? Most of the time but there still was the defiance to disobey if mum wasn't around, why? Because that's our nature, our fallen nature, to get one over our parents as well as others. Adam and Eve now had the curse of sin upon them and even if God had forgiven them the curse would have come out on any offspring they had. They weren't forgiven and so were cast out of that heavenly place into the world that was fallen because of them.

[Akar]

Or maybe the lesson isn't "our defiant nature" but that you shouldn't punish others for the sin of one? That's how you create resentful children who distrust and dislike their parents.

[Turkafinwë]

conon394,

Well if that happened in our house or in my parents house, wife or mum would have banned any more drinking where there was a carpet applying to all of us. Drink at the table or not at all and it would have been and was a good lesson in being careful or facing the consequences. Did it work? Most of the time but there still was the defiance to disobey if mum wasn't around, why? Because that's our nature, our fallen nature, to get one over our parents as well as others. Adam and Eve now had the curse of sin upon them and even if God had forgiven them the curse would have come out on any offspring they had. They weren't forgiven and so were cast out of that heavenly place into the world that was fallen because of them.

It's not really fair to compare a sensible rule, like no drinking on the carpet for all because one spilled a drink, to the banishment of all mankind to damnation because of the mistake of one individual (two if you count Eve). It would be more akin to if one of you spilled a drink and subsequently all children got beaten by your parents for it. Punishments do come in proportions, or at least should come in proportion to the "crime". Punching someone in the face because they made fun of you once is not a proportional punishment for his "crime". Still the sins of the father do not transfer to the son, or so I believe. If the father was a rapist should the son pay for his crimes?

[basics]

The punishment was primarily for not only disobeying God but more importantly disbelieving Him. Death came into the world as a result and it applied to everything. Now one can argue this and that but did God tell them a lie before they sinned? Was He unfair? From that point everything and everyone fell short of the glory of God yet not without an out that out being Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God slain before the foundations of the world. Have we His creation any right to question Him any more than Adam and Eve did? Of course many do and have done and many will still do but none can say that they haven't been warned of the consequences of wrong decisions. Belive God and live for the alternative isn't good.