Any Non religious people here?

[JNickel101]

"They don't practice it b/c of the law - but don't they still "believe" in it?
Aren't most, if not all, of those crazy "cults" offshoots of LDS? "

"I guess it is against their beliefs to ingest any sort of drug?"

Half-truths? I see a "?" at the end of each of those statements - generally asking for clarification and/or to be corrected - which you did.

 

[Boatwrench]

I have always wondered...

If it wasn't for the 10 Commandmants influencing Laws, Rules, and Regulations through the ages, would humans be less moral?

When missionaries went into the tribal areas of Africa, the Southeast Pacific & South America did they find the people already living there to be immoral? or were those people only immoral by the missionary standards?

The folks that state they are non-religious, but are also moral, what provided that moral compass within them? We all have consciences, right? What event makes or causes one have a guilty conscience? Is God just another way of explaining that inner voice we call a conscience?

Just more wood for the fire. These are meant to be rhetorical.

 

[bigalpha]

When missionaries went into the tribal areas of Africa, the Southeast Pacific & South America did they find the people already living there to be immoral? or were those people only immoral by the missionary standards?

This, I would imagine.

 

[REVROK]

.....not as ridiculous as this one. Really? Comparing Shakespeare to the Bible?

No one is saying Shakespeare's work is fact and that you should live by his word. I think you just inadvertently made a point against the Bible...

Or did I mis-read what you're trying to say?

You misread. My point is scientific... a science known as textual criticism. A word for word comparison based on multiple copy texts in an effort to extrapolate the exact wording of the autograph copies. It is done with all ancient and even just "older" literature. My point is simply that despite the vast age difference, the Bible is far more accurate than Shakespeare, to use as an example. I could have used the Koran if you wanted a more direct comparison, but I really did not want to stir up anything, only to point out that the claims that the Bible is inaccurate or has been changed are ludicrous since the texts are constantly compared to get closer to the original not to change to meet someone's modern agenda. I certainly did not say fiction is fact.

 

[JNickel101]

You misread. My point is scientific... a science known as textual criticism. A word for word comparison based on multiple copy texts in an effort to extrapolate the exact wording of the autograph copies. It is done with all ancient and even just "older" literature. My point is simply that despite the vast age difference, the Bible is far more accurate than Shakespeare, to use as an example. I could have used the Koran if you wanted a more direct comparison, but I really did not want to stir up anything, only to point out that the claims that the Bible is inaccurate or has been changed are ludicrous since the texts are constantly compared to get closer to the original not to change to meet someone's modern agenda.

So a better question - why not just post/print/follow the original documents, word for word?

 

[REVROK]

This, I would imagine.

So you think that when William Carey found out that in an Indian funeral the widow is burned alive with her dead husband he should have done nothing?
Should William Wilberforce and the abolitionists have done nothing about slavery?
Should Martin Luther King Jr have done nothing about African American oppression?
Should missionaries and churches have not founded the vast number of the hospitals, medical centers and schools found across the globe?
Although missionaries have been guilty of gross cultural elitism in the past (Native Americans being the best example), they have done far more good than harm. It has usually been the missionaries and anthropologists (frequently missionaries are both) who have protected tribes from corrupt corporate and government greed and exploitation. Many tribes would have long ago lost their cultural identity if not for missionary advocacy.

 

[REVROK]

So a better question - why not just post/print/follow the original documents, word for word?

I do... I read Greek and a smattering of Hebrew and look at the original texts when I study the scriptures. The English translations are based on the most recent textual criticism at the time the translating work is done.

 

[JNickel101]

....I would venture to guess that you are one of the very very few who do - unless they are Theology scholars?

Isn't a lot of it written in Aramaic too?

 

[REVROK]

....I would venture to guess that you are one of the very very few who do - unless they are Theology scholars?

Isn't a lot of it written in Aramaic too?

Only the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic. It is the scholars that keep Christianity on track, both from the standpoint of critiquing it from without and from within. We invented Western debate during the Scholastic period of the Middle Ages and have "usually" been open to criticism and ultimately we generally admit our faults and failings, an easier thing to do when one believes in a forgiving God. People get confused about this because Christians are people and get defensive when their beliefs are attacked just like anyone. The average Christian does not know the facts I stated and just doesn't know how to respond. Saying the Bible is inaccurate because of its age sounds logical unless you know that this attack has been made and resoundingly answered in the past... a devout Christian naturally gets defensive and this can come across as ignorant and irrational.

 

[Johnnie Walker]

Atheism is a non-prophet organization..

 

[REVROK]

Atheism is a non-prophet organization..

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

 

[tigerchief]

We all have consciences, right?

Actually, the answer is no. It has been demonstrated scientifically that some people don't. It is estimated that about 4-6% of the human population are genetic psychopaths/sociopaths, i.e. without a conscience. They learn to mimic emotion, do not understand most people's reactions that involve empathy and are essentially considered to be an intra-species predator.

Most people have been led to believe that all psychopaths are violent. While it is true some are, most are NOT. They end up as CEOs, religious leaders and politicians: all positions of power.

I have a boatload of references, if anyone is interested.

 

[bigalpha]

So you think that when William Carey found out that in an Indian funeral the widow is burned alive with her dead husband he should have done nothing?

If a culture decides to burn alive the wife of a dead man because it's their culture and beliefs, does that make them less moral?

What if those Indians decided that Christians were less moral because they only worship one God instead of many and decided to try to convert them to follow the Indian belief system? Who is less moral in that stance?

Should William Wilberforce and the abolitionists have done nothing about slavery?
Should Martin Luther King Jr have done nothing about African American oppression?

Were these people motivated because of their stout Christian morals, or were they motivated because these wrongs were being exacted upon a group of people based upon their race?

Should missionaries and churches have not founded the vast number of the hospitals, medical centers and schools found across the globe?

It's great that they did this, but if their ultimate goal is to convert people from their current religion to another religion then I think it's taking advantage of those who are less fortunate.

Although missionaries have been guilty of gross cultural elitism in the past (Native Americans being the best example), they have done far more good than harm. It has usually been the missionaries and anthropologists (frequently missionaries are both) who have protected tribes from corrupt corporate and government greed and exploitation. Many tribes would have long ago lost their cultural identity if not for missionary advocacy.

Isn't the goal of being a missionary to convert people to your religion? In this case, saving a particular culture from corrupt corporate ideals in order to impose your religious ideals is kind of shady.

 

[REVROK]

If a culture decides to burn alive the wife of a dead man because it's their culture and beliefs, does that make them less moral?

The question is not if the culture is less moral (it is not), but rather if a particular act or tradition is immoral (it is).

What if those Indians decided that Christians were less moral because they only worship one God instead of many and decided to try to convert them to follow the Indian belief system? Who is less moral in that stance?

Many Hindus believe exactly that and hundreds of thousands of Christians have paid with their bodies, lives and property in the Gujarat province alone.

Were these people motivated because of their stout Christian morals, or were they motivated because these wrongs were being exacted upon a group of people based upon their race?

The first... most of them were not black.

It's great that they did this, but if their ultimate goal is to convert people from their current religion to another religion then I think it's taking advantage of those who are less fortunate.

None of these acts of charity were done to convert people. Christians do not do acts of charity to convert people, but rather out of compassion. They did not walk through the streets of Rome and pick up the female babies left out to die of exposure to convert them. They did not feed 20,000 people a week in Rome in the 2nd century to convert them. My church does not feed 500-1200 people a month to convert them.

Isn't the goal of being a missionary to convert people to your religion? In this case, saving a particular culture from corrupt corporate ideals in order to impose your religious ideals is kind of shady.

By its very nature imposition of any idea or coercion of any kind would invalidate any "conversion" to the Christian faith.

Imagine no religion? OK imagine in the United States and Canada that the amount of money given to (excluding-church) Non profit organizations was reduced to a tiny fraction of its current levels. People who attend religious services at least once a week give twice the percentage of their salaries to non-profits not associated with a church as the rest of the population. When the rest of the population turns to self avowed atheists and agnostics the number jumps to many more times.

 

[bigalpha]

1. What one religion may consider immoral (burning a widow alive) another religion may not.

2. Again, it's a religious-based morality argument. What one religion considers immoral, another does not.

3. So Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal civil rights based on his religious background, not based on race?

4. If this is the case, then Christians would build these things based on compassion. The idea of morality and religion should never come up. Christians would build schools for people of a different religion without ever trying to push the Christian faith.

5. You were saying that missionaries fought corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Did the missionaries do that without trying to push the Christian faith or trying to convert people?

6. You're saying that if there was no religion what so ever, that the donations to non-profits would drop dramatically? Is a person immoral because they don't donate to non-profits?

 

[Boatwrench]

"Many Hindus believe exactly that and hundreds of thousands of Christians have paid with their bodies, lives and property in the Gujarat province alone.
-REVROK"

Within the past year!

Christians would build schools for people of a different religion without ever trying to push the Christian faith. - BIGALPHA

Good Point. My oldest daughter teaches 1st grade at a Catholic School and she told me that K & 1st grade religion now consists of getting along, sharing and God loves me. A lot different than when Sister Mary Betreole taught 1st graders about souls, heaven, & hell. She told me that over 1/3 of her students come from non-Catholic households.

 

[beakie]

I believe you have the right to worship how your choose, or choose not to worship at all.

I believe that all people are born with the Light of Christ, which helps them discern right from wrong, good from evil. Some choose to acknowledge this, others ignore it.

personal opinion here, but that sounds somewhat hypocritical, to me.

I know your not meaning to push your beliefs/opinion onto anyone here, but;
you say that everyone is given the choice to follow, or not.
then say that those who don't acknowledge the "light of christ" are simply ignoring it.

what helped people discern right from wrong, good from evil, before the light of christ was found?

I think there is nothing to ignore, so I am not ignoring anything.
I think those who do believe in something can enjoy that belief without me/anyone hindering that belief.
I think those who do believe in something should not try and influence the beliefs/non beliefs of others for any reason what-so-ever.
I believe it really doesn't matter tho, I'm happy with my life, whether it be in ignorance or not... life here is good.

 

[REVROK]

1. What one religion may consider immoral (burning a widow alive) another religion may not.

You are kidding right?

2. Again, it's a religious-based morality argument. What one religion considers immoral, another does not.

In general the answer to that question is no. Basically, other than a very few exceptions you are just plain wrong in this statement, morality is fairly consistent across religious traditions. This is one of the reasons for the moral argument for the existence of God.

3. So Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal civil rights based on his religious background, not based on race?

Yes... and both... you are however picking the obvious example from a list since it "seems" to make your point. A bit obvious don't you think?

4. If this is the case, then Christians would build these things based on compassion. The idea of morality and religion should never come up. Christians would build schools for people of a different religion without ever trying to push the Christian faith.

They do

5. You were saying that missionaries fought corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Did the missionaries do that without trying to push the Christian faith or trying to convert people?

You act as though conversion is intrinsically evil... sorry I don't buy that. Did they protect only those who converted or did they use their advocacy as a tool of coercion would be a better question and the answer is that in general (I have not met nor studied the history of every missionary that has served in the last 2000 years) the answer is no.

6. You're saying that if there was no religion what so ever, that the donations to non-profits would drop dramatically? Is a person immoral because they don't donate to non-profits?

Yes, I am... supported by fact in this... from the Hoover Institute-
"To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

I did not make a claim of morality, though that could be argued... rather the issue is the common good of a society and the world as a whole.

 

[beakie]

REVROK
"To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

is there any stats on where the donations go? or where the time is volunteered?

from what I remember christians are supposed to tithe (donate) 10% of their income to the church, so that would account for a large chunk of the 'donations'.

a break down of the charities and their causes could either support your side, or not.

 

[joe_peters]

"Liars, damn liars, and statistics." Mark Twain