Need some help from fellow atheists

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: K1052
Atheists are pretty much in the same boat as the religious.

They also profess a belief which has no basis according to the available evidence.

You pretty much nailed it. Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, it's all physically and scientifically unprovable and therefore faith-based, and therefore a religion by most definitions. I wish everyone would recognize that.

I am a Baptist myself and realize that I can't prove to someone through facts that I am correct and the Bible is correct, however I have seen the evidence of it being correct in my life and therefore have faith that my belief is correct.

You have to admit that the post the OP quoted is correct - it would be easier to live how you wanted as a teen with no parents, right? God is seen as a Father - an authority that you are accountable to. Eliminate the accountability and what cause do you have to be 'moral'? Just the government's laws and respect for your fellow man.

God help us when those deteriorate.

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Then for the closer point out how the Bible is a terrible place to get your morality from and how flawed the 10 commandments are.

Explain this.

Text

Ummm what?

The Bible. Read it.

If you read it, you would understand that the Ten Commandments are no longer the law that applies to believers.

Beside that, you have not supported the argument in the least

I am very impressed by that. Good job. I take it sir that you have actually read the Word. Acts 15 FTW.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
local news paper writer asks people if they believe in god

trying to get my point across, and then someone posts this:

It's an easier life when one discounts God, heaven and hell.....once that philosophy is in place, it enables atheists to live the type of immoral life with no feelings of guilt.....

If anyone wants to add to the discussion, feel free. I'm definitely outnumbered in the bible belt.

That explains why priests rape teenage boys.

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Read it. The Bible. The Bible. Read it.
Lemme know when you get past Genesis.

Why don't you explain your position of how "the Bible is a terrible place to get your morality from and how flawed the 10 commandements are" instead of ignoring the question. Reading the Bible will do nothing to prove your point if no one finds an issue with what they're reading.

Here's a good one from the OT.

Judges 11:29-40

29 Now the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, so that he passed through Gilead and Manasseh; then he passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he went on to the sons of Ammon. 30 Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, ?If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, 31 then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD?S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.? 32 So Jephthah crossed over to the sons of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. 33 He struck them with a very great slaughter from Aroer to the entrance of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim. So the sons of Ammon were subdued before the sons of Israel.

34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only child; besides her he had no son or daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, ?Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.? 36 So she said to him, ?My father, you have given your word to the LORD; do to me as you have said, since the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the sons of Ammon.? 37 She said to her father, ?Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions.? 38 Then he said, ?Go.? So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. 39 At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Pretty terrible huh? I'm not saying this particular part is influencing people's morals all that much. Most people don't even know about it, but the bible is replete with horrible acts such as this.

If you read it with an eye for what wouldn't be morally acceptable these days, you realize that as a society, we are already light years beyond what passed for morality in biblical times.

Yeah, you're taking that whole section of scripture out of the actual context it was in.

Read the first three verses of that chapter. It says that Jephthah was the son of a harlot (a prostitute), and his brothers drove him away. So he moved away and was in company with "worthless fellows."

So what happens? Israel becomes under attack, and during this time, they come back and ask their brother to be a leader in the fight. He does so, and they win.

Now, while this is happening, he makes a foolish vow. But what can you expect from someone who spends his time with worthless men? Bad company corrupts good character. If you go swimming in the ocean, you're bound to come out with atleast a little salt on you. The same happens when you are with worthless fellows. But above that, one of the main points of this is not to make rash statements.

And technically it doesn't say that he sacrificed his daughter. If you honestly read it, you will see that the friends of the daughter were mourning because she was a virgin, not because she was dying. And when she returns, it says, specifically, that she had no relations with a man. So did he kill her? Or did he sacrifice her by not giving up his daughter for marriage. Women weren't looked upon too great, especially if you weren't going to get a dowry for them.

And as for the statement by DrPizza about Siamese twins: from a Christian standpoint, the bible says that we have a soul. The soul is separate from the spirit, but soul is interchangeable with heart and mind. Those three things are equal (soul, heart, mind), the twins obviously have their own minds, which means they both have their own souls.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Find some examples in the bible, especially the old testament, of behavior that the majority of modern Christians find immoral. Slavery is a good example. You'd be hard pressed to find any modern churches that support slavery, but you'd be even harder pressed to find a bible passage that condemns it.

If Christians claim their morals come from God, then how can they hold a moral opinion regarding slavery that at worse contradicts the word of God or at best ignores it?

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I do not know about you but I do not want to be a slave so according to that scripture I should not force anyone to be a slave.

Finding a passage in the OT will probably be hard if not impossible, but you have to understand the difference between the OT and the NT. The OT is the old law (basic law) and the NT was the new law (more complex). Things that would have been OK under the old law might be a sin under the new law.

 

[Mo0o]

That line is complete horsesht. I dont believe in God but i still have morals. I dont hold myself accountable to a higher power, i hold myself accountable to my fellow man. Moral Humanism for the ***** win

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Find some examples in the bible, especially the old testament, of behavior that the majority of modern Christians find immoral. Slavery is a good example. You'd be hard pressed to find any modern churches that support slavery, but you'd be even harder pressed to find a bible passage that condemns it.

If Christians claim their morals come from God, then how can they hold a moral opinion regarding slavery that at worse contradicts the word of God or at best ignores it?

Have you read the scriptures that talk about how you are to treat your slaves? Aside from the Levitical laws that talk about breaking their teeth and such.

I say that because it's an interesting study to do. If you haven't done so, I really think you should. You might not want to, and that's fine. But if you're open-minded what is the problem with doing a study?

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
That line is complete horsesht. I dont believe in God but i still have morals. I dont hold myself accountable to a higher power, i hold myself accountable to my fellow man. Moral Humanism for the ***** win

You do hold yourself accountable to a higher power. You hold yourself accountable to the government, and any institution that you are under. All authority is delegated, and you will be held accountable for what you do, say, and think.

What you think will become what you say. What you say will eventually become what you do. Therefore you will be held accountable for those three things by any authority which you are under. Your boss may be a man, but the company you work for isn't.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: K1052
Atheists are pretty much in the same boat as the religious.

They also profess a belief which has no basis according to the available evidence.

You pretty much nailed it. Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, it's all physically and scientifically unprovable and therefore faith-based, and therefore a religion by most definitions. I wish everyone would recognize that.

I am a Baptist myself and realize that I can't prove to someone through facts that I am correct and the Bible is correct, however I have seen the evidence of it being correct in my life and therefore have faith that my belief is correct.

You have to admit that the post the OP quoted is correct - it would be easier to live how you wanted as a teen with no parents, right? God is seen as a Father - an authority that you are accountable to. Eliminate the accountability and what cause do you have to be 'moral'? Just the government's laws and respect for your fellow man.

God help us when those deteriorate.

You can believe that if you want to, that doesn't make you right, though.

There are a couple forms of atheism. The two major versions being:
1) "I believe that there is in fact no god."
2) "I do not believe in god. (Or any higher power)"

Note please, that this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics do not know whether or not there is a god, or if they have faith. There are also a couple types of agnostics. Some don't care if there is a higher power or not, and some care deeply and seek the answer out.

Back to atheism. One atheist requires faith, that atheist being the one who BELIEVES there is no god. The other requires no faith, this atheist simply does not believe, this atheist simply lacks faith/belief.

I am the latter. I do not like faith, I do not have faith, I only trust facts and science, as long as it has not been tampered with by biases sources. That seems to happen a lot, but there are still plenty of unbiased sources of science and intelligence available. I understand that most of our understanding of the universe and existence is theory, and I'm not going to pretend to KNOW anything if I don't.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you, and everyone else would stop fu**ing telling me what I and other fellow atheists believe. I will tell you what I believe, and that's final.

I do not appreciate people attempting to lump myself or others into groups because it makes them feel better about their own understanding of how they believe the world works. Keep that to yourself.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: K1052
Atheists are pretty much in the same boat as the religious.

They also profess a belief which has no basis according to the available evidence.

You pretty much nailed it. Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, it's all physically and scientifically unprovable and therefore faith-based, and therefore a religion by most definitions. I wish everyone would recognize that.

I am a Baptist myself and realize that I can't prove to someone through facts that I am correct and the Bible is correct, however I have seen the evidence of it being correct in my life and therefore have faith that my belief is correct.

You have to admit that the post the OP quoted is correct - it would be easier to live how you wanted as a teen with no parents, right? God is seen as a Father - an authority that you are accountable to. Eliminate the accountability and what cause do you have to be 'moral'? Just the government's laws and respect for your fellow man.

God help us when those deteriorate.

I had you in my sig before as you are a religious nut and this post just backs that up.

Evolution has been proven and is seen every day in micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact.

The bible is so full of flaws that I would have a hard time to begin on what to post. Christianity changes every year to keep the masses. I had spaghetti last night. By you low standards i guess that means the flying spaghetti monster is real as "I have seen the evidence of it being correct in my life and therefore have faith that my belief is correct.
"

Kinda like if you can;t explain it, it must be the work of god. :laugh:

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Nooo... jeez you guys get touchy about this. :laugh:

Christians live a life that adheres to a moral code which is tied to eternal salvation/damnation. That is more difficult than living a life with whatever moral code suits you.

Nobody is saying that atheists live amoral lives... Just that they have the option to if they wish and in doing so can still call themselves atheists and live without fear of reprisal upon death.

And, no, you can't prove a negative. Ex: Bigfoot doesn't exist. Prove it. Well you can't prove that. All you can do is say that there is no credible evidence to suggest that he's real. Same with God.

Then that only proves that a moral atheist is morally superior to a Christian since the morality of a moral atheist is for the sake of being moral and a Christian's is for selfish reasons (i.e. pursuing salvation).

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: K1052
Atheists are pretty much in the same boat as the religious.

They also profess a belief which has no basis according to the available evidence.

QFT.

 

[alyssa]

Originally posted by: reverend boltron

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Read it. The Bible. The Bible. Read it.
Lemme know when you get past Genesis.

Why don't you explain your position of how "the Bible is a terrible place to get your morality from and how flawed the 10 commandements are" instead of ignoring the question. Reading the Bible will do nothing to prove your point if no one finds an issue with what they're reading.

Here's a good one from the OT.

Judges 11:29-40

29 Now the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, so that he passed through Gilead and Manasseh; then he passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he went on to the sons of Ammon. 30 Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, ?If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, 31 then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD?S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.? 32 So Jephthah crossed over to the sons of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. 33 He struck them with a very great slaughter from Aroer to the entrance of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim. So the sons of Ammon were subdued before the sons of Israel.

34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only child; besides her he had no son or daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, ?Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.? 36 So she said to him, ?My father, you have given your word to the LORD; do to me as you have said, since the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the sons of Ammon.? 37 She said to her father, ?Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions.? 38 Then he said, ?Go.? So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. 39 At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Pretty terrible huh? I'm not saying this particular part is influencing people's morals all that much. Most people don't even know about it, but the bible is replete with horrible acts such as this.

If you read it with an eye for what wouldn't be morally acceptable these days, you realize that as a society, we are already light years beyond what passed for morality in biblical times.

Yeah, you're taking that whole section of scripture out of the actual context it was in.

Read the first three verses of that chapter. It says that Jephthah was the son of a harlot (a prostitute), and his brothers drove him away. So he moved away and was in company with "worthless fellows."

So what happens? Israel becomes under attack, and during this time, they come back and ask their brother to be a leader in the fight. He does so, and they win.

Now, while this is happening, he makes a foolish vow. But what can you expect from someone who spends his time with worthless men? Bad company corrupts good character. If you go swimming in the ocean, you're bound to come out with atleast a little salt on you. The same happens when you are with worthless fellows. But above that, one of the main points of this is not to make rash statements.

And technically it doesn't say that he sacrificed his daughter. If you honestly read it, you will see that the friends of the daughter were mourning because she was a virgin, not because she was dying. And when she returns, it says, specifically, that she had no relations with a man. So did he kill her? Or did he sacrifice her by not giving up his daughter for marriage. Women weren't looked upon too great, especially if you weren't going to get a dowry for them.

And as for the statement by DrPizza about Siamese twins: from a Christian standpoint, the bible says that we have a soul. The soul is separate from the spirit, but soul is interchangeable with heart and mind. Those three things are equal (soul, heart, mind), the twins obviously have their own minds, which means they both have their own souls.

What he did to her was WORSE than death; he circumcised her.

Back to the topic.

I'm an atheist, and I think it's useless trying to argue with anyone about your beliefs. So why even bother?

 

[fire400]

i'm flattered by your hatred towards religion. get a life.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: reverend boltron

Yeah, you're taking that whole section of scripture out of the actual context it was in.

Why is this always the counter argument when someone quotes from the bible to point out its flaws? For the record I am not taking this quote out of context. I quoted all of it instead of only the bolded parts to derail this very argument. If you take it in the context of the entire book all you get is more damning evidence because Judges is a quite nasty part of the bible.

Read the first three verses of that chapter. It says that Jephthah was the son of a harlot (a prostitute), and his brothers drove him away. So he moved away and was in company with "worthless fellows."

So what happens? Israel becomes under attack, and during this time, they come back and ask their brother to be a leader in the fight. He does so, and they win.

Now, while this is happening, he makes a foolish vow. But what can you expect from someone who spends his time with worthless men? Bad company corrupts good character. If you go swimming in the ocean, you're bound to come out with atleast a little salt on you. The same happens when you are with worthless fellows. But above that, one of the main points of this is not to make rash statements.

It's a good point you make here, and good advice for everyday life as well. I would have no problem with this quote if it was presented as an allegory meant to convey this message, but this is supposed to be historically accurate. God wanted Jephthah to slaughter the sons of Ammon or he wouldn't have fulfilled his end of the bargain. Instead of staying Jephthah's hand at the last moment as he did with Abraham, he allowed him to cook his daughter. If you can get over the horrors of human sacrifice then you'll see this as inconsistent at best.

And technically it doesn't say that he sacrificed his daughter. If you honestly read it, you will see that the friends of the daughter were mourning because she was a virgin, not because she was dying. And when she returns, it says, specifically, that she had no relations with a man. So did he kill her? Or did he sacrifice her by not giving up his daughter for marriage. Women weren't looked upon too great, especially if you weren't going to get a dowry for them.

Technically, it does.

"...I will offer it up as a burnt offering". Is Jephthah's end of the bargain.

"At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made..."


Unless you aren't clear on what a burnt offering is the meaning is obvious, and there is plenty of precedent in the bible to establish exactly what a burnt offering is. She mourned her virginity for equally obvious reasons. Never to be married, never to have children, never to experience sex, there are lots of reasons to be sad that you are going to die a virgin. In that culture, at that time, it just happened to be the saddest thing about the situation.

 

[TallBill]

Sorry, I know that gods dont exist, but I don't care if other people waste their time and effort.

 

[Mr Smiley]

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Find some examples in the bible, especially the old testament, of behavior that the majority of modern Christians find immoral. Slavery is a good example. You'd be hard pressed to find any modern churches that support slavery, but you'd be even harder pressed to find a bible passage that condemns it.

If Christians claim their morals come from God, then how can they hold a moral opinion regarding slavery that at worse contradicts the word of God or at best ignores it?

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I do not know about you but I do not want to be a slave so according to that scripture I should not force anyone to be a slave.

Finding a passage in the OT will probably be hard if not impossible, but you have to understand the difference between the OT and the NT. The OT is the old law (basic law) and the NT was the new law (more complex). Things that would have been OK under the old law might be a sin under the new law.

Find me a passage that condemns slavery specifically. There are plenty of passages that specifically deal with slaves. But nowhere is slavery condemned outright like it should have been.

Matthew 22:39 doesn't say love thy slave as thyself. If that passage was meant to apply to slaves it would say so since the bible is pretty specific in all the other passages that discuss or regulate how slaves are to be treated.

Even if we pretend it was meant to apply to slaves it is still immoral. It doesn't matter if a slave owner treats his slaves compassionately. The very act of owning another human being as a piece of property is immoral, no matter how good that 'property' is treated. Its analogous to making a law that requires a murderer to kill his victim quickly so as not to cause any needless suffering.

With regards to the NT trumping the OT... thats fine. Find me a passage in the New Testament that specifically condemns slavery. Slavery is mentioned in the NT. It was never condemned even though the practice was widespread. The truth is that the bible actually helped the practice of slavery by telling slaves to shut up and behave and telling slave owners that nothing was wrong with the practice.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: reverend boltron

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Find some examples in the bible, especially the old testament, of behavior that the majority of modern Christians find immoral. Slavery is a good example. You'd be hard pressed to find any modern churches that support slavery, but you'd be even harder pressed to find a bible passage that condemns it.

If Christians claim their morals come from God, then how can they hold a moral opinion regarding slavery that at worse contradicts the word of God or at best ignores it?

Have you read the scriptures that talk about how you are to treat your slaves? Aside from the Levitical laws that talk about breaking their teeth and such.

I say that because it's an interesting study to do. If you haven't done so, I really think you should. You might not want to, and that's fine. But if you're open-minded what is the problem with doing a study?

Yes I have and it is very interesting indeed. Sure the bible says to treat your slaves good. Do you not see how twisted and messed up that is? I don't care if the bible said to pamper your slaves, the fact that it is endorsing such an immoral practice is awful. Instead of dedicating all that effort about how to engage in an utterly immoral practice it could just as easily said DO NOT ENSLAVE YOUR FELLOW MAN!

That should be one of the commandments. The fact that we know slavery is wrong yet it is not declared so in the bible should make us stop and think, maybe the bible is not the source of right and wrong after all.

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Find some examples in the bible, especially the old testament, of behavior that the majority of modern Christians find immoral. Slavery is a good example. You'd be hard pressed to find any modern churches that support slavery, but you'd be even harder pressed to find a bible passage that condemns it.

If Christians claim their morals come from God, then how can they hold a moral opinion regarding slavery that at worse contradicts the word of God or at best ignores it?

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I do not know about you but I do not want to be a slave so according to that scripture I should not force anyone to be a slave.

Finding a passage in the OT will probably be hard if not impossible, but you have to understand the difference between the OT and the NT. The OT is the old law (basic law) and the NT was the new law (more complex). Things that would have been OK under the old law might be a sin under the new law.

Find me a passage that condemns slavery specifically. There are plenty of passages that specifically deal with slaves. But nowhere is slavery condemned outright like it should have been.

Matthew 22:39 doesn't say love thy slave as thyself. If that passage was meant to apply to slaves it would say so since the bible is pretty specific in all the other passages that discuss or regulate how slaves are to be treated.

Even if we pretend it was meant to apply to slaves it is still immoral. It doesn't matter if a slave owner treats his slaves compassionately. The very act of owning another human being as a piece of property is immoral, no matter how good that 'property' is treated. Its analogous to making a law that requires a murderer to kill his victim quickly so as not to cause any needless suffering.

With regards to the NT trumping the OT... thats fine. Find me a passage in the New Testament that specifically condemns slavery. Slavery is mentioned in the NT. It was never condemned even though the practice was widespread. The truth is that the bible actually helped the practice of slavery by telling slaves to shut up and behave and telling slave owners that nothing was wrong with the practice.

I think what you might be searching for is the biblical definition of a neighbor. The bible doesn't need to say "love your slave as yourself" since neighbor encompasses slave. Think about it like saying, "give everyone in the US a dollar", would you give someone who lived in Utah a dollar? Yes, because Utah is part of the US, just as a slave is also your neighbor.

Read Luke 10:27-37
It is the parable of the Good Samaritan

You sound like you have had some experience with the teachings of Jesus, so if you've read this parable, you might not think you need to read it again. I encourage you to though.

And you were right about the bible condoning slavery. It does in the OT as well as the NT. Jesus tells us that in order to be the greatest, we must become a slave to all. It also tells us that if we're in Christ Jesus, we're no longer slaves to sin, but slaves righteousness. And if we were free while we were saved, we're a slave to Christ (and if we were slaves, we're a free man in Christ). There are parts that say "there is no Greek or Jew, slave nor free..." (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Collossians 3:11), and this is referring to us as a body of members in Christ. And then there is John 15:15, where Jesus says he no longer calls His twelve apostles slaves, but friends. Paul, and some other apostles though, talk about being bondslaves of God or Christ, or slaves of Christ. And that is an interesting study to do as well. About using your freedom to become a slave of God. Obviously that doesn't sound too enticing to someone who doesn't line up with it or agree where it's coming from, but to those who do, there isn't anything else that they would rather do.

There is a lot that we can talk about, but if you want to, it would probably be better through IM, email, or PM. I'm available whenever, so if you want to, just let me know.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

That should be one of the commandments. The fact that we know slavery is wrong yet it is not declared so in the bible should make us stop and think, maybe the bible is not the source of right and wrong after all.

Its merely fiction anyways, so how can it be "the source". There isn't a clear cut definition of all right and wrong, so over time certain people have decided that they would make some up and write them down.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: reverend boltron
And as for the statement by DrPizza about Siamese twins: from a Christian standpoint, the bible says that we have a soul. The soul is separate from the spirit, but soul is interchangeable with heart and mind. Those three things are equal (soul, heart, mind), the twins obviously have their own minds, which means they both have their own souls.

If it's that simple, then why the Christian objection to abortion based on a soul? Or, for that matter, "morning after" pills long before a heart or brain has developed? (I'm not arguing for or against abortion or the pills; I'm just pointing out that many Christians object to either for that reason.)

 

[reverend boltron]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: reverend boltron
And as for the statement by DrPizza about Siamese twins: from a Christian standpoint, the bible says that we have a soul. The soul is separate from the spirit, but soul is interchangeable with heart and mind. Those three things are equal (soul, heart, mind), the twins obviously have their own minds, which means they both have their own souls.

If it's that simple, then why the Christian objection to abortion based on a soul? Or, for that matter, "morning after" pills long before a heart or brain has developed? (I'm not arguing for or against abortion or the pills; I'm just pointing out that many Christians object to either for that reason.)

Well, I can tell you that a lot of that is from Catholicism. There are two main divides in Christianity: Protestants and Catholics. I would be considered a Protestant, though I don't adhere to what a specific denomination teaches, but from what is revealed to me from the bible.

Now I don't particularly have any convictions against using the morning after pill, since it doesn't abort the baby (from what the news and what I have read tells me).

About abortions though.. I haven't really heard much on the argument of the soul being in the child. And I can see where you're going with this too, if the child doesn't have a consciousness, then it doesn't have a soul (or something along those lines). Well, I can tell you this much though, when I was 17 I had an abortion, and if I could take that back, I definitely would. It is one of those things that can hit you out of nowhere sometimes. Some people might not think it's bad, and they are pro choice, and all that.. that is a much different topic.

I don't know at which point a person receives a soul, I don't know if they get it at the very instant of conception, or later, or if it was there before. I think the bible is silent there, so I will be too.

 

[nweaver]

saying that atheists have no morals is being dumb. Saying that atheists do not have their morals because of a belief in a higher being/afterlife is fine. Debating religion online is like every other online debate. Cue special Olympics pic.

 

[TruePaige]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/TheAmazingAtheist

On the other end of the spectrum. That guy is the most annoying SOB Ever.