Christianity and morals

[John V]

Consider this a side question, then: Your point seemed to be that Christians don't keep slaves because they're instructed to obey the law, and now slavery is against the law.

No, that wasn't my point.

Therefore it is consistent for Christians not to keep slaves.

This was my point. Note that the instruction to obey secular law was only my second point. My first was simply that, while the Bible allowed owning of slaves, it did not mandate owning of slaves. That alone refuted the charge. I could have stopped there. The point on obeying secular law was given as additional information. It was unnecessary for my argument.

The implication is that if it weren't against the law, maybe some Christians would keep slaves with the idea that it's biblically okay.

If it weren't against the law, people of many types would keep slaves, as secular society would be saying it's OK. Some Christians probably would. Some atheists probably would.

---

Only because the questions are light and you can find some reference for it.

Ah, slavery is a "light" issue. Gotcha.

Just a fun exercise: Try explaining these questions without saying the words "Gods Plan" or "Faith"...
-Why did Jesus never write anything?

He knew other people would write what was necessary.

-Why do bad things happen to good people who are super-religious?

There are no good people by God's standards. Why do you equate being super-religious with being good? Jesus had harsh words for the super-religious of his time.

-How old was Mary when she had Jesus?

I don't know. What difference does it make? From what I've read about the times she was likely a teenager.

-If human's were made in God's image, then does God have any of the following: nose, teeth, lungs, nipples, penis?

Father, Spirit: No, no, no, no, and no, although they could appear with such if they chose.
Son: Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

And what would he use them for?

Breathing/smelling, chewing, breathing, nothing, urination. This ain't rocket surgery. Maybe people give you blow-off answers because you ask stupid questions.

What color is his skin?

Then it was brown. Check out skin color of people in the area today.

-Do the mentally ill have free will and why did God make them that way?

By God's standards we're all mentally ill, it's just a matter of degree. God is longsuffering and allows us to procreate out of grace.

-Why was not a single mention or word EVER written about Jesus by anyone who was alive at any time during Jesus' supposed life-time?

Huh? Quite the loaded question. You need to prove the premise before I bother to answer. The NT writers under the traditional view were indeed alive during Jesus' lifetime.

-Why does God like some people in Oklahoma and not others?

Again, loaded question. Flesh out the question if you want an answer.

[Drich]

How many of those prophets/ their religions from the time of Christ are still around?

A wonderful testament to our technological ability, specifically in the arena of annihilating each other.

So it is your belief that all the false prophets and their subsequent religions were viable upto the modern age, or maybe even the industrial age??

[Pandas United]

Would have definitely helped to clear some things up though, eh?

You could say that about anything. I find the four gospels to be adequate.

We live in a what again?

Fallen world.

It would help to add credibility to the narrative - inclusion of facts and whatnot.

Another argument from silence. You are nitpicking. What about the vast amounts of facts already portrayed? Like: Mary's visitation to Elizabeth, date of Mary being found with child, birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, Circumcision of Jesus being 8 days after birth, their flight into Egypt, returning to Nazareth... etc.

You can read more about what we know about Mary here if you want-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mothe...references

Strangely humans are not (immaterial) - images are, of course...very material - by any meaning of the word. Maybe this one is just a misunderstanding?

"Image" was a symbolic tool. The image of God refers to the "soul" or "spirit" of man; the immaterial part of man. It sets man distinct from the rest of the animal world and fits man for the dominion God intended man to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables us to know our Creator. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

Hehehe, I'm starting to like you.

Don't get too comfortable

To be fair, the gospels only require "explaining away" the rest is easy - you have fantasies, we all do. I guess that handles the gospels just as easily though, so meh.

Not as easy as you think. There's also a whole library full of historical references to Jesus in the Vatican. Gonna take a lot of explaining away.

There's a guy here that agrees that the bible is very clear on this count as well - except that he feels that it's very clear that god doesn't equally love all of us (and that god doesn't love a great many of us -at all-). I don't know, but that doesn't sound-at a glance, like we have a situation of clarity.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.. Are you referring to Calvinism?

[The Grand Nudger]

You could say that about anything. I find the four gospels to be adequate.

I could, yes, but I didn't. I said it about one very specific thing...and it's precisely -because- you find them to be adequate that they need clearing up. Those that disagree with you also, apparently, find them to be "adequate" - while reaching an entirely different conclusion. This is why I would call them "inadequate".

Fallen world.

What sort of distance are we talking about, what sort of velocity, and when we reach the terminus of this fall what kind of impact are we looking at?

Another argument from silence. You are nitpicking. What about the vast amounts of facts already portrayed? Like: Mary's visitation to Elizabeth, date of Mary being found with child, birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, Circumcision of Jesus being 8 days after birth, their flight into Egypt, returning to Nazareth... etc.

I'm not arguing anything amigo, I'm simply suggesting that the inclusion of facts would add credibility to the narrative.

"Image" was a symbolic tool. The image of God refers to the "soul" or "spirit" of man; the immaterial part of man.

We'd have to have one of those for this particular translation to hold water. Now get to it.

Not as easy as you think. There's also a whole library full of historical references to Jesus in the Vatican. Gonna take a lot of explaining away.

Detail your favorites, then we can handle them. I'm uncomfortable with this being left at a bare claim that claims about the existence of something exist. Understandable?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.. Are you referring to Calvinism?

You'd have to take that up with him, and we have a rule about not calling people out - so I guess you'll just have to wait to see it with your own eyes. Until then, if you'd like to contest this, what would you say to someone who contends that is clearly obvious that god does not loves us all equally, and in fact does not love some of us -at all-...and that all of this is made very clear in the bible?

[Mister Agenda]

I think you have a point, Drich; but so-called miracle-workers were a dime-a-dozen in that region and time. It was easy to convince people you were divine or connected to the divine with a flashy miracle or clever prophecy.

How many of those prophets/ their religions from the time of Christ are still around?

There aren't any prophets from 2,000 years ago still around.

There wasn't a successful new religion originating in Middle East for nearly a thousand years after the time of Jesus. Are you claiming it's because his miracles were more impressive? I thought it was because his message appealed to the masses and Paul worked like a horse to establish it

[The Grand Nudger]

So it is your belief that all the false prophets

As if there were any other kind of prophet

and their subsequent religions were viable upto the modern age, or maybe even the industrial age??

Is there any "viable religion" currently on offer? I was unaware.

[Silver]

The saddest, scariest part regarding religious morality is that these religious people believe they would be immoral without belief in their deities.

[Faith No More]

The saddest, scariest part regarding religious morality is that these religious people believe they would be immoral without belief in their deities.

The scariest part is that a lot of them probably would be. After all, there's no point in doing something unless you're going to benefit from it, am I right?

[Ryantology]

Your not taking in the time period, or you simply do not understand this very simple statement.

The feeding of the 5000 was not a matter of charity. It was to proove TO THOSE PEOPLE That HE/Jesus Possed the Power and Authority of God.

Funny how he can't do that now, with cameras rolling. You might almost wonder if God's willingness to prove his power and authority is directly proportionate to how ignorant and gullible his (entire) audience is.

[fr0d0]

The saddest, scariest part regarding religious morality is that these religious people believe they would be immoral without belief in their deities.

Yes they would live their lives like there was no justice. That would be secular morality.