Dragg Wrote:The people who keep saying that Christianity is completely evil should consider this:

In my town, I looked in the volunteer directories in the library because I was interested in doing charity work for the needy. To my surprise and horror, literally every charity group devoted to clothing, feeding, sheltering, rehabbing, and finding jobs for homeless was CHRISTIAN. Not a single secular one was in my area. At the time, I felt that I couldn't volunteer for these organizations because I'm not Christian and I considered these to be unethical attempts to convert these people. However, now that I reflect upon in later, if I was homeless, I would rather get my basic needs fulfilled and listen to a sermon rather than have no food at all.

I'm only a bit through this thread but I'm upset that this great chance to kick heads totally missed me on my holiday.

I used to do volunteer work at a Christian-run soup kitchen, and we did it for about a year when the priest was running it, a nice fellow. However once the youth organiser took over we were pretty much run out of the place because we were atheists. I guess the goal was to corner a certain demographic through the enticement of food, and not to feed a bunch of hungry people. The ironic thing was that we had to show the youth organiser the ropes because we were such old hands at the preparation, but then were cast out, so to speak.

Most charities in America are Christian because America is an exceedingly Christian, evangelical country. Also Christians tend to own large buildings and have a lot of supporters right off the bat. It would be harder to start up a non-religious volunteer run charity. In Sydney we have a fantastic one called Our Lady of Snows, Love and Mercy I think it's called. It's run by some people who won the lottery and decided to help people with the money. It's non-religious, they just made up a religious sounding name because it seemed the thing to do. They feed the homeless, no evangelising, no agenda. They are better people than any Christian 'outreach' volunteer.

Tobberoth Wrote:All people agree that you shouldn't kill your fellow man just to get his money, that's unethical in all instances. However, everyone can't agree whether it's ethical to eat animals or not. IF there was a force outside of the box who put those absolute rules into the box, there would be no such discussion, everyone would agree on what is right and wrong. But there is such discussion, thus proving (IMO) that no God could have possibly made the ethical rules we live by.

Even amongst those who believe in God and his rules, there is no consensus. Religious people are fighting as much as the non-religious about that stuff, perhaps more. When you tell a religious person, for example a Christian, about some bad stuff another Christian said or did, the first person will usually explain that they weren't a 'real' Christian, or Jew or Muslim etc. No one can seem to agree what a Christian is, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and what they actually believe. For this reason it's really hard to argue with any religious person.

Christianity, even with it's word of god bible, still can't get it's act together and define what it is, who are Christians and who aren't, etc. So any time you want to say anything about a religion, always it will be refuted by saying, 'oh no, ........ didn't say that, they said this'. Almost all of igordesu's arguments for example seem to be refutations of this kind. I've read the bible, I have certain conclusions that I've drawn from it, however any time I argue about them I'm told that I didn't 'get' Christianity, or that the bible doesn't say that. It's maddening.

Examples. Jesus said repeatedly that he was not the son of god, that he was the son of man, except once at the end where he kind of admitted it. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that he wasn't god. However there will always be endless debate about this.

Love one another. This seems straightforward. Unless you are gay or a Muslim, atheist, etc. So much for that one. What a controversial statement (not)!

The first two paragraphs are @ Nightsky. The rest is on the recent discussion for whoever cares.

Hmmm...well, I tried my best in not assuming anything when I was going through the whole box/universe analogy thing. The only thing (i think) I assumed was that ethics (by definition) is how beings "should" behave. I was only going through hypothetically what would happen with ethics if the box/universe didn't have a creator on the outside. I'm not too sure what you mean by not changing my assumption base and all that, so that may be a source of the confusion. You're explanation of that seemed a bit...ambiguous?

Um, another funny thing about the "not changing my assumption base" thingy, you say this right afterwards: "True ethics, as you are looking to explain, absolutely does not exist." <---If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is. Since determining if "true ethics as I'm trying to explain exist" comes *almost* completely down to if a God/Creator exists outside the Universe (there may be exceptions to this), you really cannot prove that unless you can prove there is or is not a God outside of the universe. Sorry. I know you say it's "plain to see" and all, but that's because of your base assumption that you're showing right here. It's also plain to see to people who honestly believe in such a Creator God that there are such ethics. You say that people around the world act "this way" or "that way," but that does not dealing with ethics; how people actually act deals with morals. Anyways, I think you get my point. Enough of that debate, lol...

Just a touch on the "reincarnation" thing. The Bible's official stance on this (I know, we'll get to the Bible thing in a minute) is "and just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). And also, the reincarnation thing doesn't really work too well with a lot of other stuff in the Bible, so...whatever.

This brings us to the Bible thing. Some Christians take the Bible literally. Some don't. This is probably tied (as some of you have pointed out) to certain people believing or not believing that the whole Bible is the complete Word of God (this has also led to other things; example, some denominations (like the Catholic church) include some books in the Bible that aren't included by others (like mine); but whatev, not gonna get into an interdenominational battle, lol...).

I think the criticism that the Bible was written by men and not God Himself is a valid one. Let's take a look at 1 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." This is where people are coming from when they say the Bible was written by men but inspired by God. I think the whole "men aren't perfect so neither is the Bible" argument interesting. I think that, if the scripture were inspired by God but written by Men, then that means that men were kind of like the writing utensil used to write it. The writing utensil isn't perfect, and I suppose this shows. However, I also think that's why it's important to study the Bible in it's appropriate historical and cultural context (though I disagree that it's only applicable there). However, I don't think this is an excuse for major problems in the Bible. Then again, I don't think there really are any, so no worries. If you think there are major inconsistencies and problems in the Bible and are genuinely interested, there are many people who have studied this and can deal with this better than myself. We tried dealing with this earlier in this thread but it ended up in a googling-for-answers fest. If you want to do that, honestly research it on your own as there are plenty of decent resources for that on the Internet. However, I will say that I believe that there are no huge contradictions.

So, by Jesus' time, the whole Old Testament was already considered scripture (except for maybe a few books which are now in the Catholic Bible; however, this is a highly debatable subject---I really don't want to debate this here though as it would eventually just turn into incessant googling). But the New Testament, that's the tricky part. The early church in the first (and second?) century determined authoritative scripture by a few criteria. It had to be written by one of the Apostles (that were named by Jesus) or by someone known to the Apostles. It had to be in widespread use among the early church. It also couldn't be self-contradictory. That's about it. And we know that the Apostles considered each others' writings to be scripture since in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter considers Paul's writings to be scripture. That's why I believe that the whole Bible including the New Testament is the Word of God--so did the Apostles and early church.

Dragg Wrote:But if the Creator loves the WHOLE box, why do some things in the box appear to get the shaft in terms of the rules set out by the creator?

For example, why isn't there much mention of how people should treat animals or the environment well? Instead there is a much more general feeling of God granting dominion and control over animals and the earth to humans. When Christians pray over cooked meat, they tend to thank God for control over the animal and not thank the animal itself!

In my opinion, these unfair rules also extend to people. When the New Testament outlines all these rules for ethical treatment of slaves, it forgets to give an important rule: Let the slaves go free!

Some religions simply don't back this kind of dominance scheme so I can't understand why you would choose to believe in it if you claim to care for the whole box.

Well, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers talk about laws in dealing with animals and animal treatment. Also, in Genesis God makes us caretakers of the planet with dominion over animals. And with the environment? Suffice it to say that, if you honestly belief Bible prophecy, then there are much, much more important matters at hand. And for the slavery thing? It was always an issue for me, but not after I read this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Are...7/0202.asp

phauna Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:All people agree that you shouldn't kill your fellow man just to get his money, that's unethical in all instances. However, everyone can't agree whether it's ethical to eat animals or not. IF there was a force outside of the box who put those absolute rules into the box, there would be no such discussion, everyone would agree on what is right and wrong. But there is such discussion, thus proving (IMO) that no God could have possibly made the ethical rules we live by.

Even amongst those who believe in God and his rules, there is no consensus. Religious people are fighting as much as the non-religious about that stuff, perhaps more. When you tell a religious person, for example a Christian, about some bad stuff another Christian said or did, the first person will usually explain that they weren't a 'real' Christian, or Jew or Muslim etc. No one can seem to agree what a Christian is, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and what they actually believe. For this reason it's really hard to argue with any religious person.

Christianity, even with it's word of god bible, still can't get it's act together and define what it is, who are Christians and who aren't, etc. So any time you want to say anything about a religion, always it will be refuted by saying, 'oh no, ........ didn't say that, they said this'. Almost all of igordesu's arguments for example seem to be refutations of this kind. I've read the bible, I have certain conclusions that I've drawn from it, however any time I argue about them I'm told that I didn't 'get' Christianity, or that the bible doesn't say that. It's maddening.

Examples. Jesus said repeatedly that he was not the son of god, that he was the son of man, except once at the end where he kind of admitted it. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that he wasn't god. However there will always be endless debate about this.

Love one another. This seems straightforward. Unless you are gay or a Muslim, atheist, etc. So much for that one. What a controversial statement (not)!

Well, the bible is clear on what a Christian is. A Christian must trust in Jesus Christ 100% for his or her salvation and have Jesus as the most important thing in his/her life.

Jesus is referred to many times as the Son of Man. 88 times, in fact. It is used in reference to the old testament scripture, Daniel 7:13-14:"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." Especially where Jesus calls Himself the "son of man" he is referring to his fulfillment of this prophecy. The Jews of His day knew this of course and realized he was proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah--who is fully man and fully God. This landed him in deep poop. Anyways...this is showing his being fully man in addition to being fully God (I know, the 200% thing gets me every time, too, lol...), which was a necessary requirement for the messiah. I don't know why this is an endless debate. It shouldn't be. It's really quite simple.

People never tire of quoting how Jesus said to love one another. Tell us something we don't know. OMGoodness. He said other stuff too. The bible never says to hate people who engage in acts of homosexuality or people of any other religion. Although the Bible teaches (and Jesus taught) that God will one day judge them, we are still to love them, pray for them, and hope they one day turn to God.

igordesu Wrote:People never tire of quoting how Jesus said to love one another. Tell us something we don't know. OMGoodness. He said other stuff too.

If people tire of saying it, we are in trouble. What else is there to say? I think a Bible scholar once said when asked to summarize the Bible, "Love thy neighbor as thy self, the rest is just commentary"

phauna Wrote:Examples. Jesus said repeatedly that he was not the son of god, that he was the son of man, except once at the end where he kind of admitted it. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that he wasn't god. However there will always be endless debate about this.

Jesus never said that he was not the Son of God. Sorry to disappoint.

Yes, he did call himself the Son of Man many times. It becomes clear though that you have not, as you claim, "read the bible" much if you believe that by calling himself the 'Son of Man', Jesus was somehow denying his deity.

Let's take an actual example from the bible, Matthew 26:63-64

63 "...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Clearly Jesus responds to the high priest's question in the affirmative. The fact that he then uses "Son of Man" to refer to himself had even more significance for his Jewish audience, because the phrase "Son of Man" comes from the book of Daniel. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven" (7:13).

By citing this, Jesus is claiming to be the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. And there are MANY more passages where Jesus leaves absolutely no doubt that he claimed to be God. This IS the reason the Jews wanted to kill him after all. Check out John 8:48-58. Whether you actually believe his claims or not is another matter, but please don't pretend that Jesus didn't actually claim to be the Son of God.

Cut and dried? I think not. Points for trying though...

I am the son of God. My sister is the daughter of God. So is my neighbor and also the mailman. When I die, I will do it for the sins of all man-kind. I am going to die anyways. Might as well do it with an altruistic spirit

bodhisamaya Wrote:I am the son of God. My sister is the daughter of God. So is my neighbor and also the mailman. When I die, I will do it for the sins of all man-kind. I am going to die anyways. Might as well do it with an altruistic spirit

Hmm, but your death can't be for the sins of man-kind unless you've lived a perfect life without sinning right? I think you are only joking though, haha.

Why can't it be? Actually I am only half joking. I don't really believe in sin or a creator God. But my motivation at death will be to die for the suffering of all sentient beings. The same as for while I am living

bodhisamaya Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:People never tire of quoting how Jesus said to love one another. Tell us something we don't know. OMGoodness. He said other stuff too.

If people tire of saying it, we are in trouble. What else is there to say? I think a Bible scholar once said when asked to summarize the Bible, "Love thy neighbor as thy self, the rest is just commentary"

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's unimportant. It's a very important part of the Bible. I'm just saying that people seem to latch onto that and forget everything else he said. And, about the Bible scholar, he's just that. A scholar. He didn't write it, he studied it (and apparently not very well, lol). There is so much more to the Bible.

bodhisamaya Wrote:I am the son of God. My sister is the daughter of God. So is my neighbor and also the mailman. When I die, I will do it for the sins of all man-kind. I am going to die anyways. Might as well do it with an altruistic spirit

Even I have to admit, I laughed at that last part [even if it was a guilty laugh ].

Edit: Lol. As much as I want to stay up and "see what happens" I'm just too tired. As addicting as being obsessed with this thread is, I'm gonna have to call it quits since it's like 2:14 AM by me. Nighty night. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Just keep in mind that atheists can suffer more discrimination than any other social group. So if you question for one in a group, he'd generally not stand up. I would never do that and I know more people that would not do it.

I think this is highly dependant on where you live. I can imagine in Brazil there is a religious majority, however in Australia I have never felt out of place in the slightest expressing my atheism, even as a child.

igordesu Wrote:BTW, you said that the system, over millions of billions of years, tends toward the best optimal rules. That actually isn't true because of the (I think) second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Everything tends toward disorder and energy is constantly being converted into less usable energy. Just thought I'd point that out.

I thought someone else might clear this one up but no one did, so....

Entropy always increases in a closed system, what igordesu is calling the 'box', our universe is a closed system. However within the universe the disorder is not uniform, there are pockets of greater order such as our planet. Even though a human evolving appears to be breaking this law of entropy it is not. Organisms are evolving into more complex structures but to do that they are making much more disorder. So entropy is increasing. Imagine how many species have become extinct, how many animals die every second of every day. Eating food creates useful energy for us which we make into the cells of our bodies, but much more waste heat and movement is created to more than cancel out the effect. Overall in the universe entropy is increasing but on our tiny planet it is increasing slightly more slowly than it would without life.

igordesu Wrote:My point was that "survival of the fittest" would in that case then be the only real ethic working. "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" would only be the ethic "developed" by portions of the box to prolong their existence.<----survival of the fittest (if banding together's what it takes in this case to survive, then that's what the fit do). That's why it's all a facade. The only real ethic working is survival of the fittest. It's still portions of the box pushing it's own desires on other portions of the box. Certain portions of the box want to prolong their existence, so they develop things like "leave me along and I'll leave you alone".

Evolution is not really 'survival of the fittest' as you are describing it. For one, it seems to work on the gene level, not on the individual organism's level. So my fittest genes are trying to survive, not necessarily me as a person. The problem here is that some of my genes are in my mother and father and sister and brother and cousins and sons etc. So my genes wouldn't want to kill them. This means that I have a natural instinct not to kill my family. However if I evolved this instinct when humans where living in small tribal groups then in such a group 'everyone' would be related to me to some degree. So my instinct would manifest as a rule of thumb such as 'people I know are usually related to me, so therefore don't kill them because they share my genes.'

These days we don't live in tribal groups. And I know a lot more people, such as my Japanese friends, Michael Jackson, RevTK forum posters etc. However my rule of thumb is still there, so I don't try to kill you guys, because I'm fooled into thinking you may have my genes. Ergo, altruism is born.

Don't make me explain any more natural ethical mechanisms please.

SammyB Wrote:And in the name of Atheism Joseph Stalin is responsible for the death of 20 million people...

Did he do it in the name of Atheism, or was he just an Atheist? I mean, he just wanted to rule Russia and perhaps the world.

However religious wars are fought in the name of God or whoever, to destroy the godless, or the other godded. The soldiers are not just religious, they are warring to increase their religion's power. It's really not the same thing at all.

igordesu Wrote:Well, the bible is clear on what a Christian is. A Christian must trust in Jesus Christ 100% for his or her salvation and have Jesus as the most important thing in his/her life.

I expect you are a Protestant of some sort, but really, not all Christians believe this. Of course you will probably say they are not 'real' Christians, even if they outnumber you (ahem, Catholics, *cough*), and predate you. I know of this argument, it's not very satisfactory. And where exactly does it say in the bible to ignore the one million other rules and just go with the 'believe in god or else' one? Of course I'd like it quoted in the original Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever that you obviously read prior to forming your Christian world view, and not the translation of a translation version that all those not 'real' Christians read.

igordesu Wrote:People never tire of quoting how Jesus said to love one another. Tell us something we don't know. OMGoodness. He said other stuff too.

But, but, I thought none of those other things mattered, you just have to believe in Jesus, not actually *do* anything hard. Personally I'd be happy if Christians did only those two things, believe and love. Sadly the latter of the two doesn't seem much in evidence, even for being the greater.

SammyB Wrote:Jesus never said that he was not the Son of God. Sorry to disappoint.

Well not explicitly, just like he never explicitly says he is the son of god, or god. However here's one:

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18)

A =/= B , B = C , therefore A =/= C. Of course I'm probably misinterpreting this logical construct by not taking into account everything said in the whole rest of the bible simultaneously.

SammyB Wrote:Yes, he did call himself the Son of Man many times. It becomes clear though that you have not, as you claim, "read the bible" much if you believe that by calling himself the 'Son of Man', Jesus was somehow denying his deity.

Well it's not like I get kudos from my atheist clique by bragging about it. I have no reason to lie. I have read it completely through two times. I think you mean to say I have not made it's study my life's work, nor do I pore over cross-referenced quotes from it to prove my points. I'm just telling you what I get from reading it in a normal fashion, as most Christians probably do. If you think I'm not interpreting it correctly then most Christians aren't either. Also it means god is a terrible author. Take it up with the chief.

It really doens't matter if you read the bible in Hebrew, it has still been edited and changed AND it's not even certain who wrote it to begin with. That's why the bible is such a questionable holy book (just like most other holy books) unlike the one "holy book" I would actually read with confidence that what I read is what was meant (though the translations are not good, so I still couldn't): Guru Granth Sahib, the holy text of Sikhism. It was written BY the prophets THEMSELVES and has NEVER been changed. (It was written relatively recently so we can pretty much be sure about that.) Not only is it written by the people they believe in, it's also a modern holy text giving it a very nice feeling when reading it in modern times compared to the bible.

EDIT: I would like to add that all notions that Christ was the son of God was added at the Council of nicea, it was not in the original bible.

phauna Wrote:...I have read it completely through two times. I think you mean to say I have not made it's study my life's work, nor do I pore over cross-referenced quotes from it to prove my points. I'm just telling you what I get from reading it in a normal fashion, as most Christians probably do. If you think I'm not interpreting it correctly then most Christians aren't either. Also it means god is a terrible author. Take it up with the chief.

Well you get a good deal of respect from me for trying to read and understand it. And you are right, if that is what you got from it then that is what you got from it.

Tobberoth Wrote:It really doens't matter if you read the bible in Hebrew, it has still been edited and changed AND it's not even certain who wrote it to begin with. That's why the bible is such a questionable holy book...

Source?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted. And you are arguing that even reading in the original language is pointless because it's been "edited and changed".

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

You need a better line than "but the bible has been changed" cause it's just not true.

SammyB Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:It really doens't matter if you read the bible in Hebrew, it has still been edited and changed AND it's not even certain who wrote it to begin with. That's why the bible is such a questionable holy book...

Source?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted. And you are arguing that even reading in the original language is pointless because it's been "edited and changed".

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

You need a better line than "but the bible has been changed" cause it's just not true.

The Bible containing historical fact does not prove it has not been edited. There are many fictional movies/literature containing large portions of historical facts.

phauna Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:BTW, you said that the system, over millions of billions of years, tends toward the best optimal rules. That actually isn't true because of the (I think) second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Everything tends toward disorder and energy is constantly being converted into less usable energy. Just thought I'd point that out.

I thought someone else might clear this one up but no one did, so....

Entropy always increases in a closed system, what igordesu is calling the 'box', our universe is a closed system. However within the universe the disorder is not uniform, there are pockets of greater order such as our planet. Even though a human evolving appears to be breaking this law of entropy it is not. Organisms are evolving into more complex structures but to do that they are making much more disorder. So entropy is increasing. Imagine how many species have become extinct, how many animals die every second of every day. Eating food creates useful energy for us which we make into the cells of our bodies, but much more waste heat and movement is created to more than cancel out the effect. Overall in the universe entropy is increasing but on our tiny planet it is increasing slightly more slowly than it would without life.

For the record, science is the bane of me. Though, that doesn't excuse any mistakes I've made or anything. I'm not sure I understand your response (due to the lack of my own understanding of sciencey stuff probably). I don't want to debate evolution vs creation--we all know that would end up being a vicious debate. I think both sides have a reasonable argument, but there are plenty of other intelligent people who have studied that stuff better than us who can debate it without resorting to googling. I only meant that entropy would seem to tend thing toward disorder. I'm not sure "life on this planet" is exactly what you'd call disorder given the high complexity of things like even the simplest cell. But whatev. Maybe I'm just stupid. I don't really wanna debate this point.

phauna Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:My point was that "survival of the fittest" would in that case then be the only real ethic working. "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" would only be the ethic "developed" by portions of the box to prolong their existence.<----survival of the fittest (if banding together's what it takes in this case to survive, then that's what the fit do). That's why it's all a facade. The only real ethic working is survival of the fittest. It's still portions of the box pushing it's own desires on other portions of the box. Certain portions of the box want to prolong their existence, so they develop things like "leave me along and I'll leave you alone".

Evolution is not really 'survival of the fittest' as you are describing it. For one, it seems to work on the gene level, not on the individual organism's level. So my fittest genes are trying to survive, not necessarily me as a person. The problem here is that some of my genes are in my mother and father and sister and brother and cousins and sons etc. So my genes wouldn't want to kill them. This means that I have a natural instinct not to kill my family. However if I evolved this instinct when humans where living in small tribal groups then in such a group 'everyone' would be related to me to some degree. So my instinct would manifest as a rule of thumb such as 'people I know are usually related to me, so therefore don't kill them because they share my genes.'

These days we don't live in tribal groups. And I know a lot more people, such as my Japanese friends, Michael Jackson, RevTK forum posters etc. However my rule of thumb is still there, so I don't try to kill you guys, because I'm fooled into thinking you may have my genes. Ergo, altruism is born.

Don't make me explain any more natural ethical mechanisms please.

I may have been mistaken in using the term "survival of the fittest." The overall point that I was trying to make was, if the universe/box has no creator on the outside, we shouldn't act any certain way. We *could* act however we want. Ethics are by definition a code which establishes right and wrong. If we fail to follow that ethical code, we are "evil" or wrong. A box without a creator has no universal ethical code by which we should judge our actions. It really is all perspective in that case. In such a universe, then there are no ethical codes as defined in that way. There are only laws and things that we've developed to accomplish things like further/prolong our existence. That's why I said there's no "natural ethical mechanism." That's why I used the term "survival of the fittest." In this case, maybe it would really be more something like "might makes right." The strongest/smartest is who makes the rules. that sort of thing.

phauna Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:Well, the bible is clear on what a Christian is. A Christian must trust in Jesus Christ 100% for his or her salvation and have Jesus as the most important thing in his/her life.

I expect you are a Protestant of some sort, but really, not all Christians believe this. Of course you will probably say they are not 'real' Christians, even if they outnumber you (ahem, Catholics, *cough*), and predate you. I know of this argument, it's not very satisfactory. And where exactly does it say in the bible to ignore the one million other rules and just go with the 'believe in god or else' one? Of course I'd like it quoted in the original Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever that you obviously read prior to forming your Christian world view, and not the translation of a translation version that all those not 'real' Christians read.

igordesu Wrote:People never tire of quoting how Jesus said to love one another. Tell us something we don't know. OMGoodness. He said other stuff too.

But, but, I thought none of those other things mattered, you just have to believe in Jesus, not actually *do* anything hard. Personally I'd be happy if Christians did only those two things, believe and love. Sadly the latter of the two doesn't seem much in evidence, even for being the greater.

Okay, I'm assuming a "real Christian" believes the Bible is the entire word of God and derives his/her Christianity from that. There are some people that claim to be Christians who do not believe this. Of course, if I believe the bible, then I don't consider these people Christians. As for predating my beliefs, the early church derived their beliefs from the apostles and the teachings in the New Testament. You know those manuscripts that Sammy was telling you about? We have a lot of them that are accurate and written close to the originals. And they were in widespread use. That's why I don't understand why people say that people who don't believe the bible (specifically new testament) is the word of God predate us. The early church did.

I used PC Study Bible for this:
John 14:6
" saith unto him, Jesus I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.----Légei autoó ho Ieesoús égoó eimi hee Hodós kaí hee Aleétheia kaí hee Zooeé Oudeís érchetai prós tón Patéra ei-meé di emoú"

the--hee--is an article similar to english "the"
way--hodos (hod-os'); apparently a primary word; a road; by implication a progress (the route, act or distance); figuratively, a mode or means:
truth--aletheia (al-ay'-thi-a); from NT:227; truth:
life--zoe (dzo-ay'); from NT:2198; life (literally or figuratively):
no one--oudeis (oo-dice'); including feminine oudemia (oo-dem-ee'-ah); and neuter ouden (oo-den'); from NT:3761 and NT:1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing:
cometh--erchomai (er'-khom-ahee); middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] eleuthomai (el-yoo'-thom-ahee); or [active] eltho (el'-tho); which do not otherwise occur); to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively):
unto--pros (pros); a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):
Father--pater (pat-ayr'); apparently a primary word; a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote):f
but (except)--ei me (i may); if not: KJV - but, except (that), if not, more than, save (only) that, saving, till.

I haven't included the translations of the other words because I felt they weren't necessary. I've given the most important words that I felt you'd be interested in. If you really, honestly want want the others, I suppose I'll give them. But this is A LOT of work, lol.

I'll give you just one more scripture that shows our salvation, which we have just established is through Jesus only, is by faith. I really wish I could do this with like a ton more scriptures, but this is really tiring. And I'm sure people here are getting sick of my longwinded-ness. lol

Ephesians 2:8:
by For grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; of God: it is the gift.
Teé gár chárití este sesoosménoi diá písteoos kaí toúto ouk ex humoón Theoú tó doóron
grace--charis (khar'-ece); graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude):
"ye saved"--sozo (sode'-zo); from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (literally or figuratively):
through--dia (dee-ah'); a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):
faith--pistis (pis'-tis); from NT:3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:
KJV - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
gift--doron (do'-ron); a present; specially, a sacrifice:
KJV - gift, offering.
works--ergon (er'-gon); from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act:
KJV - deed, doing, labour, work.

Okay, I'm going to stop now, because this is taking a really long time. But, if you really want more, I'm sure there are places on the internet or something that have interlinear greek/hebrew for the scriptures. But I think you get the idea. After this faith, any compliance or obedience with God's laws is merely because out of love for God. It's a result of the faith.