if an atheist does something good...

by DannyBloem 113 Replies latest watchtower scandals

parakeet

evanescence:
***The one true Church that keeps scripture at its correct interpretation.***
And who's to decide what that correct interpretation will be? The one that YOU think is true? Or maybe one of the 1000+ christian religions that claim to have the correct interpretation?
There is NO CORRECT interpretation of scripture. The Bible is filled with too many contradictions for any one person, group, or church to claim that they've got the real goods. If you're drawn to one of those interpretations and it works for you, fine. But then don't go claiming you have the truth and the rest of us have the moral codes of animals. A very unfeeling and unchristian sentiment, BTW.
Evanescence

We believe in one true Church alright, Christ's Church, headed by Him. We just don't believe that it is headed by men or an organization! We believe it is the Holy Spirit's job to give the "correct interpretation of scripture" NOT THE CHURCH (or the POPE)!
2 Peter 1:20
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. 21

No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.

Look closer at the scripture
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This scripture condemns the idea of "Sola Scriptura" that is to interpret the bible on your own. If anything it supports the Church magisterium.
And here is more scriptural proof
1 Corinthians
28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.
Mathew 18:15-17
15: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

16: But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
And who's to decide what that correct interpretation will be? The one that YOU think is true? Or maybe one of the 1000+ christian religions that claim to have the correct interpretation?

One can't simply give up and say there are too many denominations.
It is easy to cut them down to size as I referred to before with history.
How old is your church?
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html
Only the Catholic Church can make the claim of being the One Holy Apostolic Church. Only the Catholic Church can trace it's history back to the early Christians.
But then don't go claiming you have the truth and the rest of us have the moral codes of animals. A very unfeeling and unchristian sentiment, BTW.

The Catholic Church believes that other Christians have "partial truths"
We know there is truth out there, the claim "nothing is true" is contradictory for that also means that statement is also not true.
If it helps, I recommend this website www.threestepstothefountain.com
Evanescence
Evanescence

From Atheist vs. God

I'd start with the obvious here. The post on that page has many obvious problems, and I'd start with them:

1. About what "theist" is this person speaking. Monotheist? Polytheist? The author doesn't specify. By the statements that the author makes, it could be that they are addressing monotheists only, but then again, not all monotheists have the same concept of morality. Therefore, that topic can only continue if he addresses the individual morality of the many different "theists" that he is attempting to discredit all at once.

2. In the very first paragraph, the author claims, "Adultery, Theft, Murder etc are considered wrong because they harm the society in which these things take place and not simply because a superior authority has decreed they are wrong."

To that, I would ask WHO is considering these acts wrong? The society who is being harmed by them? Does the society not then itself become its own superior authority? If so, is it correct to believe that a society of man is an appropriate superior authority?

I would also ask how adultery, theft, and murder "harm" the society? Actually, each of these things, however immoral they are, could actually benefit society in some physical or material way in a certain circumstance. However, whether each instance "harms" society or not, they are morally wrong, and we know this because God says so. The "morality" of these things cannot be based solely on whether or not they "harm" society, because sometimes their only harm is "moral" in nature.

3. The author goes on to say: "Atheists believe there is no source of absolute morality in any religious document. There are even conflicts between different moral viewpoints within the Christian churches. The various denominations can not agree on what material should be included in the Bible and which laws are applicable to whom..."

That's true. It's a good thing Catholics are called to avoid heresy and pray for unity!

4. From a Catholic perspective, none of these Biblical quotations present a problem for us.

There are parts of this post where the author actually compares a passage from the OT with a passage from the NT. If he doesn't understand the basics of Christianity enough to know the problem with that, then he has no business discussing it at all, let alone making proclamations about what he thinks Christians believe or should believe based on the Bible snippets he is using.

How can we address the author's confusion and misinterpretation if he is this confused about the Bible to begin with?

And, once again, the Bible is not referenced by all "theists."
Evanescence
Evanescence

Kikisdragon
I am an athiest, and I wholeheartedly disagree that an athiest only does 'good' out of survival.

Every athiest is not the same - everyone has their own motives. That is insulting to me that you would assume that about me!

I think that being a good person and helping others is a way to make the world a better place, and benefits everyone and is the natural thing for humans to do. And yes, depending on the circumstances, I would sacrifice my life for someone else. My son, specifically. In a heartbeat. For a friend or family member, if that was the right thing to do. You do not need to believe in god to love people, and to put other people's needs first.

I don't think anyone made the claim that atheist individuals themselves only do good out of survival only. However it is what the atheist worldview can very much promote!
And I think it does matter to some extent, the motive behind 'doing good'. If a person only does good because of their religious beliefs, they will only do it when people know about it or people are watching. But someone who wants to do something good, simply because they see the need, or sincerely want to help or care about someone, will do good regardless of who is watching, or who knows about it. If one of my friends helps me out, because they feel it is their 'christian duty', then I would rather they didnt bother, because it means they really don't care about me, they only want to look good in other people's eyes, or please their 'god' so they will be rewarded or try to get me to come to more meetings or something of that nature. But when a true friend does something out of the sincerity of their heart, expecting no reward, then it strengthens friendships, and I appreciate it all the more, and am more likely to pass on the good feeling to others.
I am sure you are familiar with the Christian teaching on this matter.
It is hypocritical to do good just for rewards and good reputation and always expecting something out of it. The bible itself said that you are better off doing good works in secret and NOT to stand on corner streets showing off with a self-righteous attitude.
Evanescence
Evanescence

Religious morality allows people to justify some horrible, horrible things, such as:

Some "christians" may do bad things, but definately not in the name or Morality or in our Lord Jesus
God Hates Fags
I strongly recommend you stay away from Westboro Baptist!
and
Paul Hill murdering a doctor who legally performed abortions

I can't imagine how an atheist would ever come up with a code of morality that justified these kinds of acts, let alone actively encouraged and promoted them.
I wouldn't expect any atheist to do so! Or any true Christian. Evanescence
Midget-Sasquatch

I would also ask how adultery, theft, and murder "harm" the society? Actually, each of these things, however immoral they are, could actually benefit society in some physical or material way in a certain circumstance. However, whether each instance "harms" society or not, they are morally wrong, and we know this because God says so. The "morality" of these things cannot be based solely on whether or not they "harm" society, because sometimes their only harm is "moral" in nature.
Theft and murder would destroy the trust and so the cohesion/chances of survival of the group. The impact would be more devastating to the relatively smaller bands and tribes. So from just a utilitarian prospective, its possible to imagine the development and evolution of these particular moral codes.
skeptic2

What's good for you, may not be good for me. So how do you know what is good and what is evil? Are you saying you are using your own standard?
Nobody gets their morality solely from a book, that's a ridiculous idea.
Let's simplify, and say there are two ways to learn morality:
1. From the experiences you go through as you grow up, seeing your actions and other's actions and how they affect people. All humans have an innate empathy, which helps them to identify suffering in others (although affects some people more than others).
2. From a parable.
Are you telling my that no-one learns from their life experience - and they are completely amoral until they read a Bible?
What about all the people who have never read Bibles - why are they not all immoral?
Where do my morals come from?
How do you make a moral judgement about a situation for which the Bible says nothing, or is not clear? I guess you are completely stuck? (of course I don't believe that)

Why does research into moral development not take account of the Bible, if this is the only way people learn morality - have all these researchers completely missed the (apparent) obvious.

When I went to a JW district convention - the main thought running through my head was 'I have never been so insulted in all my life'. This was because all the way through it was implied that someone who is not a JW must completely lack any morals.

I am very surprised to find the same attitude on this forum, directed towards non-Christians.
It's just fundamentalist Christian fascim.
Why - when I am an atheist with (apparently) no morals, do I find it offensive and prejudiced to describe whole groups of people as possessing a negative character?
Who is lacking morals in this situation?
LittleToe

Skeptic2:
Does all Christians possess this level of conceit? It's dumbfounding.

On the subject you address she's actually correct. Name another religion that has God reaching out to mankind, rather than man having to find God under his own steam? I wouldn't be so bigoted as to state that that is what makes it better than others, but it is a unique feature (though some denominations that call themselves "Christian" still promote finding Him under your own steam, e.g. JWs).
Evan:
Skeptic is right about you showing a little conceit there. What's to differentiate the Roman Catholic church from The Eastern Orthodox? The Papacy? Which one is right? Further, why should a denomination be excluded because it's a newcomer, given that it's ostensibly come from the same vine? Have you retained a JW-esque view that there must be only one true religion, rather than rejoiciung with the body of Christ that there's diversity (as even Augustine concurred)?
Sola Scripture is about claiming the scriptures as the only authority, rather than men. Using your definition, what's to differentiate the reinterpretation of scripture by the Pope, the Mormon Apostles, a WTS Governing Body member, or an individual Christian "priest" in that interpretation? Lineage??? It's not even a bloodline, nor does the Pope choose his successor.
I'm not writing any of this to promote a downer on the Pope or any particular denomination, but only to widen your eyes to the reality that God surely isn't that small? Otherwise how do you interpret Acts 10:34,35 ?
skeptic2

Name another religion that has God reaching out to mankind, rather than man having to find God under his own steam?
Can you give me a concrete example of what you mean by 'God reaching out to mankind'? OK forget that - I answered my own question via Google (assume you mean 'God' sent down his 'son').
Satanus

Lt
Name another religion that has God reaching out to mankind,
Can you give some recent, specific examples?
S

if an atheist does something good...

Share this