Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[Ben Kenobi]

It is a non-biblical doctrine created in response to what the church called heretics.

Well, then. Give me a date when the Catholic church created apostolic succession.

I think a better point is that even if the apostles intended the doctrine, they did so so that the church would remain just as they planned. But the church did not remain just as they planned. Therefore, what reason is there for apostolic succession or to be a catholic as opposed to a member of another christian church.

Well, then the purported Great Apostasy occurred when?

saying one should be one because it was the first church is wrong

It's a historical fact - like Octavian's victory at Actium. I used to believe as you did, until I started digging into the history and the facts.

[Kidlicious]

Well, then. Give me a date when the Catholic church created apostolic succession.



Well, then the purported Great Apostasy occurred when?



It's a historical fact - like Octavian's victory at Actium. I used to believe as you did, until I started digging into the history and the facts.

I'm not going to get into a bunch of stuff that in this thread that is irrelevant to my original point(post 132). If you want to start a new thread I'll discuss it with you there.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you want to start a new thread I'll discuss it with you there.

Done. I'm enjoying this discussion so far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, my claim is that people who give up pleasure in life to sacrifice totally for others are losing out. You're the one who apparently defines pleasure as sin.

There can be and is a greater pleasure to giving to others and serving those in need than just living for yourself and the me-me-me culture.

We were not made for this earth. Our true home is in heaven, not here.

God's Creation is good, though fallen. We were most definitely made for this Earth - it's in Genesis 2. However, we turned our backs on God - but He never truly turned His back on us (well, the Jews thought he did during the exilic period and the period between the Maccabean revolt and Jesus's coming, but I'm not in agreement). As Revelations tells us, the dead will be resurrected and heaven will come down to Earth and here is where we'll live.

[Elok]

Isn't that a rejection of the concept of altruism? It seems like you're basically saying "I won't act like a greedy sociopath because I'll be punished for it in the next life." That's not a particularly noble sentiment.

I would say the argument is "I will act morally because morality has a telos that makes sense for me." I phrase it in mercenary terms, but really, what is the end purpose of morality? The good of society? That creates the problem of who constitutes "society" and whether it's okay to sacrifice a few for the good of the whole...of course, that's a whole different can of worms to open, but even without going there you have to ask why the individual should always prioritize the good of society (doubly so if one is living in a fundamentally unjust society, e.g. China, where I've read that basic trust in others is considered a weakness). Anyway, the whole concept of "noble" is a nonstarter if you're going to assume naturalism. The fact that it's not "noble" means no more than the fact that it's not "vegan" or "pointillist."

[Elok]

I try to live a moral code because if enough people do the same, civilization is possible. I think that's incentive enough. Best for me, best for others. I don't need to add any imaginary additional purposes.

1) Massive free-rider problem
2) Only works if sufficient number of people buy in--no incentive to act moral in an immoral society

[kentonio]

There can be and is a greater pleasure to giving to others and serving those in need than just living for yourself and the me-me-me culture.

There's a difference between a 'me-me-me' culture and people actually getting to experience life. Yes it can be nice doing things for others, but someone who spends their entire life doing nothing but serving those in need is missing out on the immense possibilities of life. I just find that very sad.

As Revelations tells us, the dead will be resurrected and heaven will come down to Earth and here is where we'll live.

Aren't most Christians in agreement that Revalations is.. well a bit mental, and probably doesn't belong in the bible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's a difference between a 'me-me-me' culture and people actually getting to experience life. Yes it can be nice doing things for others, but someone who spends their entire life doing nothing but serving those in need is missing out on the immense possibilities of life. I just find that very sad.

And I find this viewpoint to be completely and utterly depressing. Usually getting out and "experiencing life" people mean that they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want and they they think in doing so they are free and happy. They haven't tasted true happiness and freedom. They haven't seen the joys in seeing someone you helped out do something great.

Aren't most Christians in agreement that Revalations is.. well a bit mental, and probably doesn't belong in the bible?

Um... no.

If so, why is it still there?

[rah]

1) Massive free-rider problem
2) Only works if sufficient number of people buy in--no incentive to act moral in an immoral society

Obviously enough people have bought in or we wouldn't be living in a civilized society.

I don't see that much different between code of law and moral code. While not exactly the same, there is considerable overlap.

[kentonio]

And I find this viewpoint to be completely and utterly depressing. Usually getting out and "experiencing life" people mean that they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want and they they think in doing so they are free and happy. They haven't tasted true happiness and freedom. They haven't seen the joys in seeing someone you helped out do something great.

You seem to be ignoring the 'spend their whole life' part. I'm not saying people should live lives of complete hedonism, but as with most things everything should be done in moderation. A life devoted to others is a life just as wasted as one spent completely focused on self.

Um... no.

If so, why is it still there?

Ok, I thought there was quite a lot of debate about whether it should really have been added, what with it being a bit mental and sounding like the drunken ravings of a crazy person.

[Elok]

WRT Revelation, we (ie Orthodoxy) consider it a dangerous book which is easily misinterpreted, and for that reason it is the one book of the Bible which is never read during services. Also, we are discouraged from reading it until such time as we have a very firm grounding in the rest of scripture. With that said, it remains divinely inspired and part of the Bible with great value for the cautious reader.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You seem to be ignoring the 'spend their whole life' part. I'm not saying people should live lives of complete hedonism, but as with most things everything should be done in moderation. A life devoted to others is a life just as wasted as one spent completely focused on self.

No one "spends their whole life" doing any one thing. Not even Mother Theresa. But you can focus on doing something.

And complete and utter disagrement on the last sentence.

Ok, I thought there was quite a lot of debate about whether it should really have been added, what with it being a bit mental and sounding like the drunken ravings of a crazy person.

The 'debate' has been greatly exaggerated. It is no more "raving" sounding than some of the other prophecies in the Bible.

[Elok]

Obviously enough people have bought in or we wouldn't be living in a civilized society.

I don't see that much different between code of law and moral code. While not exactly the same, there is considerable overlap.

Only in a very limited way. You are under no legal obligation to act benevolent, only to avoid certain extreme types of malevolence--even if you go by a less robust, secular mode of morality under which it's no big deal to (for example) think uncharitable thoughts about somebody. There is no law against lying except under certain specific circumstances, nor against delighting in the suffering of others, neglecting many important responsibilities, treating your employees like dirt, disrespecting your family even if they've treated you well, cheating on your significant other, and any number of other things. The government actually enables some of the most disgusting forms of immorality, e.g. the big heap of money to be made in war profiteering. And all this is assuming the law has power over you, which is not always a given.

[snoopy369]

I'm very curious about something. I'm reading The Hydrogen Sonata (Iain M. Banks), and one of the themes is that a mature culture discovers that its holy book is a sham, and what happens (or does not happen) as a result - and whether it's even important. That made me think of some things that have been said in the last few days in this thread.

For those of you who are religious: Hypothetical time. Someone gives you truly conclusive proof that Jesus is not the son of God. Nothing else is necessarily wrong - perhaps everything happened as it said, except the facts of the resurrection and the immaculate conception (say he's really just Harry Houdini or something). This is proof that you, personally, accept as valid.

Does it matter? If it does matter, to what extent does it matter - and separately, does it matter to you versus to the religion at large? If you're the one person who is given the choice of either telling everyone else (showing them this conclusive proof) or not telling anyone else (or anyone in between), what do you do? Again, in this hypothetical, the proof is conclusive, and you believe it fully.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm very curious about something. I'm reading The Hydrogen Sonata (Iain M. Banks), and one of the themes is that a mature culture discovers that its holy book is a sham, and what happens (or does not happen) as a result - and whether it's even important. That made me think of some things that have been said in the last few days in this thread.

For those of you who are religious: Hypothetical time. Someone gives you truly conclusive proof that Jesus is not the son of God. Nothing else is necessarily wrong - perhaps everything happened as it said, except the facts of the resurrection and the immaculate conception (say he's really just Harry Houdini or something). This is proof that you, personally, accept as valid.

Does it matter? If it does matter, to what extent does it matter - and separately, does it matter to you versus to the religion at large? If you're the one person who is given the choice of either telling everyone else (showing them this conclusive proof) or not telling anyone else (or anyone in between), what do you do? Again, in this hypothetical, the proof is conclusive, and you believe it fully.

Actually, it probably would affect me in a deep way. I believe that the Resurrection (at any rate) ushers into the world the Kingdom of God and the promise of a redeemed world - where the hope of evil being swept away and good triumphing over the brokenness of the world manifests itself.

I'd try to be a good person (I tried when I was an atheist), but I think my impetus for lots of the things I do (helping out at food pantries, etc) would diminish if it was working for God's redeemed humanity, shown by the Resurrection.

Then again, there are plenty of folks in my church who don't believe in a literal Resurrection, but do belive in God and that Jesus had (in Marcus Borg terms) great God consciousness. So perhaps that would give me a reason to do the good I do rather than looking out more for myself.

I have been here long enough that I think people remember me when I was an atheist (when I was young & atheist, I was very much like HC *shudder* ).