Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
He could be saying that too, but it would have to exclude Himself. That would fit with the rest of the passage, where Jesus effectively shows the man his sin.
The disciples saw that the man was basically good by earthly standards having kept all those commandments. They were shocked when Jesus said "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle". They asked in response, who then can be saved?
Fortunately it doesn't depend on man, and with God all things are possible.
The belief, not the action, is illogical.
atheists are weird self contradicting dips.
I read a news story about an atheist man who requested and was eventually allowed to give his ACLU atheist "invocation" before a town counsil meeting began.
Invocation: The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance
Now why would an atheist who DOES NOT believe in higher beings, higher assistance or such want to practice (preach) "invocate" in a government town meeting when ACLU atheists work hard to remove or seperate religion from government? They're a screwy bunch of people.
There are, the federal judiciary simply acts with the imperfect knowledge that they are the arbiters of state regulations.
Thats why you fellows couldn't get elected dog catcher if you didn't lie about your beliefs.
Of course.
Who gets to define what is 'blasphemous'?
Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go and sell all that you have and follow me."
The goal isn't good by earthly standards, the goal is perfection.
There are only two ways to be perfect. Never sin or be forgiven. And God said there are none righteous so the first one don't count.
That's far too simplistic.
The reason a Christian looks to G-d to determine right and wrong is not for the reward but because G-d knows and we don't.
Even if we had faultless reasoning (and human beings don't) we don't have anywhere near sufficient factual knowledge to determine whether a particular action is right or wrong - nor even how to properly judge such actions.
If we are left with men's determinations as to what is right and what is wrong we are in hell.
Shalom.
A woman murders her husband for 10 million life insurance. Lives happily ever after in this world.
According to Darwin we are motivated by desire for food and sex.
Shalom.
Mighty Christian of ya.
Equal access. If you're going to allow one group to make an invocation, you need to allow any group that wants to participate.
For every verse there are alternate understandings it seems sometimes.
> that's why Communists are godless
Except for all the godly Communists, like the ones who landed at Plymouth Rock.
Jesus challenges His enemies to convict Him of sin. It can't be done. Why? He is perfectly good.
So in the other verse, He is not Himself denying that He is good. He is calling the man to choose: either He is a mere mortal, in which case He cannot be absolutely good; or He is absolutely good, in which case He must be God.
Dan
Common law. The plaintiff complains, the defendant explains, and the judge decides who is credible and compares the precedents. Worked for centuries.
Well, there y'go.
(c;
Not quite. I was saying that I do not think a motivating belief in God makes an act moral, versus the same act by a non-beliver. I agree with you that the motivation of the actor can change the nature of the act. However, I do not think that an act gains goodnees because it was God who motivated it.
So your example of the marriage, assume that marriages like that exist, both types.
I see two groups, but I guess there are four. (1) Married for love - belief in God, (2) Married for love - no belief in God, (3) Married for career - belief in God, (4) Married for career - no belief in God.
The two groups are those that married for love and those than didn't. In your example, the belief in God would not affect the acts themselves.
"Spoken like someone who thinks religious beliefs are flights of fancy."
Not at all. I have met many, many people of great intellect who have religious beliefs. I would not assume that they were subject to flights of fancy.
Nor would they say that of me. You cannot simplify my lack of belief by making assumptions about me.
It's amusing how often people assume that someone who is an atheist is unfamiliar with religious belief. In my experience, that's far from the case. Most atheists I know came from backgrounds steeped in religious belief, myself included.
While my parents were atheists, I was an active Christian in my youth. And that was not just a fancy, either. I had actually begun training for the ministry. I came to my atheism as an adult, after years of study and thought.
After some years, I found myself simply unable to believe that any deities or other supernatural entities or phenomena existed at all. I have found no reason since to change that point of view.
Sitting on the bookshelf in my office is a collection of writings and scriptures that would befit any religious scholar's office. They're all well-read and marked.
My inability to believe is not something I have come to lightly, believe me. Yet, there it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.