Question

What are your opinions on this statement: The concept of God and the concept of Good vs. Evil have nothing to do with each other. Religion is a tool used to make others do as you wish. Sometimes people use it bring good into the world, sometimes people use it for their own selfish, greedy intentions. The concept of right and wrong is in your hearts, not in your faith. How many pastors must be caught abusing boys or trading sex for drugs in public bathrooms before people see that being religious is not synonymous with being a good person.

Answer 1

Thats as stupid as saying the non-religious are bad people. You are either a good, compassionate, kind and forgiving person, or you are a selfish, greedy, manipulative and violent person. Religion is a tool, just like politics. The best thing anyone could do is not make their religion the core of themselves (at the risk of becoming a tool for another's intentions) and to find every opportunity to be a good person, rather you believe in a God or not.

Answer 2

I ask you, would you agree with me that mankind, in general, is evil?

Answer 3

Hello,

There is more than one statement here so I will break down and reply to them each one, by one.
```
The concept of God and the concept of Good vs. Evil have nothing to do with each other.
```
This is immensely wrong, the concept of God and the concept of good and evil have a lot to do with each other, for a religious people good is what God wants, and evil is what God prohibits. (I am pretty sure the statement is suppose to argue something else than that, however it was badly written so...)

```
Religion is a tool used to make others do as you wish.
```
Religion is a beautiful thing, exploited by human greed. God gives us purity in it, yet we mange to taint it. Religion is not a tool created for exploit, it is however exploited by human greed.

```
Sometimes people use it bring good into the world, sometimes people use it for their own selfish, greedy intentions.
```
No comment, concurs with what I mention above.

```
The concept of right and wrong is in your hearts, not in your faith.
```
The concept of right and wrong is developed from observation combined with logical and rational thinking to determine what is right or wrong. However there is a system given to us, holy scripture is the manual to this machine we call society. There is hindrance using religion to derive morals into what is right and what is wrong, especially if this world has a God, as what religion tells us. Inevitable right and wrong is subjective.

```
How many pastors must be caught abusing boys or trading sex for drugs in public bathrooms before people see that being religious is not synonymous with being a good person.
```
No religion mandates paedophilia, where are you going with this argument? All this show cases that humans are susceptible to greed, that we are far from perfect. Does one or a few religious people explain the whole religion? No, far from it. It is a logical fallacy to assume that it does.

```
Thats as stupid as saying the non-religious are bad people.
```
This statement lacks any hold? It is quite uncommon nowadays for any religious educated person to say non-religious people are bad.

```
You are either a good, compassionate, kind and forgiving person, or you are a selfish, greedy, manipulative and violent person.
```
Based on your actions, not on your religion. Simply to quote Batman, “...It's not who I am underneath... but what I *do*... that defines me.”

```
Religion is a tool, just like politics.
```
This is your opinion back by nothing. The way I see it is more like politics exploits religion, and I would be glad to provide my evidences for it.

```
The best thing anyone could do is not make their religion the core of themselves (at the risk of becoming a tool for another's intentions) and to find every opportunity to be a good person, rather you believe in a God or not.
```
You reasoning to this conclusion is flawed as shown by the majority of my comments to your short essay.

Hence, my opinion on these two paragraphs is that they are opinion pieces backed without any drop of thinking, since they lack sources I fail to take them seriously. They try to engage emotion to cause sympathy for the non-religious however all this results into is a logical fallacy.

Peace.

Answer 4

Science knows a any process results depends on it's initial conditions, this is known philosophically/theologically as determinism. Some religions believe that all is predestine, some go to heaven and others go to hell. That's not my position because I know, through my own experience, that people can be derailed in this world, which includes partial possession, and I really can't say form witch it came therefore all is suspect. If it wasn't for my final faith in my Lords life would have no meaning. and frankly without them my life is meaningless. Whether they exist isn't the question because if they don't who cares. I mean that if we are just star dust and history has no relevance in the world, except how man hurts man, then I don't want to be part of that world.

Answer 5

@JonnyVonny No. There are evil people and good people. We watch the news and everything looks so evil but just look at kids my three year old brother for example I have a conversation with him and he tells me he's spiderman and he believes it that's how I know this world can't be all evil with still so much innocence.

Answer 6

Listen @Algorithmic I wasn't writing an essay just a statement sorry if it's not perfect to your standards but only god is perfect right ;), My main point was being religious has nothing to do with being a good person. As I said in my statement religion is used to control people this doesn't need sources as it is plain to see. Religion is used to control marriage, what women wear, I could go on all day about this but I won't. There must not be many educated religious people than because I hear it a lot.

Answer 7

@IvyLyn I agree with you; children are innocent. However, mankind loses this innocence, and follows what we generally agree to be immoral; Hitler was once a baby. Out of curiosity, what/who establishes morality? The way I imagine, for atheists, morality is subject to change, solely depending on the individual.

Answer 8

You would be correct, we all choose our own morals if we followed all the morals given to us by the bible we would be giving up our daughters virginity so a man wouldn't be beaten. The good in this world isn't always found in children its found in the person who will give someone money at a gas station because they are in need religious or not, its found in the person willing to tow a car off the side of the road no matter the damage it does to their own car, or even the person who would invite two people in their home for the night so they don't have to stay in their car. These all come from personal experiences and not all of them were religious but they set their own morals @JonnyVonny

Answer 9

Hello,

It is not per my standard, but when making claims of any sort logical fallacies should not be present. An atheists morals are not objective, they are based on reasoning that maybe highly subjective. As far as religion controlling people I disagree, religion it self is not evil, only the humans that exploit it most of the time for their warped sense of nationalism.

To expand the the atheist morals are non-objective:

A large test is coming, it will make a huge impact in your life for the rest of time. An atheist may find it morally valid to cheat, thanks to his moral system being subjective. God brings objectivity for that, laying cheating is wrong. Of course I am not arguing which morality system is more superior just that @JonnyVonny has a valid argument.

Peace.

Answer 10

@IvyLyn First off, please don't regurgitate what you heard from people; provide quotes of verses, and put it in context, when regarding the bible (or any other religious or non-religious source to make your assertion/claim valid). I follow you to some degree; man can perform acts of good, but you can't think merely but what you experience that this applies to MANKIND in general. But tell me, how did we get this innate sense of "morality"? Without God, I don't see how we could possibly obtain it; evolution wouldn't provide us with it; animals aren't "moral" in any sense of the word.

Answer 11

The basic understanding I got from scriptures is that man is to be more than biological, animal, this is why it's said you really can't follow the law. The goal is for man to be holy because God is holy, which is unfathomable to most people. Yes man by nature follows patterns, as language, correlating things in their environment to make some sense. The Old Testament scripture is "God is not an author of confusion", this does mean you should turn a blind eye to thing you don't understand but be willing to observer and wait for a God given comprehension of what's their. Sometimes it may take years before you can really connect your life experience into a cohesive whole for yourself. Whether this is just a matter of maturation, I'm not entirely sure, as wisdom come with age. But one thing I've learned is generally things are handed down from generation to generation especially morality. This is noted in the 5th commandment "honor thy father and mother", which included their religious perspective. My parents had problems and didn't do every thing right but yet I truly learned much from them, especially the fact you really can't compare one generations to the next in our fast moving modern environment. The bedrock is use in my life is scriptures, even though they may seem outdated, which seems the only constant in the world to come.

Answer 12

Okay. So first things first.
Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a relationship with God. Religions were created by people who took parts of the bible they liked and added their own stuff to it. With that, came a new religion. Then others took stuff from this new religion and added stuff they liked.... again a new religion formed. The concept of God and Good vs. Evil have every bit to do with one another. God is Good. And the Devil is Evil. There is no such thing as an evil person. Yeah, they may seem evil but it is the sin inside of the person that makes them evil. God says "I love you murderer, I love you lesbian, I love you child molester, I love you thief.." and on and on. He loves EVERYONE. The sin inside of the person makes people these things. If one ^^ kneels at the cross, asks for forgiveness and confesses his sins, you are forgiven! That is why Jesus died on the cross. He does not see your sin once you confess because his blood covers it. So yes, these other "religions" use it in their own selfish ways. Why? Because whatever they believe in is bull! God is he ONLY God. He is the way the truth and the life. He is not selfish and neither are his people. People that call themselves Christians and are selfish, are not true Christians. The concept of right and wrong is in the book of life. The BIBLE. want it? Read it. Things are so messed up today that everything that is wrong, seems right. Basically, there is no sin in society today. WRONG. And if you havent noticed it's mainly priests getting caught doing that kind of stuff. Why? Catholic. Thats a religion. They worship Marry for giving birth to Jesus. But Marry does not get you into heaven. Catholics want to hear the mercy, the good, the love god has. But along with that Love comes JUSTICE. :)
GOD Bless!

Answer 13

@EII
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Christianity falls into that label, Christianity is a religion.

Answer 14

@LanguageEnthusiast now I am interested what is your opinion on the statement?

Answer 15

Confession implies an individual recognized a personal error in ones behavior and wants correction. This is the starting phase of a conscience, my father once said not everyone has a conscience. Once started the path can not really be stopped as the individual brings more and more corrections to their life. On the concept of guilt, one instance does not make you guilty, it has to be over one's entire life. Even in human law extenuating circumstances are considered, this is why I leave Judgment to my Lords for they may really be the only ones that know the truth in of this world. The concept of mercy and forgiveness toward someone not guilty insinuates that everyone needs salvation, that's not my position though but I'll accept any assistance in this world I can get leaving the final Judgment to my God the Father a Just Merciful Being.

Answer 16

@KenLJW I think everyone has a conscience some people are just better at ignoring it I don't believe our conscience comes from a divine entity but instead comes from our personal morals. @Ell if god loves and can forgive a child molester that is not a god I want to worship and certainly not a heaven I want to be in seems like hell would have nicer people if someone could commit murder or rape and ask for forgiveness and be let in. Oh and how sure are you that yours is the correct god and not Allah or Yahweh you can't be sure, just like I can't be 100% sure that there is no god. Actually priests are in the catholic religion too, but Catholicism and Christianity (both religions btw) are the same thing.

Answer 17

Hi,

There are a few things I would like to say. Firstly, @LanguageEnthusiast , don't go at it too hard. We wouldn't want to break things again. Also, @IvyLyn , you make several valid points about theism, but your contenders do make entertaining refutations. So, firstly, I would like to discuss the prominent issue you presented about morality; good v. evil.

i. Morality is, at least, a set of values adopted, inherited or created to guide your actions. This is what we call, "moral character." Everyone has a moral character; a set of principles and beliefs either picked or chosen. The question is, however, if moral character can be absolute without the belief in God.

ii. What is seems, particularly, in this discussion, is that the Christian God dictates what is right and wrong; and what is absolute. The fault is; there are many different sects of Christianity e.g., Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism, Jehovah Witnesses', and so forth. Each of these doctrines [beliefs] talk about similar moral obligations that are in black-and-white, such as murder, rape, theft, but there are also certain discrepancies between the teachings of each doctrine [Else you wouldn't need sects].

iii. Since God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, neither of two doctrines can be correct, or else it would be contradictory; which implies God is not omnibenevolent. So, the idea of Absolute Truth and Morality stems from choosing the correct doctrine to adhere your standards to. This is what, in philosophy, we call Religious Authority by Priori.

iv. Moral behaviors are judged based on their impact upon the world; and the alignment with God. Casuists believed in the Principle of Double Effect; the idea that a morally reprehensible act could be justified by intent. Pascal objected this principle; arguing that humans have moral characteristics independent from our intentions. We cannot ameliorate the consequences and impact we have on the world by,���������intending,��������� a different outcome.

vi. In other words, humans have moral substance regardless of their intentions. May it be, feeding a child, or killing in the name of God; because your intentions where [good o/ evil].

vii. Religious doctrines establish laws. Which, I refute exclusive knowledge that relies on religious authority. Religious knowledge is historical because it relies purely on what someone has written. This applies to most theology doctrines. The church or state will often deciphers what is correct. Thereafter, they will mark anything the church or state sees evil in as heresy. Pascal rejected of authentication by purely subjective means. Pascal believed that his knowledge and experience was sufficient when it came to the supernatural; since God has grace which is Efficacious.

viii. Therefore, our morality, if by God, is Efficacious, but not, all men have moral character. If not, @Algorithmic , does that mean the only thing stopping you from murdering children, and rape, is the Law given by God? If you were not a Christian; are you saying you would commit crimes and be inherently evil and nihilistic?

x. God's grace, according to Christianity, depends on human agents; not solely on his own, therefore, you have a moral foundation inside of you to decipher what is true or correct. However, you are saying that all morality cannot exist without the belief in God.

xi. Religious morality is finding out what someone has written, as some point, and following those standards. Morality is what is established; thus all our established laws will necessarily be accepted as just without being examined, because they are established. Morality, thus, is dictated by fashion. Morality has not been accepted in the religious community because it was examined, but because it has been established.

xii. However, the atheist may rely on reason and thought to guide him. Some may not immediately recognize the importance of reason for morality, but it's arguably indispensable. Unless morality is simply obedience to memorized rules or flipping a coin, we have to be able to think clearly and coherently about our moral choices. We have to adequately reason our way through the various options and consequences in order to arrive at any decent conclusion. Without reason, then, we cannot hope to have a moral system or to behave morally.

So, again, I rebuttal, is the only thing stopping you from adopting morally reprehensible acts, like murder and rape, the belief in God? I believe you have more... Moral Character than that... The reasoning behind it; even without God, you would see the consequences of your actions, the pros and cons, and come to a logical conclusion.

Answer 18

In Descartes' ontological argument he talks a little about this. He starts out with the aspect of existence. How can you prove something exists? His result is the cogito; or cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am. And once you accept the existence of thought you can also take on some other things it leads to. Part of that involved the discussion of good.

Morality seems, to me, so be at issue. You have a set of learned values. If we go back to Descartes' disembodied brain, how would it know any morals? If it was contained in a virtual reality that showed stabbing and shooting everyone as a norm, how would it know any different? What, if anything, inside ourselves leads us to see some things as morally questionable?

Answer 19

@IvyLyn
I have no opinion on the statement, mainly because I do not hold natural good or natural evil exists. Ethical nihilism is what I hold to, when one says that their position of morality is more superior to the others I believe they are being delusional, as morality is purely subjective. Also rape, murder, can all be justified under a atheistic (subjective) moral system or under an objective moral system given by God. Of course I have not ventured into the world of conscience yet, so my views may change.

Answer 20

There's a saying in computer science "garbage in garbage out, which essentially means what you put into something is what you get out of it. Life is like that but first you have to deal with what's given you by the outside world. Sometimes it's not nice and propels you in awful directions. The question is "the world did it to me" a valid excuse, invalid reason, or are those that did it to you responsible. This is why some, with any moral fiber, are in the world to counteract the negative influences in an others life. In fact its a requirement in the Old and New Testament teachings, and sadly there's certain parts of the world that still need it today. I never read or considered Christians to escape as in the rapture of the Left Behind series, never read them or saw the movies. There's a reality here, in the 19 chapter of Revelation it speaks of a man with eyes of fire and old painting represent it with red flaring eyes. I use to consider mourners, alcoholics, and even pink eye, but today we have Ebola and the last stage is blood bleeding eyes. We may not know what were in for in this life, but some things have been foreseen, every Bible has a fly leaf, empty page, and it represents the history unwritten. And to me I know what I'm looking for with I find it.

Answer 21

@e.mccormick , things that are morally questionable is simply evolutionary; murder; hatred; fights. We see these things as a question of moral substance because of their consequences. For example, a man may murder a woman with kids. A mother, who heard about the story, will feel empathy because she may have kids of her own that she loves and nurtures.

So - to stop this, we have created rules and regulations strictly by the votes of the common. People have always detested evil and sought out a righteous way of living. Their feelings, the accumulation of those peoples feelings are the law. They're neither the provisions, nor the system. They're the fragile and irreplaceable feelings that everyone carries in their hearts.

The punishment and fear of these acts is what keeps people from doing such. If that same man, who killed his wife, sought he could thereby live his life freely, he is a fool. That mother has a husband and children. It is because they loved their mother, and because the man loved his wife, that he feels great anger when she is taken. Men then seeks, "justice," but this, "justice," is simply revenged. That is: justice in the name of revenge.

It is a perpetual cycle. However, men have always been logical beings, and the comparative of pros and cons; the consequences may outweigh the benefits.Would you kill a man, knowing you'd be hunted like a dog, possibly for the rest of your life?

It is then, not an argument of spirituality, but simple human evolution. I rebuttal once more, the law isn't just because it is established, but established because it is just. Humans are fragile and emphatic. But also logical.

Answer 22

People use the spirituality without actually defining it. in the 19th century US there was spiritualism which is raising the Dead for information, necromancy. This process was out lawed in the Old Testement, one of the things King Saul did wrong. Its not that i don't think its possible but just wrong. Though out this site I've stated some of my experiences and that is what I mean by spirituality, and its really not a recent evolution just a recognitions of what its really meant to be Human.

Answer 23

@Compassionate On your first post, second point (ii.) I do believe that you have the misconception that those sects actually uphold what is taught in the bible. I say this on the account that the sects doctrine (JW, Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, ect.) don't align with what the bible teaches. Thus, due to the sects not representing the bible, there still is absolute truth; the bible is the truth, and those doctrines (the sects) are false doctrines masqueraded as the agent of the Truth.

Answer 24

Sorry, that wasn't my main intent; to tell you about the sects.
Most societies can function on a VERY basic morality level; don't kill, rape, ect. However, without a foundation (The Truth), other moral subjects come in to play; child sacrifices, homosexuality, drug abuse, indulgence ect.
Who is to say which is right and wrong? Who is to say that society cannot commit child sacrifice (this is what they believe)? Subjective and pliable emotion? Rather, the consensus' emotion; and what if THEY adhere to something you don't; who are you to tell them they're wrong?
So what I'm trying to say is adherence to relativism is utterly inconsistent, thereby faulty and unreliable.

Answer 25

@Compassionate Is it really an evolutionary imperative? Or is it a social construct? We have people fight for entertainment and many of these warrior claim to be doing it for the thrill. To me, that implies that victory through battle is also a potential evolutionary drive. People were at each others throats for centuries. It is only over time that per capta death rates have gone down to the exceptionally low levels they are today. The biggest changes to cause reductions in death were through communications and trade. Thus, morals seem largely a social construct and not an evolutionary one.

As you point out, religion is also a social construct. It also follows a lot of these basic practices. However, one of the largest continuations of violence is religion. Alan Turing was chemically castrated because his homosexuality affronted the Anglican Church. Many Christians and Jews in America are calling the "Fight on Terrorism" a holy war against Muslims, and there is no difference in the fanatics on the other side of that disagreement by arms. The Spanish Inquisition... need I say more on that? The wholesale murder of blacks in the USA for the slightest crimes because they were "Children of Cain," and seen as a bloodline of killers that could not be trusted. On and on, religion has played a leading role in the creation of violence. This is largely due to fanatics that take on a personal view that warps their religion or focuses only on one part while ignoring the rest, so it is hard to say how much is the religion and how much the individuals.

It seems that people change as much without religion as with.

Answer 26

Moral behavior and personality can be intertwined with both nature and nurture. Some of our cognition and behavior can be affected by our society and what we learned in the past, for example: Culturally Conditioned Response. With nature, that's when evolution come to act, when some of our morals can be affected by genetics and heredity. The moral behavior of not killing one's own child is pretty basic and it's obviously inherited, and that murdering is disastrous and fighting is harmful is basic to species survival.

Compassionate: "So, again, I rebuttal, is the only thing stopping you from adopting morally reprehensible acts, like murder and rape, the belief in God?"
No. That's basically very selfish of them to think in this manner. Also, same goes to atheist. If some believes that "people who are truly moral don't adopt any religion," That's selfish as well. "Only people with any or certain beliefs are not moral," this view is egocentric!

The morals brought by God are for a reminder, they are not brought because humans are clueless and do not know the significance of what type of situations can be right or wrong. They are there to either remind people of their morality and evil actions or gives chances for us to think for we how can it actually bring awful results at the end. In Islam, God forbids the drinking of alcohol because the cons of it which mostly outweighs the pros. Alcohol consumption may lead to violence among people and oneself, it may cause health problems such as liver disease, heart failure, strokes, etc. Now, most drunk people who have consumed much of alcohol can kill and harm others, is that moral? Not quite. Islam is a monotheism religion and it forbids drinking alcohol due to the outcomes of acting immorally to oneself and others. This religion encourages not to harm people, harm nature, harm oneself, and harm the belief in God and if these laws are forbidden they are called "Haram."
Quran 6:151 says, "and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully."
Quran (8:61), says, "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God loveth not aggressors."

The dark side of psychology is that when moral people get seduced to act immorally, and this drive is entirely encouraged to be avoided in Islam. Is this teaching flawed? Does that mean that if a particular religion forbids immoral actions is considered flawed? However, if a person is wise enough to "notice" that he/she is under "the Lucifer effect" then this person did a very excellent job on noticing his mistakes, and same thing goes to people who weren't wise enough BUT they managed remind themselves that it's immoral to do such a thing. Both of these aspects is pleasantly valid in religion, God loves both ways! Then, I do not see how this adheres to the idea that "only religious people think morally." Why would there be a difference first of all? God will be proud, whether they noticed the evil actions before it started influencing them, whether they noticed it by themselves (without remembering that you'll be punished by god) or noticed it by being reminded of. God will still give credit, even if they honestly thought that this act is wrong, God knows everyone's intentions and approaches.

@ IvyLyn typed "The concept of God and the concept of Good vs. Evil have nothing to do with each other."
It seems that you were never known that the concept of God actually does TEACHES all about the concept of Good vs. Evil. Whether the morals were evolutionary or learned, at the end they are all morals that was taught for their believers to follow. Were you religious before, or are you just reinforcing what your peers contemplate about religion? Everything you said from down there is all negative.

Answer 27

" I say this on the account that the sects doctrine (JW, Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, ect.) don't align with what the bible teaches." - @JohnnyVonny

Hmm... The Bible? And which Bible would that be? The Presbyterian Bible? The King James Version? The Catholic Sects? You see, sects, are basically "sections," of religion. The Bible changes. It is translated differently; deciphered and run over a thousand times. One man believes he posses absolute moral truth, the other the same; these two men then go off to form their own sects with their own translated Bible.

However, most people use the Bible that was translated by King James. Even though there are thousands of translation errors in the King James Bible. For example; the Bible never mentions the word, "devil," or, "Lucifer," or, "Satan." The direct translation is, "Morning Star."

So, if the Bible is correct "because,"; which is your implied reasoning, then it is not accepted because it is true; but true because it is accepted.

_______________________

"Thus, morals seem largely a social construct and not an evolutionary one.." - @e.mccormick

Well, that is negotiable. We have primal instincts, such as not killing our child, feeding and raising our young. This is moral to a degree. I do agree that morality is largely influenced by society. Most Americans views African Tribal Rituals as immoral; such as male castration or female circumcision. However, those are just beliefs passed down from generation to generation.

The Bible rarely speaks on either subject, and there are certainly no verses forbidding such; so, I think it is funny, that we [Christians] will view these things as morally reprehensible; and then [Christians] will turn around and defend acts of Murder in the name of God; but they not know their hypocrisy that, other men have beliefs which is also the basis of their morality, too; and to assert that we are morally objective is immoral in itself, because it is harsh; and harshness lacks humbleness.

@Zale101 , so, what you are saying is: morality is possible by human agents.

________________________


A QUESTION TO ALL:

Say; if I wanted to create a society and outlined basic laws, and detailed ones:
- Do not kill
- Do not steal
- be kind, be friendly
- Be humble; share;
- Be an atheist

If someone did not demonstrate these characteristics, there would be a punishment. Huh. Well, I have just created a society which demonstrates moral characteristics.

The problem is, that philosophers, like mathematicians, look too far into principles. They lack intuition and senses; for, have you not realized that I, Compassionate, am an Atheist, yet, I have demonstrated moral character and eloquence? My morality is derived from a strong consideration of my actions, consequences, and the effect I have on people around me.

I do not kill, I do not rape, I do not harm people; not because of God, but because I do not wish to cause those around me suffering. I do not hate, I do not steal, I do not spam the Math chat. All these things are basic definitions we can uphold.

To say an Atheist has no moral character is to say I have no moral character; do you really, truly, believe that?

To all you disbelievers; who look so daringly into these principles without realizing what is in front of you; and forgetting the men and women, and role models and co-workers, and these hard working children and principles and aristocrats and clergymen and teachers and presidents; who we have known indeed to be atheist; I say with irony:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" - The Holy Bible, Matthew 7:3

Answer 28

Matthew 7:5
thou hypocrite first cast out the beam from your eye; and then shall thou see clearly to cast the mote out of they brother's eye.
This corresponds to the wisdom literature of the OldL Testement, if you see someone in error let him know otherwise you are responsible.
If you actually do Matthew 7 and inform someone of their error and they don't want to consider your critique they'll probably respond with Matthew 7;3

Answer 29

@Compassionate , I'm a Muslim and morals in Islam are a guidance by God not for corruption as some of you think and not for just following orders as robots. No. They are just a guidance, and if one doesn't want others to suffer, in God's view, they are blessed and honored. Even if someone is stranded on an island and have no clue of the creator, they still will be blessed and honored by God if they practice the morality behavior that God wanted his mankind to follow. By the way, when did I say "morality is possible by human agents" ?

Compassionat : “My morality is derived from a strong consideration of my actions, consequences, and the effect I have on people around me. I do not kill, I do not rape, I do not harm people; not because of God.”

Good for you, and I hope everyone in this world feels the same way! Therefore, it is your choice of not believing in God, religious people can feel the same way and believe in a deity. Just to let you know, your morality and God's morality are common. I don't see the reason why you strongly disagree with people who believe in God's morality.
By what you wrote, it seems to me that you disagree with capital punishment. Is that true? There's some people who think it's moral and some are not. Morals varies to individuals. My view on morality and yours is obviously different.

@IvyLyn , it looks to me that you are arguing about is that religious people are being to rude to non-religious people and claim they are bad people. You might have encountered some religious folks who were being rude to you, but i don't blame you for that. Therefore, placing every religious people in your bucket definition (as selfish with greedy intentions) as BAD people basically is completely misleading. Just like how they insulted you, you were insulting me the same way with my beliefs.

Answer 30

Oh, forgot to mention that i'm done replying to this thread :)

Answer 31

i. By human agents I meant; without God's Efficacious Grace.

We see Buddhist; who are some of the most peaceful men and women on Earth, which are also atheist; but represent some of the most compassionate behavior out of any other group of people in the world.

That, I believe, Morality is not only social and personal, but just as philosophical [as a system] than religious.

Answer 32

@Compassionate Well, first off, you imply that other doctrines and sects were created by excessive translation errors, when in reality, that isn't the case; the Catholics ADDED manuscripts to the original cannon, the Mormons ADDED the book of Mormon, and the Watchtower deliberately adjusted the bible to fit their ideology.
Now, I'm not saying the KJV is perfect; it has minor translation errors, but NOTHING so major as to create a new theology/doctrine. As for what you said regarding the "Morning Star", the bible does use that title, along with "Satan", "devil", and "Lucifer". But I ask you, where did you get that outrageous information though, that the bible never uses those words? Yeah, the bible never uses the word "Jesus", because Greek doesn't have the letter "J", but when translated, you get "Jesus". Same applies to "Lucifer", "devil", ect. But seriously where did you get that information?

Answer 33

It was either "Morning Star" or "Star of the Morning", I forgot which. It is in Jeremiah (and possibly in other books) if I'm not mistaken.

Answer 34

Actually, Lucifer does not show up in the original. It is just a creative translation. They took the Hebrew word heylel and used a Latin word for Venus to represent this. See, in Latin, Venus had two names. One in the moring, Lucifer, and one in the evening, Veneris, because they thought them to be different.

http://www.interpres.cz/worag/cosmol/venus.htm

So our use of Lucifer is a name is a hold over from a King James version translation of a Hebrew word for the same thing.

Answer 35

General translation I know
Satan "The accuser"
Lucifer "The angel of light"
KJB Matthew Chapter 12 verse 26 and 27
And if Stan cast out Satan , he is divided against himself; then how shall the his kingdom stand?
And if Beelzebub cast out devils by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Answer 36

all i can say is, "Ignorance is your new best friend"- Paramore

Answer 37

All of this is truly beautiful.

Answer 38

@KenLJW Study some linguistics and look into the origins. Those "translations" are modern derivations and not roots.

Answer 39

My definitions come within the context of the Old and New Testaments not from other derivations. Like some of the "names" definitions in Genesis come out of context within the text. My first name "Kenneth" comes from a Scottish origin's meaning "The handsome one", which may be true but it means much more. My nickname "Ken" has a denotative meaning "1a the range of vision 1b sight, view 2a the range of perception, understanding, knowledge, this may also be true according to my experience. I also have a Baptismal and Confirmation, give to Roman and Anglo Catholics, which have very specific meaning to me. The meaning of any word, name, may change over time and an ultimate meaning may have no connection to the first, check any dictionary and see how words change over time.

Answer 40

Yes, and since you are talking about a document written couple thousand years ago you need to use the context of then and not the changes that have happened over time. Otherwise you misrepresent things when you say 'Lucifer "The angel of light"'. The origin is the Hebrew word heylel and the meaning of that word.

Answer 41

I use the English Scholarly works of the 16th century, KJB ,Douay and Rheims with the 16th century language at my disposal, I don't read it in any other language, I realize there's errors but I try to separate the wheat from the chafe which I think your supposed to do anyways. Being picky is not what I'm about, and if one is he most likely become an unbeliever. I just read a sequence by Prof. Bart D. Ehrmaan, Misquotng Jesus, Forged, How Jesus became God, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. In them he gives some of his personal history, from a member of "Youth for Christ" a "Reeborn Christian" to Learned "unbeliever". I'm not orthodox but I can recognize certain truths that I try to follow, this is how I whorship and i have no creed.

Answer 42

according to my research we are all chemicals, due to earth starting out from one, which light also evolved from "atmophile" and there was a life before earth that had poor oxygen so we are living in a second atmosphere caused by more gases being released by volcanoes. the second atmosphere was formed by outgassing of volatiles from the Earth's interior. Now it is considered likely that many of the volatiles were delivered during accretion by a process known as impact degassing in which incoming bodies vaporize on impact. The ocean and atmosphere would therefore have started to form even as the Earth formed. The new atmosphere probably contained water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and smaller amounts of other gases. the distance of the Earth from the Sun, probably did not contribute any water to the Earth because the solar nebula was too hot for ice to form and the hydration of rocks by water vapor would have taken too long.The water must have been supplied by meteorites from the outer asteroid belt and some large planetary embryos from beyond 2.5 AU. As the planet cooled,clouds formed, Rain created the oceans. Recent evidence suggests the oceans may have begun forming as early as 4.4 Ga. Stars are known to get brighter as they age, and at the time of its formation the Sun would have been emitting only 70% of its current power. Many models predict that the Earth would have been covered in ice.At first, the released oxygen was bound up with limestone, iron and other materials.The oxidized iron appears as red layers in geological strata called "banded iron formations" that formed in abundance during the "siderian period" When most of the exposed readily reacting minerals were oxidized, oxygen finally began to accumulate in the atmosphere. Though each cell only produced a minute amount of oxygen, the combined metabolism of many cells over a vast time transformed Earth’s atmosphere to its current state. This was Earth’s third atmosphere

Answer 43

This is the evolutionary model which I entirely believe in, but it is only the beginning. As I've said scriptures say's "man is to be more then biological". animal, and points in a direction man is to go though not entirely there yet. If humanity doesn't have a direction how can individuals adopt one according to it. With no direction all you get is chaos, this can be seen on US college campuses where 10 - 20 % of the female students are raped under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There appears to be no statistics about rapes prior to this age, but I know it occurs. Basically these young men perpetrators are nothing but animals, it a shame they have to do such things before they develop sexual morals, if they ever really do.

Answer 44

well there actually is a "God" but he isnt referred to as a actual person because he isnt. it is just a name for something which so ever was the creater of life so they misinterpretate who "God" really is in the bible. also jesus he was just a regular guy just like we were to be created. so the only reason they say that he died for our sins was because he helped us have belief in that the creater of life was "God" which is actually a energy so it is really irrelevant. but i dont know any thing other of how the "blank space" was created or we refer to it as a "god" but it mostly goes into evolution afterwords which is a very log process of how no one really knows what could have caused actual life as in for apes to chimps to humans. no one knows why they were the first species on earth. im looking into how the universe actually got started because what i have read from my research chemicals have combined which caused the son to be created,etc. it does tell how life was created BUT what caused that to be possible if there was nothing to begin with?

Answer 45

Existence is itself a miracle, which may imply that other miracle exist. The big bang was just a miracle awaiting for other miracles to come about, this view of existence allows for what Christ said "with God all is possible".

Answer 46

yeah but God was just a empty space, he isnt a person is what im explaining so idk why they refer to him as one in the bible or dont explain how the earth was created correctly.

Answer 47

In the Old Testament there appears to be different names for God, and its assumed there talking about the same being. God the father as referred to by Christ and the Prophets is the one I'm talking about, and His coming about just might be a miracle of miracles. When talking about a being that may be eternal, existing in all time, its irrelevant to talk about when that being came into being.