Christian Paradox

[tackattack]

My point was that morals are completely subjective. I don't see bad as evil, but evil has the connotation commonly associated with it as bad. Maybe a better way would be for me to explain what I feel bad is as opposed to good. Good are the actions we take that further me individually in whatever pursuit I'm currently seeking. Bad then would be the unending variables of probability on the space time continum that I didn't choose. Taking one step left is better than one step right because I'm closer to the snack bar. There I said better which my subconscious registers as left step better, right step worst. Then I justified it by attaching a focus. When trying to get to the snack bar from where I am now left steps are good and anything else is bad while the opposite of a left step is blatantly counterproductive or wrong. When I say people are inherintly evil, it's more of a reference to the plethera of possibilities we can and will do and that the right or good path is a narrow one of selection. Thoughts?

[LEDO]

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a classic examination of morals from a non-human viewpoint. In order to save life on the planet earth all humans must be destroyed. Wouldn't that make dictators such as Hitler a saint along with Ghandi?

[KichigaiNeko]

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a classic examination of morals from a non-human viewpoint. In order to save life on the planet earth all humans must be destroyed. Wouldn't that make dictators such as Hitler a saint along with Ghandi?

Pretty much.

Along with anthropgenic climate change as a reason to DO IT!!

[tavarish]

An obvious contradiction is the fact that there are so many denominations and faiths out there.

If the message was at all clear, there would not be so much dissent. Especially when most of the religious groups in the world originate from one region of the world over the period of a few centuries between them.

[tackattack]

you see contradiction I see evolution of an ideal

[tavarish]

you see contradiction I see evolution of an ideal

If the ideal was universal and beneficial for our species, like modern religion would have you believe (objective morals), there would be MUCH less dissent. Keep in mind most, if not all of these religions believe they have it right and everyone else has it wrong. If God is omnipotent, couldn't he reveal himself to the world? It's not above him or out of his character to do that, he did it all the time in the Old Testament. It would eliminate a lot of the unbelievers and false prophets pretty quick, don't you think?

[tackattack]

It is out of his character to directly reveal himself too us, unless he's about ready to punish us. He gave us Jesus and the holy spirit to learn his ways and therefore has no need to come down himself ain a "chariot of fire" or whathave you, that's soooo OT
There is actually very little dissent as to the universal and beneficial attributes of God relative to population. The only dissent is how we can achive said goal. It's attestable to man's smallness and lack of understanding in a universe so vast.

[tavarish]

It is out of his character to directly reveal himself too us, unless he's about ready to punish us. He gave us Jesus and the holy spirit to learn his ways and therefore has no need to come down himself ain a "chariot of fire" or whathave you, that's soooo OT
There is actually very little dissent as to the universal and beneficial attributes of God relative to population. The only dissent is how we can achive said goal. It's attestable to man's smallness and lack of understanding in a universe so vast.

Here's a rib tickler:

Given that science for the most part has increased steadily since the dawn of humanity, would you not think a benevolent and purposeful God would provide evidence of his existence?

Excuse me for being frank, but sending his son (who was also himself) to the most superstitious part of the world, where many others shared the same claim (son of god, born of a virgin, performed miracles), and then having a few people write about it decades after the fact with contradictory accounts isn't evidence. If God is angered when people are unbelievers or believe false prophets, it would be no fault but his own, for providing such a crappy standard of verifiability. My point was: If the existence of God was knowledge based in verifiable claims and evidence rather than faith, we would have much less dissent. Not all religions believe in the same concept of a benevolent God, and the details are vastly different.

Man's lack of understanding has decreased because of reasoned logic and an understanding of the scientific method. We know more about the universe than we ever did, and this wealth of knowledge is expanding rapidly. All of scientific understanding works perfectly well without a celestial guide to help us along the way. It is not an absolute that there is nothing controlling us from beyond the scope of the known universe, but to believe something without a basis of evidence, especially when making claims of his actions and intentions, is illogical and somewhat delusional.

[tackattack]

I don't believe anything without a basis of evidence. Most atheists aren't willing to allow all types of evidence into consideration, and rightly so. Where would science be today without such high standards of evidence? God isn't science though, I believe there are things outside the explination of science, outside the tangible, and it's evident to me. I'm grateful for all of scientific studies and pursuits and agree that elimination of variables and faith is a detriment to that pursuit. Variables and faith are however very relevant to reality, as is subjective perspective.

I don't claim to know why God wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were God. However my perception is within the confines of the laws of nature and his isn't. Perhaps our existance is but a fleeting second of fiery self-destruction from his POV, similar to a firework. Perhaps if we focus on him he takes the time to focus on us, putting him in sink with our spacetime allowing him to work miracles in our day-to-day lives. Our perception works that way, what we focus our will on is what consciously manipulate. After Jesus we have subjective verifiability in the holy spirit.

I'm sure someone born that time was named Jesus, I'm sure there were lots of people born that time with lots of different names. That's the problem with a literalist and scientific realist approach. I don't worship a man named Jesus. I worship God, I know about some aspects of God and can recieve redemption through the Son of God. I don't care if the Son of God was named Jesus, Yeshuda or dwight. They may have just slapped a name on the most controversial speaker of the time, but the deeds of the Son of God answer the prophesies of the OT and we'll never know if it was him till he comes back. I think that answers all of your questions from above.

[Rhizomorph13]

Tackattack,

Jews would dissagree with you about the "Son of God" mentioned in the New Testament being an answer to their prophecy. I know that probably isn't news to you, but how can you be so sure, other than fuzzy feelings you receive at inopportune moments? Muslims say that Jesus was just one in a long line of prophets and still other religions break the god concept up in different ways. We are both atheists I just believe in one less god than you.

The problem with following what you perceive as "The Holy Spirit" is that there is no way to verify that it even exists. If it does exists how can you be sure you are right when you seperate other feelings you have from what is really "The Holy Spirit?" So what you might be doing is just following what feels good to you which is a very bad way to make decisions.

Rhizo