controversy has arisen regarding jesus versus paul as scholars debate the different emphases and messages of jesus and paul.1 jesus preached the kingdom of heaven.
paul did not.
paul preached justification by faith alone.
While you cannot judge the eternal destination of people, anyone can (and must) judge actions made by people.
If somebody insists in evil acts you can decide not to associate with it. And you can only do that with a personal judgement. To judge is to decide.
controversy has arisen regarding jesus versus paul as scholars debate the different emphases and messages of jesus and paul.1 jesus preached the kingdom of heaven.
paul did not.
paul preached justification by faith alone.
The Jews were trying to continue the original monotheistic thought that started in Egypt (Aten). Maybe Moses is the link between Aten and YHVH. Maybe he had access to the secret cult of Aten.
YHVH was just one god among many gods. And for some reason they chose YHVH to be the monotheistic God.
The purpose was to stablish monotheism.
YHVH is not the equivalent of the First Person, the Father.
YHVH is the Hebrew equivalent to the Godhead. But to Christians the Godhead is a complete mystery.
Jesus revealed the Trinity. YHVH it's not the Father.
Christianity brought a new concept beyond the Godhead. This is very complex but that's the very reason why St. Stephen was killed. His speech is about this problem of YHVH vs the Father.
my wife and son were watching the january broadcast and one of the segments was about william tyndale.
william tyndale was a bible translator in the early 16th century.
i always knew that the org held men like tyndale, john hus and john wycliffe in high regard.
Good point John_Mann. The org loves Hus, Tyndale, Wycliffe and even Isaac Newton. But I never heard or read where Calvin or Luther were put in a favorable light with the org. Luther and Calvin were reformers too, were they not?
I think they only love these men because they hate the main reformers. Because they try to detach themselves from Protestant Reform. Because they don't want to be seen as being part of Catholic Church (traditional Protestants are in partial communion with CC and share a great amount of central doctrines). They even try to stablish a bizarre authority succession from Abel, considered to be the first Jehovah's Witness.
JWs are not alone in this thinking. Baptists try to trace down their authority to John Baptist.
They don't want to admit their version of Christianity is very recent in history and always founded by a single man with totally original (and opposite) ideas.
In the end is just a copycat version of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.
my wife and son were watching the january broadcast and one of the segments was about william tyndale.
william tyndale was a bible translator in the early 16th century.
i always knew that the org held men like tyndale, john hus and john wycliffe in high regard.
They don't like Luther and Calvin.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
This is how I interpret your position.
What other kind of valid interpretation of reality do you accept beyond scientific method and atheism?
I accept science and atheism being valid kinds of knowledge (Dawkins is right when he says every theist is also an atheist in a sense) but I know the limitations of them. You seems to use science and atheism as the only two kinds of valid and universal knowledge.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Conversely, theism, as interpreted by Christians and most other religions, is thoroughly demolished by science. I have long ago concluded that the strength of Christianity is rooted on the ability of the leaders to maintain the masses ignorant. They have done an excellent job so far.
This is very true to some Christian denominations.
I know theism is not science. But it's not anti-science.
I just find very intriguing that people like cofty preach the "Sola Science" but at the same time has no problem professing a non-scientific central position and blaming others to hold non-scientific positions. It's a double standard.
I think the majority of people here defending the "Sola Science" lacks basic knowledge about philosophy of science. Here's a good video about it:
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Yes thank you all for a good conversation.
Just reminding atheism is not science. Atheism is a philosophical position. But some atheists add the position of "Sola Science" which is not a scientific position either.
Just like the Sola Scriptura it's not found in Bible the "Sola Science" it's not found in science too.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Well I think we reached a dead-end and my conclusion is:
# By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research).
# And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.
You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?
Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.
And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.
The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands. Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Why should those suffering painful diseases care what you believe?
Your position is stem-cell research specifically using human embryos is a miraculous panacea.
You know this is not true.
Can you please provide me other example of "anti-science" from my religious position?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John - I am happy to discuss the issues with you but I don't appreciate your efforts to psychoanalyse my feelings and motivations.
Sorry I'm not comfortable in analyzing your feelings too but I think is necessary because I perceive a very emotional approach from you. I said that as a constructive criticism.
My criticism of faith is not blind. It is based on a lot of experience. If I am making "gross logical contradictions" they should be very easy to point out. I am aware of no contradictions in my position but I am listening.
You are making a philosophical attempt to differentiate objectiveness and absoluteness. But you're failing to do that.
We agreed that when we talk about morality we are concerned about maximising the well being of CONSCIOUS creatures. How is achieved by prohibiting stem-cell research?
Because I believe consciousness is produced by a soul and I believe the soul is created at the moment of conception. I'm not saying a fertilised egg is conscious but it have a conscious soul attached to it even though in a temporary dormant state (limbo).
