A conversation about "What Would Jesus Do?" This is a contentious issue among Christians. Some think it's a pointless question, some think it's useful. I think it's useful, for many reasons. This was quite a productive debate for the most part, with, dare I say it, a lot of good sense coming from a Creationist. The Apologist interventions didn't help, but never mind.
#
|
Post
|
Commentary
|
1
|
What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 5 Aug 2013 at 7:31PM
| |
2
|
Here's a thread inspired by a trinity of separate threads.
| |
3
|
What I'm interested in is what Jesus would do if He was in a situation where killing one life (or a few lives) would save many lives. This subject was brought up here last year using a situational ethics scenario. I brought it up again recently during a discussion on absolute morality. And then most recently the WWJD hypothesis was brought forward. I think they fit together quite well...
|
Premise Provided By
|
When
|
Detail
|
An Apologist
|
21-Nov-12
|
You are in charge of defending a population under severe attack. A huge force of marauding enemy soldiers will overrun your defenses if they are able to cross a specific bridge, and wholesale slaughter will be the result of such. At this very moment they are entering the bridge. Meanwhile, you have every reason to believe that there are sappers disguised among the civilian population also attempting to cross the bridge. There are also innocent civilians attempting to cross the bridge. You have the power to blow up the bridge. What would be the "right" thing to do under these circumstances?
|
A Creationist
|
03-Aug-13
|
Well, I'm not a huge fan of situational ethics. I actually think it sets up a false dilemma. I can say this: If I had to kill an innocent person to save others, I would probably choose to kill myself. However, situational ethics really don't speak to an Absolute Standard of Morality which is a view I hold
|
An Apologist
|
04-Aug-13
|
It's easy to understand that while Christians are not legally bound to rigid laws we are bound by God's law--and considering "What Would Jesus Do" most certainly references a fixed Higher Moral Frame of Reference
|
4
|
I tend to agree with A Creationist on this one. I think situational ethics scenarios can be misleading, because from the comfort of our armchairs, we can reflect and ponder and come up with what we think is the best moral answer. But if were in a real life situation, with our bodies pumping adrenaline and no time to think, who knows how we would react.
| |
5
|
I thought the suggestion of " If I had to kill an innocent person to save others, I would probably choose to kill myself" was fascinating. That hadn't occurred to me. I don't think I would do that because I don't see any benefit.
| |
6
|
Blowing up the bridge seems the right thing to do if we use a simple formula where X = lives lost and Y = lives saved, and Y > X. But if I had a button in my hand which would definitely kill innocent people when i pressed it and blew up the bridge - could I actually press that button? Could I actually kill innocent people even though it's likely other innocent people will die if I don't? I have a feeling I couldn't do it. But I'm not sure, because I'm not there. I think if the situation was real, I'd try to find another way to prevent the slaughter without killing innocent people. Yes it sounds like I'm dodging the question, but that's my honest feeling. Perhaps my uncertainty is because I don't believe in any gods or because I am a coward!
| |
7
|
Now let's imagine that we are in that situation and we need guidance. It seems that considering What Would Jesus Do "references a fixed HMFR".
| |
8
|
So here's the question: What would Jesus do? Would He blow up the bridge and kill innocent people - or would He not blow up the bridge, knowing that wholesale slaughter will be the result?
| |
9
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 5 Aug 2013 at 7:33PM
| |
10
|
Couldn't Jesus just bang out a miracle?
|
This is true
|
11
|
Which I assume that any human could also do if they possessed as much faith as a grain of mustard...
|
Also true.
|
12
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 5 Aug 2013 at 7:43PM
| |
13
|
Good point. So we have another option. We could:
| |
14
|
- Blow up the bridge
| |
15
|
- Do nothing
| |
16
|
- Commit suicide
| |
17
|
- Pray for a miracle
| |
18
|
I assume the 4th option is what Jesus would do - so is that what I should do?
| |
19
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 5 Aug 2013 at 8:07PM
| |
20
|
Perhaps I should have phrased my post better: Jesus could perform a miracle.
| |
21
|
Anyone with as much faith as a grain of mustard could perform a miracle (relevant to the saving of lives in this instance).
| |
22
|
Examples of possible miracles:
| |
23
|
1) A swarm of angry bees between the army and their would be victims. They don't even have to sting anyone; would you tackle a swarm of bees.
|
Excellent examples.
|
24
|
2) Raising a huge wall between the army and the people they want to kill.
| |
25
|
3) Turning their guns into lettuce leaves, or just making them (the guns) disappear.
| |
26
|
4) Teleporting the army back to wherever they came from.
| |
27
|
5) Temporarily shrinking the soldiers to 12" in height so that they are not able to use their weapons.
| |
28
|
6) Teleporting the would be victims to a safer location.
| |
29
|
7) Create a 1" thick wall of (high pressure) air between the army and its would be victims, so that bullets can either not penetrate it very far, or have lost almost all of their kinetic energy when they emerge.
| |
30
|
The types of miracles one could perform is limited only by one's imagination, and faith.
|
It's hard to argue against this logic from a Biblical perspective.
|
31
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 5 Aug 2013 at 8:25PM
| |
32
|
That seems like a good reason to put the most faithful of believers in the front line, if I understand you correctly. Or perhaps form a special force of faithful believers to provide miraculous interventions.
| |
33
|
I know the US military experimented with paranormal activity (e.g. the famous "stare at goats" story) - I wonder if this kind of miraculous intervention was ever experimented with?
| |
34
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 5 Aug 2013 at 8:30PM
| |
35
|
They'd really only need one believer...
| |
36
|
I'm not sure whether believers could pool their belief to perform a joint miracle or not.
| |
37
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Pantheist on 6 Aug 2013 at 5:37AM
| |
38
|
you forgot an option;
| |
39
|
5. Pray for the victims and state "at least they are in a better place now."
| |
40
|
I don't like these hypothetical dilemmas, there is not enough info. How many innocent people would you need to kill to save how many more, etc.
|
This is a good point. However, although it was not revealed here, this is based on an event in the Korean War where a US Commander panicked and ordered a bridge to be destroyed as refugees were crossing towards the Americans, towards what they assumed would be safety.
|
41
|
There is no right or wrong moral answer, you do what you feel is right at the time and live with the consequences. It never that black & white either, why must there only be 2 options?
|
Again, a good point.
|
42
|
I also don't understand the point of the question. WWJD - as a man or as a God? As a God, then a miracle seems the best option. As a man, who knows - but I don't think he would take innocent lives for the greater good, so A Creationist's answer is probably most appropriate for Jesus.
|
Yet anoher good point. But according to the Bible, Jesus was a man who could perform miracles. And the Bible implies anyone can, if they have enough faith.
|
43
|
Personally, I can't answer as I would never find myself in such a situation so have no idea what the "correct" answer would be
|
Very true.
|
44
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A passer by on 6 Aug 2013 at 6:44AM
| |
45
|
During The Crusades, there were fanatical soldiers who went in to battle naked, using God as their shield.
| |
46
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 6 Aug 2013 at 8:46AM
| |
47
|
How did that work out for them?
| |
48
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A passer by on 7 Aug 2013 at 8:29AM
| |
49
|
A lot better than you'd expect. I think what they lacked in defensive capability they more than made up for with the psychological advantage their appearance granted them.
|
I've heard similar tales from ancient Greek wars
|
50
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 6 Aug 2013 at 3:44PM
| |
51
|
I would have thought that killing yourself would be frowned upon by God.
|
Certainly frowned upon by the Catholic church.
|
52
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 6 Aug 2013 at 11:55PM
| |
53
|
Good point. I think suicide is a sin - at least it is to Catholics. I might be wrong.
| |
54
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 7 Aug 2013 at 12:48AM
| |
55
|
Actually it seems Catholicism has toned down its view of suicide. But it's not a straightforward issue. Might be worthy of a new thread...
| |
56
|
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_suicide
| |
57
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 7 Aug 2013 at 2:42AM
| |
58
|
There is honest disagreement as to what a Christian response in specific instances might be--but not in motivation on the part of Christians to act on such. As usual, you misrepresent differences of opinion as to what the best Christian response might be in specific circumstances while ignoring the fact that Christians are motivated ultimately to act in response to the imperatives to act in love of God and to act in love of others as oneself. How many scenarios might one present that requires specific actions in specific circumstances based on one's HMFR? Why would you continue to misrepresent such options as irrelevant, especially considering the fact that Christians are motivated to act on a much deeper level than specific legal definitions might allow? WWJD reflects personal imperatives to act on such motivation. Please don't misrepresent such, nor the profound decisions and sacrifices required of those who would subscribe to such--thanks!
|
This doesn't make sense. Are we to assume the American soldiers who slaughtered the refugees were Christians, or not?
|
59
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 7 Aug 2013 at 3:25AM
| |
60
|
That wasn't the scenario at all. The scenario was to respond to an evil situation with limited options. I'm not surprised that you chose to redefine the terms and pretended that ignoring that scenario would result in other options, including the option of ignoring unpleasant reality and pretending that you could avoid the issue. In real life, you would not have had such an option. You criticize ancient peoples with limited options given their resources as if such a people existed in modern times with much more options and resources. You are not being honest in doing so. So, once again: given the "blow up the bridge" scenario with its honest limited options requiring a split second judgement, what would you do? Do you not recognize that such scenarios require moral judgments referenced to a HMFR?
|
Yes it was! The Apologist provided the scenario and I copied it verbatim
|
61
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 7 Aug 2013 at 8:27AM
| |
62
|
That was the scenario, word for word. Your words. I copied an pasted exactly what you said.
| |
63
|
It is an evil scenario with limited options. If we do nothing innocent people will die. Or we can do something which will cause innocent people to die.
| |
64
|
I explained what I might do and why it's hard to decide. So did other people. We also discussed the "false dilemma" of situational ethics.
| |
65
|
Please... Stay on Topic
| |
66
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 8 Aug 2013 at 10:41AM
| |
67
|
As a non Christian, I have given some consideration to what I believe Jesus would do in such a drastic situation.
| |
68
|
I honest believe he would do nothing.
|
Interesting, and feasible.
|
69
|
Given he knows that life is only one aspect of the "forever" of heaven, then losing a life is not such a bad thing.
| |
70
|
What matters more is ensure people are in a state before grace before they die..... so...maybe.... he would bless them all.
| |
71
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 11:29AM
| |
72
|
Makes sense.
| |
73
|
I'm wondering how useful the WWJD question is. How do we interpret what Jesus would do into a real life situation to determine what we should do?
| |
74
|
Or perhaps you've answered it - Jesus would take no direct action in this example so maybe that's the right thing to do.
| |
75
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 8 Aug 2013 at 1:11PM
| |
76
|
That is my point, Jesus would not do anything so the whole "what would Jesus do" question is moot.
| |
77
|
I suppose he might attempt to show them the the right path, that it is better to love all people regardless, but ultimately the decision is yours to make.
| |
78
|
That is the the entire pointof His message anyway, I think.
| |
79
|
For me personally, I would blow the bridge if it meant stopping a worse atrocity from happening. At least being blown up is quick.
|
Actually, in this case, it wasn't quick, it was a nightmarish scene as hundreds of women and children plunged on to rocks or into the water, clinging on to the shattered bridge,
|
80
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 1:47PM
| |
81
|
There are Christians who are opposed to the whole WWJD idea, as well as those who support it. Perhaps What DID Jesus do is more relevant. Or to be more precise, What Did Jesus Do According To The Bible (WDJDATTB)
| |
82
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 8 Aug 2013 at 2:44PM
| |
83
|
The WDJDATTB is interesting in message.
| |
84
|
The world would certainly be a better place if we all practiced the concept of loving all, forgiving sins and all that jazz.
| |
85
|
I am not sure what the world would look like though.
| |
86
|
For example, where would the USA be without the "evils" of big business?
| |
87
|
Or, maybe more accurately, the concept of the rich making money from the poor. To me, without that concept the world would be much poorer in every respect.
| |
88
|
Maybe a good way to consider the thinking of Jesus is to ask what kind of business would he have and how would he structure it?
|
Good question!
|
89
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 2:57PM
| |
90
|
That's a great question. I think it would have to be a non-profit organisation. I'm not sure if the employees would be paid above minimum wage...
| |
91
|
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
| |
92
|
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
| |
93
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 3:54PM
| |
94
|
Makes sense.
I'm wondering how useful the WWJD question is. How do we interpret what Jesus would do into a real life situation to determine what we should do? Or perhaps you've answered it - Jesus would take no direct action in this example so maybe that's the right thing to do. |
Good point. So far it seems it's only useful for the Apologist and he doesn't want anyone else to refer to it!
|
95
|
I think you make a good point. Here's my take. The question isn't so much WWJD; it's what ought I to do in this circumstance. For the Christian, the question is, what ought I do in light of what I profess to believe? However, these dilemmas say very little of say, Christian belief. As a callable human being, I'm bound to make mistakes. That said, were the responsibility for blowing up the bridge solely up to me, I blow it up. I'd have no real choice. It's not a decision I'd make lightly, but I'd have to make it. I suspect this type of scenario has played out many times in wars. If only we'd stop killing each other.
|
Makes sense.
|
96
|
Whatever Jesus would do, it would be the morally correct decision.
|
I suppose so - but it seems we can't figure out or agree what He would do. So presumably, we can't know the correct moral decision. Which means the concept of absolute morality is a bit useless.
|
97
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 4:25PM
| |
98
|
True.
| |
99
|
It's just hard (for me at least) to imagine Jesus blowing up a bridge and killing dozens of people. I can't imagine myself doing it. But who knows?
| |
100
|
I thought your description of the moral thought process was interesting...
| |
101
|
What ought I to do in light of what I profess to believe?.
| |
102
|
For me the process is ..."What's the best thing to do?"
| |
103
|
Also I wonder... what's the difference between believing, and "professing" to believe?
| |
104
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 5:53PM
| |
105
|
One could conceivably profess to believe in something but in reality they don't fully believe it. Actions likely would follow belief. If I believe for example that I ought to be kind to others (because it's what God expects) but I'm not kind, I either don't believe in God or I don't believe that He expects us to be kind (or that I believe it's true but I don't care). Either way, my actions reveal something about my beliefs (what isn't going to be immediately clear as many factors can account for any individual action.).
|
Very true.
|
106
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 6:02PM
| |
107
|
Yes, that's why I was interested to see you use the word "profess" - it actually has two different meanings including the meaning you've used . I suspect a lot of people in church are "professing" (using the word as you've used it).
| |
108
|
The point you raise about actions demonstrating belief is also interesting. What do the identical actions of a Christian and an atheist in the same situation, tell us about their beliefs?
| |
109
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 6:14PM
| |
110
|
It could say a lot of things, depending on the exact circumstances. More important in my view is the question, "what is the foundational worldview that can be extrapolated from the entire Christian message/philosophical underpinnings and that of atheism?" Then, are the identical actions more consistent with one view or the other? Are the actions contrary to the view? etc
|
Oh dear. Jibber Jabber alert.
|
111
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 6:25PM
| |
112
|
So if it could tell us a lot of things, what is one of those things?
| |
113
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 8:56PM
| |
114
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do?
| |
115
|
I don't know. We'd need to know the circumstances and then know a little about the person and then still we'd only be guessing (perhaps rightly). Only the person could tell us what was the motivation behind the action. For that matter, they may not even fully understand their actions.
|
Disappointing answer.
|
116
|
Everyone (at least nearly everyone) has a worldview. It has to be based upon something. I doubt that one's worldview can be whittled down to a single thing, but clearly one's faith would be a strong component of that worldview. Life experiences another. Ideas have consequences, some good, some bad. I'm not sure we can dissect the question and know for sure exactly what a person's actions tell us about the person. But it may be able to point us in the right direction.
|
This is all true.
|
117
|
In the news is a story about a professor, that when he was 14, he killed his entire family. Those actions alone can tell us nothing of that 14 year old boy. One could consider many reason as to why a 14 year old would kill his entire family. As it turns out, he was severely mentally ill. He spent 6 years in a mental hospital and underwent intense therapy. He turned his life around and is now a professor of psychology at a college.
|
That's a bit extreme, but I get the oint
|
118
|
What if that 14 year old boy was a professing Christian (but still mentally ill). Would that say anything about his faith? No - not in light of his mental illness.
|
True.
|
119
|
What if that 14 year old boy was an atheists. That would tell us little to nothing as well. Only with a clear picture of all contributing factors can one get to motivation. And even the, the mind is too complex to know for sure. Otherwise psychiatrists wouldn't disagree on a diagnosis or a prognosis. But they do all the time.
|
True.
|
120
|
But that is an extreme example. In general, we are guided by many factors in our lives. Faith guides many (I'm thinking now in terms of the philosophy behind the faith .. ie...do good to others etc). Also, one's lack of belief in God puts them in another philosophical camp. It's a bigger topic that I can handle in a simple post. Much more could be said but I'll leave it here for now.
|
True again! But taking all this together… religious belief seems somewhat incidental…
|
121
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 8:58PM
| |
122
|
The point you're making seems to be that the actions of someone tells us nothing at all about their religious belief.
| |
123
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 9:17PM
| |
124
|
They could tell us something or they could not. I'm not sure one can have a blanket rule.
|
Agreed
|
125
|
I know a young girl, who graduated from highschool, and immediately began making plans to develop a ministry in the Sudan. Her goal was to bring healthcare to depressed regions and to solicit money for the purpose of bringing clean water (from wells) to thirst starved regions. She's now been doing just that for 15 years.
|
I know someone who did something similar.
|
126
|
Those actions alone tell us many things perhaps. But more information is needed to make an accurate assessment (educated guess) about what drives her.
|
Well, it seems to me that such a person is driven by a need to help people who are less fortunate than us.
|
127
|
Her family is very active in the church. She was a very active church youth group kid and went on several mission trips. When asked, she will tell you of her love for God and for Jesus and for people in need. And in her experience, her heart was broken for the people of Sudan. Her desire to do this missionary work was a response to her faith. She is now married to another missionary minded person and together they serve others in whatever capacity God brings their way (this is how they explain it).
|
This is an interesting point. You can't tell what motivates someone to do something unless you ask them. You can't judge from actions.
|
128
|
Now we have a bit more information about what drives this young lady. And, since I have heard her testimony, I can say without question that the biggest driver in her decision to become a missionary is her faith in Jesus and love for others.
|
Maybe, but we can't be certain. It seems more feasible that the person was driven by a need to do good. Just like the person I knew.
|
129
|
But initially, just knowing her actions, I could only guess the rest. When I gain more knowledge about the person, I can get closer to the reasons for the actions. And when I hear them testify as to the why, I can know even more. Her actions are consistent with her message and so my conclusion is likely correct.
| |
130
|
To be more clear, I'll end by saying that the actions of someone could tell us nothing (or something) about a person's religious beliefs. But we will make better assessments if we arm ourselves with as much information as possible. Otherwise it's guesswork.
| |
131
|
Hope that makes sense.
| |
132
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 9:28PM
| |
133
|
I think we're agreeing that there is no ethical or moral action carried out by a believer that cannot be carried out by a non-believer. And I actually know non-believers doing the same work as the girl you know. My son did something similar.
| |
134
|
You're then extending the scenario to try and determine what religious beliefs these people have. I consider that to be none of my business. What they've done is the important thing, in my opinion.
| |
135
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 9 Aug 2013 at 12:44AM
| |
136
|
I believe the point you keep dodging is motivation. Nobody has ever said that atheists can't do good and nobody is claiming that Christians are personally any different from anyone else--we all have our personal strengths and weaknesses. The question becomes one of what source one looks to for inspiration and motivation, which brings us back to the issue of those who hold a common HMFR and those who do not. Christianity references a HMFR that motivates people to do good and act out of love for all. Atheists may have individual motivation to do so, but there is nothing in the atheist perspective per se that would motivate atheists over all to hold any position, good or bad. I would say that Christians generally have more motivation and inspiration to do good, hence the plethora of institutions in the West dedicated to helping others and willing people to serve there and in their personal lives, thanks to a Christian heritage.
|
This isn't very helpful. The apologist seems to assume there are two types of people: Christians and atheists. There's certainly no evidence to support his "plethora of institutions" argument. It's only recently that it's become acceptable to be openly atheist or non-religious. So obviously, if 99.99 of the population professes to be Christian, then every good act will be credited to Christian belief, even if some of those people do not really believe in God or Jesus.
|
137
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 1:57AM
| |
138
|
Pretty much where I was heading with it. What I want to avoid in these discussions is associating a behavior (the killing of an abortion doctor) with the person's belief (the killer was a professing Christian). The murder of anyone is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus and the NT writers. So there is a disconnect between the behavior and the actions.
|
Not sure about the disconnect, but I agree that if we have to judge people, we should judge them by their actions.
|
139
|
OTOH, it's reasonable to associate a behavior (ministering to the poor in Sudan) with the message of Christ found in the NT. The behavior is consistent with the belief.
|
Or you could associate such behaviour with Buddha, or Gandhi, or any number of people.
|
140
|
Ultimately, where there is no God, there is no reason for objective morality. Doing good, on the part of an atheist, is neither consistent nor inconsistent with their view that there is no God. But, it seems that if an atheist were to behave with indifference to others, even to the point of doing other harm, that would be consistent (at least it wouldn't be inconsistent) with the view that there is no God. It's not that the lack of a belief in God is a driver for bad behavior, but it's not an inconsistent behavior with the "belief." (belief that there is no God)
|
But this is untrue and unsupported by evidence. Any non-Christian, including atheists and agnostics, can be driven to do good things. The argument from the creationist simply assumes that there is no motivation to do good, other than God.
|
141
|
Ultimately, there is no "good" or "bad" behavior apart from God. There is just behavior we label one way or another.
|
Incorrect.
|
142
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:18AM
| |
143
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 9:36AM
| |
144
|
One minute you say "What I want to avoid in these discussions is associating [example of bad behaviour] with the person's [Christian] belief"
| |
145
|
then you say
| |
146
|
it's reasonable to associate [example of good behaviour] with the [person's Christian belief].
| |
147
|
It's either reasonable to associate behaviour with belief or it isn't. You can't pick and choose!
| |
148
|
The sensible approach in my opinion is never to associate behaviour with religious belief. If someone is helping the poor in Sudan I don't care if they are Christian, atheist, Muslim or whatever. You certainly can't guess their religious belief or lack of it from their actions. Helping the poor for a reason other than wanting to help the poor implies an ulterior motive.
| |
149
|
The fact is - there there is no moral or ethical action carried out by a believer which cannot be carried out by a non-believer.
| |
150
|
Your statement that "indifference to the point of doing harm" is "consistent with the view that there is no God" is factually incorrect, unsupported by evidence, and contradicted by your previous statements! It simply reveals your disdain for people who don't share your supernatural beliefs.
| |
151
|
I understand that it's difficult for the deeply religious to accept that non-believers are just as good (or bad) as they are - but it's true.
| |
152
|
Good or bad behaviour is very simple to recognise and define without God. The marketing of religion will have you believe otherwise. That's the power of marketing!
| |
153
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 9 Aug 2013 at 9:41AM
| |
154
|
It is a common trait that people of any faith tend to think that people of their faith are more good than the non believer of their faith.
| |
155
|
Why cant people of all types just accept that we are all basically the same?
|
Ah… if only!
|
156
|
Why think that religion is the reason for goodness?
| |
157
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 9:51AM
| |
158
|
That's my point really. People of faith claiming that they are morally superior make themselves appear judgemental - and as I understand it being judgmental is bad behaviour according to their faith.
| |
159
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:13PM
| |
160
|
No one here is claiming moral superiority here.
| |
161
|
And being judgmental is NOT bad behavior. Where do you get that?
|
Oh. I thought it was.
|
162
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:25PM
| |
163
|
Fair enough.
| |
164
|
I suppose because I am naturally not judgmental, I assume it's a bad thing.
| |
165
|
Maybe being judgmental is a virtue according to your religion. I find it arrogant, but that's just my opinion.
| |
166
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:12PM
| |
167
|
In answer to An Agnostic,
| |
168
|
No, we are NOT "more good" than others. Christians recognize that they are NOT good and cannot be. Not on our own. Only through Christ and by the power of God can we "be good" before God. And we are all basically the same in the fact that we are all sinners (fallen short of the standard God expects). Religion is NOT the reason for goodness.
| |
169
|
But it's clear that Because of Christians, good things are going on in many places in Africa. http://comeandseeafrica.org/casa/atheist/athiestafrica.htm
| |
170
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:22PM
| |
171
|
But that's the irony - you are good. You've been sold the idea that you need a product to fix a problem you don't have. Classic marketing strategy.
| |
172
|
There are many good things happening in Africa - and all over the world - which do not involve Christians. Why the obsession with people's religious belief? Why the need to constantly promote the work of Christians and ignore everyone else?
| |
173
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:25PM
| |
174
|
Obsession? This is s RELIGION DB.
| |
175
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:32PM
| |
176
|
Exactly!
| |
177
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 2:33AM
| |
178
|
"Why the obsession with people's religious belief? Why the need to constantly promote the work of Christians and ignore everyone else?"
| |
179
|
Because the title of this thread is "What Would Jesus Do?
|
LOL Good point
|
180
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:04PM
| |
181
|
Behavior that is consistent with the teaching of Christ "could be" attributed to a motivation from faith. Behavior that is inconsistent cannot be attributed to a motivation from faith. It has to come from somewhere else. The killing of an abortion doctor cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. Raising money to dig well in Sudan so that the poor have clean water CAN be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. This is all I'm really trying to say. It's reasonable to associate helping the poor with belief Christian teachings. It's impossible to associate murder with the same.
|
It can if the abortion doctor was considered a murderer. That's why Many Christians support the death penalty.
|
182
|
Over the years, atheists have had a love affair with Hitler. They love to point out he was a Christian and they have quotes to help their cause. Hitler could claim to be a turtle but that wouldn't make him a turtle. Then we have that vile group, Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS. They are not good examples of true Christianity. What motivates them? They are vile and hateful. It isn't the teachings of Jesus. It's not reasonable to try to associate behavior with the Christian faith IF that behavior is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.
|
Oh no… not Hilter #Godwin's Law
|
183
|
JimC says The sensible approach in my opinion is never to associate behaviour with religious belief.
| |
184
|
I don't agree. What matters is the person's motivation. And that motivation must be consistent with that from which they claim the motivation! If it isn't, then there is something else at play here.
| |
185
|
There can be many reasons for helping the poor etc. In missions in Africa, it's clear that Christians are having a positive impact because of their faith. http://comeandseeafrica.org/casa/atheist/athiestafrica.htm
| |
186
|
It is true that there there is no moral or ethical action carried out by a believer which cannot be carried out by a non-believer.
| |
187
|
But I would add to that this: Christians have an objective basis for good works, atheists do not.
|
Yes they do. More than one actually.
|
188
|
If I act indifferent to the point of doing harm, I am acting contrary to the teachings of which I profess to believe. That which I believe is rooted in transcendent truth - truth that exists apart from opinions of men. If I do harm, I act in opposition to that truth. The atheists has no such foundation. With no God, we have no good or bad; just likes and dislikes. And those can change. There are many examples in history of atrocities committed by those who claim there is no God. What transcendent truth is violated. Without God, you have none.
|
This is typical of many Christians. They simply cannot comprehend why someone who doesn't believe in God would be motivated to do good. The fact is they do!
|
189
|
I fully understand that non-believers can do good things. But there is none that are good. What is good? Have you lied in your life? That makes you a liar. Have you stolen? That makes you a thief. Have you looked at a woman, even for a moment and had a lustful thought? That makes you an adulterer. So far, most people are lying thiefs and adulterers. This list could go on. We decieve ourselves if we think we are good. Good by whose standards? Our own? Well in that case, yes, we're good. But we can set that standard anywhere. If the standard for good is perfection, no one can meet that. And that's the standard God expects. Perfect holiness and no one can even come close.
|
Not sure how this is relevant..
|
190
|
It's impossible to recognize good or bad behaviour without God. Who gets to set the standard? Can the standard change? Could the standard be different in 200 years? Is it flexable? Good and bad can only be truly defined if that which is good is truly good (from objective standards that are transcendent).
|
People get to set the standard, and yes it can and does change. And that applies to people who believe God too. History demonstrates that relative morality is a fact of life.
|
191
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:25PM
| |
192
|
How many Christians have never either lied, stolen, or had a lustful thought that constitutes adultery (presumably towards anyone whom one is not in a heterosexual marriage with at the time of the lustful thought).
| |
193
|
Or is it still adultery if there is any lust, even if it is towards someone one is currently in a heterosexual marriage with...
| |
194
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:29PM
| |
195
|
Probably most
| |
196
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:41PM
| |
197
|
It seems that we cannot derive that Christians are better people from that statement then (though they may be better people).
| |
198
|
A group of people (such as "atheists") would vary anyway, some would be more lustful than others, lie more frequently etc.
| |
199
|
Unless all Christians who do have lustful thoughts (just to narrow the scope down) have lustful thoughts with the same degree of frequency (other factors might have to be considered as well) then there would be a range of Christians, some of whom were more prone to lust than others.
|
true
|
200
|
It might be that the most lustful member of the group of all Christians, was less lustful than the most lustful member of the group of all atheists or even the least lustful atheist: or it might not.
| |
201
|
We'd have to discount any Christians and atheists if they happened to be asexual (they couldn't be given credit for not succumbing to a temptation that they do not suffer from).
| |
202
|
I'm not sure what my point is, other than it could be difficult to determine how sinful one group of people was compared to another (that would depend on the groups of course).
| |
203
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:41AM
| |
204
|
I actually don't believe that Christians are "better people" than others. That's not how I look at it. We're all in the same boat. Christians aren't "better" because they are Christians. That's not how it works.
|
Really?!
|
205
|
As for how sinful one group is over another - that's not how I look at it either. We ALL fall short of God's perfection. We're all equally guilty (of sin) before a perfectly Holy God. I have nothing to bring to the table. I can never be good enough. No one can. That's the boat we all sail in. And it's sinking.
| |
206
|
I think somehow the original topic went in a different direction. At this point I don't remember. Somehow it ventured into Christians being better etc. That is as far from my view as one can possibly get.
| |
207
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 10 Aug 2013 at 8:42AM
| |
208
|
I might have misconstrued or misrepresented (unintentionally) something.
| |
209
|
Threads can have a life of their own, and it's easy to wander off - for me anyway, especially if I think that something that someone has said is more interesting than the starting point.
| |
210
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 4:54PM
| |
211
|
Well it wasn't you. It was as you say, the life of the thread. I do that sort of wandering in my conversations. I'll end up somewhere and forget the original quesiton.
| |
212
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:15AM
| |
213
|
Let's put it simply. Person "A" and person "B" both have roughly the same personal strengths and and weaknesses. Neither is "better" than the other in that sense. Person "A" subscribes to a motivation that impels him to act out of love of God and others. Person "B" neither believes in a god or gods, nor subscribes to any HMFR that would mandate such actions. Whose actions would be most motivated towards loving and serving others?
|
Could be either A or B. We don't have enough information. The Apologist assumes that the Love of God is the only possible motivation.
|
214
|
Reagrding the statement that "there there is no moral or ethical action carried out by a believer which cannot be carried out by a non-believer"…
| |
215
|
...this a misdirect. If one person has a motivational basis for doing good and one doesn't, isn't it logical to assume that the former's perspective will have a positive impact and motivation on the person's actions?
|
Misdirect? Well, at least the Creationist understood it!
|
216
|
Your counter claim is likewise unsupported!
|
This is a confusing and pointless intervention by the Apologist, trying to interfere with what the Creationist has already agreed with.
|
217
|
You are disparaging the motivation of the Creationist?
| |
218
|
I understand that it's difficult for you to acknowledge the positive impact that a religious imperative to do good actually influences people to do good, but it's true.
|
Can be positive, can be negative. And a "positive imperative" can come fro a non religious source too.
|
219
|
Your value assumptions on "good or bad behavior" are not grounded in anything other than a fixed HMFR whose values atheists can't logically justify, although you would have us believe otherwise.
|
What? That doesn't even make sense.
|
220
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 11 Aug 2013 at 3:27PM
| |
221
|
The motivation of person A and person B is measured by what they do, not what they believe. Motivation results in action. If person A and person B take the same action they have equal amounts of motivation. You won't know what their religious belief is unless you ask them or they wear a badge to advertise it.
| |
222
|
It's as if you can't comprehend (or can't admit) that non-religious people are motivated to do good and help others. This motivation can be rationally justified by logic and evidence. The religious motivation is superstitious and based on a Stone Age explanation.
| |
223
|
The fact is that the religious person and the non-religious person are actually motivated by the same biological imperatives. But because you think you've patented good behaviour you're aggrieved that non-believers are using it.
| |
224
|
An analogy is water. Essential for health and life. You're collecting water from a natural spring and selling it in a fancy, branded bottle with a new name.
| |
225
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 8 Aug 2013 at 7:21PM
| |
226
|
Isn't this a straw man?
|
Actually, yes.
|
227
|
Has someone claimed that a "foundational worldview" can be extrapolated from atheism?
| |
228
|
Surely atheism is just a position that an atheist takes with regard to whether or not God exists.
| |
229
|
An atheist might also believe that one shampoo is better than every other, but it would be somewhat odd if an atheist based their "foundational worldview" on the efficacy of one shampoo over all others.
| |
230
|
It is not strange that a Christian would base their "foundational worldview" on "the entire Christian message/philosophical underpinnings";
| |
231
|
it would be strange and a little sad if an atheist based their "foundational worldview" on one particular thing that they disbelieved - there are so many other things that they could disbelieve...
| |
232
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 9:03PM
| |
233
|
Atheism and all that goes with it, certainly must have some affect on a person's philosophical world view. Ideas have consequences. Something drives the way we think and see the world. But it's not a one size fits all answer. We are far more complex in our thinking than that.
|
Christian apologists have a hard time realising that atheism is not an "ism". It doesn't motivate or do anything. Atheists are inspired by many things, but they are not inspired by God and they are not inspired by atheism.
|
234
|
I need to make one distinction. There is a difference between the actions of a person and the worldview they hold. For example, in the Christian worldview we are to love our neighbor. If a Christian is hateful toward their neighbor, then their actions are inconsistent with that particular worldview (as one cannot find such a view espoused in the New Testament). One cannot even make a case using the Bible that one ought to hate their neighbor as the opposite is taught.
| |
235
|
I am sure that will generate more questions and it will provide answers. Hopefully I explained myself clearly.
|
I think the logic is upside down…
|
236
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 9:06PM
| |
237
|
Surely it's a person's worldview that makes them an atheist - not the other way around?
| |
238
|
And I still can't see how to determine someone's beliefs from their actions. I'm pretty sure we can't.
| |
239
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 8 Aug 2013 at 9:20PM
| |
240
|
*hmmm, hadn't thought of it that way. I'll have to chew on that one a bit. Likely someone who is an atheist is one before they fully really think about it. I'm off to prep a room for painting and the putting in of a new floor. So I'll ponder as I work.
| |
241
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 10:00PM
| |
242
|
I know we shouldn't extrapolate from personal experience, but in my case, my natural scepticism and curiosity was there from as early as I can remember. And it wasn't long before it dawned on me that so-called religious instruction was based on myths and used infantile arguments that we were discouraged to challenge. So at least in my case, unbelief was a by-product of my natural worldview.
| |
243
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 9 Aug 2013 at 12:46AM
| |
244
|
I'm sorry that you had that horrible experience that lead you to subscribe to those conclusions.
|
"subscribe to those conclusions" LOL. Jibber Jabber.
|
245
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:09AM
| |
246
|
There is nothing wrong from skepticism. It's been said that atheists have great questions but come to the wrong conclusions. Some religious instruction may be based on myths. There are many religions out there. I know many atheists that examined Christianity (for one reason or another) and found it to be true. Like it or not, they were persuaded by the evidence (by their own admission).
|
Said by whom?
|
247
|
I know of no "infantile arguments" regarding what I believe. Many of the arguments for the truth claims of Christianity are complex and deeply philosophical. Though out the ages there have been many brilliant men and women who have come to believe in Jesus and the NT documents as reliable. I doubt that any of these were convinced by "infantile" arguments.
|
Hmmm. I wonder if he knows what I mean by "infantile"? It has nothing to do with complexity or being deeply philosophical.
|
248
|
If you have time to listen to RC Sproul on his series on apologetics (podcast), you can't possibly come away thinking his arguments are infantile. You may disagree with him but his arguments are sophisticated.
|
Oh God - not Sproul. His arguments are pathetic.
|
249
|
If' you've ever listened to Ravi Zacharias, you cannot possibly conclude his approach to apologetic is anything but intellectual.
|
Possibly, but so what? That doesn't preclude the infantile nature of the belief that he is intellectualising.
|
250
|
Some of the greatest philosophers/educators today are believers in Jesus and there is a long line throughout history of great thinkers who believed in the message of the Bible. God exists, we are all sinners, Jesus is God, Jesus saves.
|
Seems to have missed the point that infantile beliefs are fundamental to human nature. It doesn't matter how "sophisticated" you are. #Freud
|
251
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:27AM
| |
252
|
Absolutely agreed--and thanks for stating the true issue much better than I did! While I'm on that subject, I hope that all will note that when I personally argue from a perspective that may appear to be "intellectual", I am NOT rejecting Christian principles or beliefs--I am only engaging atheists on the basis of their own subscribed perspective! Of course you are doing the same as well as A Born Again Christian and other posters here from our perspective who only seek honest and on topic discussions! May God bless you and all honest posters here who seek honest dialog an understanding--and even those who don't!
|
Intellectual? He thinks his arguments appear intellectual? HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
253
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 11:09AM
| |
254
|
Paradoxically, the so-called intellectual arguments used to justify Christianity and Islam are the ones that are simplistic and infantile - that's why they are so easy to demolish. They are not intellectual at all, but pseudo-intellectual and usually gibberish. They sound clever - but they are infantile. This is manifest in the concept of "theology" which either provides opinions or the blindingly obvious. Why is "theology" even considered to be a subject? And I speak as a qualified theologian!
| |
255
|
The best arguments for religion are the honest ones that are based on faith and faith alone. These are the ones that come from everyday believers and not the pseudo-intellectual apologists. The strongest and most credible response from any religious person is "I don't know - but this is how I feel". The most credible "believers" are those who believe but can't explain why, because it's an emotional response. They don't judge people or proselytise or preach or attempt to justify Biblical contradictions with contrived and yes, infantile arguments.
| |
256
|
The pseudo-intellectualism of religious apologists, creationists and fundamentalists is actually counter-productive. Religion would be more popular without them, in my opinion.
| |
257
|
Re: Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:18AM
| |
258
|
Resorting to name calling is indeed regrettable, and implying that those who subscribe to Christianity or Islam are "simplistic" and "Infantile" in their reasoning is a horrendous travesty! There are many brilliant Christian thinkers, scientists, educators, and professionals in all walks of life and many brilliant theologians as well! I disagree with the atheist perspective but I would never resort to branding atheists as "simplistic" or "infantile"! I hope you reconsider your accusation from a more rational and less prejudicial frame of mind!
|
Name calling? Where did he get that from? And I didn't refer to anyone as simplistic and infantile. I was referring to the arguments - not the people.
|
259
|
Again I'm shocked that you merely refer to perspectives with which you disagree as "infantile." That is no basis for respect and honest dialog on this DB!
|
What on earth is he talking about?
|
260
|
If you believe so then please provide what you believe to be evidence for your perspective and respond to counter posits on topic rather than resorting to name-calling--thanks!
|
I have!
|
261
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:54PM
| |
262
|
I'm not name calling! Just because you promote simplistic or infantile arguments does not make you a simpleton or an immature person. Ancient creation myths are immature and simplistic but that doesn't mean the people were. Also consider the arguments for a flat earth. They are intellectual arguments but also immature and simplistic. That doesn't mean the flat earthers are idiots.
| |
263
|
Being a brilliant theologian is like being a brilliant dragon wing aerodynamics analyst.
|
I actually know someone who was paid for doing this. Paid a lot - worked for Pixar.
|
264
|
So don't assume that someone using an infantile argument is an infantile person.
| |
265
|
You've completely ignored what I said about credible religious arguments so here it is again... The best arguments for religion are the honest ones that are based on faith and faith alone. These are the ones that come from everyday believers and not the pseudo-intellectual apologists. The strongest and most credible response from any religious person is "I don't know - but this is how I feel". The most credible "believers" are those who believe but can't explain why, because it's an emotional response. They don't judge people or proselytise or preach or attempt to justify Biblical contradictions with contrived and yes, infantile arguments.
| |
266
|
My evidence for creationist arguments being counter productive is the widespread mockery of these infantile ideas. If I was a Christian I would be annoyed and sad that such ideas were associated with my religion.
| |
267
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 1:55PM
| |
268
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be a statement by RC Sproul from his book Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Volume 1)
| |
269
|
I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
| |
270
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:29PM
| |
271
|
Does RC Sproul point out for us where in the Bible it is definitively stated that each of those days was 24 hours long?
|
Good question!
|
272
|
And are how long those hours are defined more precisely than "hour: the twenty fourth part of a day"?
|
And again
|
273
|
Saying the word was created in six days is one thing, assuming that all of those days were of a particular length is another.
|
Yep
|
274
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:49PM
| |
275
|
That's what I mean by "infantile"
| |
276
|
However I don't want to attribute this ridiculous logic to Mr Sproul if he didnt say it.
| |
277
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:16PM
| |
278
|
Calling it infantile doesn't make it so. And usually people resort to the name calling when they can't address the arguments. One COULD say that approach is infantile.
|
Name calling? Has no one here heard of Sigmund Freud?
|
279
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 6:26PM
| |
280
|
It's not name calling. The hypothesis that the universe was created in six days is infantile given the evidence.
| |
281
|
Are you confirming that mr Sproul advocates that hypothesis?
| |
282
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Born Again Christian on 9 Aug 2013 at 7:32PM
| |
283
|
I assume you are using the second definition of "infantile" (suitable to or characteristic of an infant, very immature) as opposed to the first (of or relating to infants or infancy). Either way, it is derogatory and by extension is name calling. What "evidence" proves conclusively that the universe was NOT made in 6 days? You can choose to believe or not believe the evidence that supports a young earth, but you cannot dismiss it out of hand. (BTW, the Bible clearly states that "there was evening and there was morning, the ____ day", so clearly these were 24 hour days.)
|
Seriously? Evidence that the earth was not made in 6 days?
|
284
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 8:00PM
| |
285
|
Yes I mean in the sense of "immature". There is overwhelming evidence which explains how the universe developed, and that evidence shows it wasn't created in 6 days. If you are genuinely unaware of the evidence let me know - I can PM it to you or post it on the science db.
|
Freud's argument was that religion fulfils certain fundamental needs - people need to feel secure, safe, absolved from guilt etc. These are infantile needs - Hence, God the father figure.
|
286
|
The Young Earth Creationism to which you refer is a different interpretation to the 6 day universe interpretation. YEC states that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. So you could have a universe created in 6 days which is billions of years old because those 6 days were billions of years ago, or the universe could be created in 6 days, 10,000 years ago. YEC and the 6 day creation are two separate Genesis interpretations within Creationism. There are other Creationist interpretations and they are all equally immature. That's not derogatory, that's a fact, given the evidence.
| |
287
|
Every culture has its creation myths and the stone age dwellers in the middle east were no different to the stone age dwellers in China, Europe, Australia, America and Africa who also came up with ideas on how the world came to be. Human beings had to explain things somehow, and they came up with all kinds of ideas, including what you read in Genesis. If I had lived then, I would have believed it too. I would have had no alternative. Our knowledge is now more mature than it was then.
| |
288
|
Regarding the six day interpretation - have you ever wondered how God created night and day before he created the sun? Or how he created light before he created stars? Did you know there is a "non-temporal" Creationist interpretation which states that the 6 days described in Genesis are not in chronological order, and day 4 is actually day 1, and so on? (I swear I'm not making this up.)
| |
289
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 8:03PM
| |
290
|
I should add - I am not suggesting that creationism is the de facto Christian interpretation. Most Christians across the world understand the scientific explanations, and many cosmologists, evolutionary biologists and geologists are Christians, Muslims and Jews. I do not want to give the impression that most Christians are creationists who take Genesis literally.
| |
291
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 8:18PM
| |
292
|
If the rotation of the earth slowed sufficiently a day could last 25 hours (approximately or exactly), there would still be an evening, morning, afternoon etc. from the point of view of a human observer.
| |
293
|
Evening and morning are functions of "day" not of "24 hours".
| |
294
|
If you can point me to the passage in the Bible where it describes the atomic clock used to measure the length of the first six days I would be very interested...
| |
295
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Unitarian on 9 Aug 2013 at 10:40PM
| |
296
|
I agree that calling someone infantile because of their beliefs is derogatory & has an air of superiority.
|
Except I didn't call anyone infantile. Jeez!
|
297
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:41AM
| |
298
|
When you refer to something as "infantile" without addressing the arguments, that is a logical fallacy. I've probably done that too. It usually means either your too lazy to address the arguments or you don't know how.
|
I have been addressing the arguments.
|
299
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 10 Aug 2013 at 6:40AM
| |
300
|
Tell me which arguments I haven't addressed and I will address them!
| |
301
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:01PM
| |
302
|
When you claim something is "infantile" and leave it at that, you haven't addressed the argument. Well all know the game when name calling is employed. You might try explaining exactly what you mean by infantile as it carries multiple meanings; also, address the thing you are calling infantile. Formulate an argument based on the merits of the argument offered.
|
I didn't leave it at that - I listed specific arguments that fit the definition.
|
303
|
BTW, there are many Christians who don't hold to RC's view of Genesis. Not only that, he changed course on his Genesis views. My view of creation is the best one I've ever heard. "I don't know, I wasn't there."
|
That makes sense!
|
304
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:21PM
| |
305
|
By infantile I mean immature. A comparison is the argument for a flat earth. I consider that immature too.
| |
306
|
I love the logic of "I don't know, I wasn't there". Can we apply that to every event in history that you were absent from?
| |
307
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:40PM
| |
308
|
A young earth at least has some merit. A flat earth not.
|
ctually a flat earth has a lot of merits.
|
309
|
It is logical to say I don't know how the world came into being. Do you?
|
Depends what you mean by world. Planet, universe?
|
310
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 10 Aug 2013 at 6:27PM
| |
311
|
A young earth has as much merit as a flat earth. It's possible to have a very lively and intellectual debate on why the earth is flat (or not) - very similar to the young earth debate.
| |
312
|
Is it logical to say that you don't know how the world came into being because you were not there?
| |
313
|
Yes, I do know how the world came into being, as much as it's possible to know anything. I'm assuming the world means planet earth. Is that what you mean?
| |
314
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 11:31PM
| |
315
|
You don't know how the universe began. No one really know. No one truly knows how life began. All are theories. All could be wrong. We have guesses. Some better than others. Panspermia anyone?
|
Ah OK - it's universe. No he planet.
|
316
|
You're such an open minded thinker that you cherry picked one thing you could complain about RC. Ten years ago he was OE. Then you'd have had to cherry pick another complaint. Why not just deal honestly with post instead of dragging it into another direction? Free thinker you're not. Agenda driven you are.
| |
317
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:13PM
| |
318
|
If you have quoted from the book correctly there would seem to be multiple issues.
| |
319
|
It begins with the title or perhaps even that he wrote the book at all, or that it needed to be written.
|
LOL
|
320
|
Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith(Volume 1).
| |
321
|
Is it the first volume of his Layman's Guide, or his Layman's Guide to the first volume of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
| |
322
|
I have some sense of what "literal six-day creation" means: what are "the fourth alternative" and "the traditional one"?
|
Good question
|
323
|
Where in the Bible does it say that a day is a 24 hour period? And if it does that all "hours" are of exactly the same duration and/or all days are of exactly the same duration?
|
Good question
|
324
|
Generally I'd assume that the plain meaning (of anything) was what was meant (regardless of whether it was correct or not) unless I had reason to think otherwise.
|
Good question
|
325
|
Wasn't "that God created the world in the space of six days" already a point of faith in/from Genesis?
|
I wish I'd thought of these!
|
326
|
I further assume that "in the space of six days" can be translated to mean "in six days". Perhaps he's being paid by the word...
| |
327
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:24PM
| |
328
|
Verbosity is a feature of pseudo-intellectualism.
| |
329
|
There are four categories of hypothesis in creationist apologetics which aim to justify literal interpretations of Genesis. I won't go Into detail here. My reference to Sproul came from a website that had extracts from his book but maybe they were quote mining.
| |
330
|
I don't want to falsely accuse someone of being a Genesis literalist. I think the fairest approach is for A Creationist to confirm Sproul's ideas as I think he is familiar with Sproul's ouvre.
| |
331
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:28PM
| |
332
|
If he is that would be handy. Based on the potential "reference" I don't have any desire to read the book.
| |
333
|
When I want Biblical information, I'd reach for a Bible.
| |
334
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:33PM
| |
335
|
That's the irony of the need for apologetics.
| |
336
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:34PM
| |
337
|
Laconic version: "Need?"
| |
338
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:20PM
| |
339
|
Jim, you are here for your own apologetic purposes. Isn't that ironic!
|
Seems the definition of apologist is unnown here too!
|
340
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:37PM
| |
341
|
Untrue! I'm here to capture arguments and religious "logic" - I have nothing to defend!
| |
342
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:41AM
| |
343
|
*Hmmmm, I'll remember that when you defend your position.
|
Defend? I didn't know I was being attacked!
|
344
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:21AM
| |
345
|
Interesting. Is that an admission that you are only here to attack the perspective of others rather than to offer any rational counter-perspective of your own?
|
Er… no obviously not. Where on earth did that come from?
|
346
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 11 Aug 2013 at 2:24PM
| |
347
|
As I said - I'm here to capture arguments and religious "logic" - I have nothing to defend! (Capture as in "collect". I'm an avid collector of this kind of thing).
| |
348
|
So before you make incorrect assumptions about what you think I said... Please... Stay on Topic
| |
349
|
And it's obvious that I always provide my rational perspective whenever it's asked for. Much to your apparent annoyance!
| |
350
|
But I don't see my rational perspective as any kind of "defence" and as far as I can tell I have nothing to "defend".
| |
351
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:18PM
| |
352
|
I don't see the relevance here.
| |
353
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 6:58PM
| |
354
|
When I referred to certain religious explanations as "infantile" - you gave Sproul as someone I should read or listen to, to demonstrate that religious explanations are not infantile.
| |
355
|
Sproul appears to advocate that the universe was created in days, literally as described in Genesis. That is an infantile argument in my opinion, given the evidence. But perhaps Sproul does not believe that. as you recommended Sproul to me, it is relevant that you inform us as to whether Sproul advocates that argument or not.
| |
356
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A bystander on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:34PM
| |
357
|
If you follow the Bible, six days isn't six days as of NOW, there was no clock in those days, and, at least to start
| |
358
|
with, and if you read the Bible and follow that book, there was no light or dark either.
| |
359
|
So "six days" could have been anything, even hundreds of years our time!
| |
360
|
And if you follow the fundamentalists view, humans and dinasaurs lived together, and the age of the earth is 6,000 years - not 4.45 billion years!!!
| |
361
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 9 Aug 2013 at 4:32PM
| |
362
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:33AM
| |
363
|
Is this like
| |
364
|
Do what I say and not what I do
| |
365
|
God certainly has broken multiple commandments yet expects people to follow them.
| |
366
|
If you believe in something you do it regardless of the blah blah (sorry about the technical language) of the person.
| |
367
|
For example, I believe I should put myself before others, and many people say this.
| |
368
|
Yet I have lost count of how many times I have helped a stranger in a dangerous situation and have dozens of people stand on the side line and watch.
| |
369
|
Yet ask a group of people the hypothetical of if they would help a stranger in a dangerous situation and most, if not all, people will put their hand up. I am not sure if they are lieing, but most people are not telling the truth either based on the gap between how many people say they help and how many people actually do it.
| |
370
|
If you dont believe me, next time you watch the news where there is a hero, take a look at how many onlookers their are.
| |
371
|
It has nothing to do with religion at all, never has, never will.
| |
372
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 3:52AM
| |
373
|
You say it has nothing to do with religion at all, never has, never will.
| |
374
|
Ever? All one would have to do is show it has at least once
|
True.
|
375
|
God cannot break a commandment. Impossible.
|
This is ambiguous. I think he means that God can appear to break a commandment by, say, killing children, but He doesn't break the commandment by default because everything He does is right by default. OR something.
|
376
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 9 Aug 2013 at 9:29AM
| |
377
|
Who made the flood?
| |
378
|
God has demonstrate wrath as well, which is one of the 7 sins.... although, are the 7 deadly sins from the bible? Hmmm?
| |
379
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 9 Aug 2013 at 5:28PM
| |
380
|
and your point?
| |
381
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 10 Aug 2013 at 9:13AM
| |
382
|
Well, since God gave the ok for the flood that kill who knows how many people, then by default God is a murderer.
| |
383
|
That is my point.
| |
384
|
God is a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of being.
| |
385
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by A Creationist on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:06PM
| |
386
|
Impossible. God could kill all of us and He wouldn't be a murder. He's not on the same level as you or I. You are His creation and he has placed in you knowledge of Himself and knowledge of His Law. If you live your life contrary to the knowledge you possess, and you refuse to acknowledge God and you refuse to obey His Laws, He is justified in whatever actions he takes according to His perfect Justice. You don't "deserve" life. That is a gift. Given by God. Use it rightly or He would be justified in taking it away.
|
This contradicts the creationist's previous assertion about absolute morality, because if there's one type of morality for us and a different type for God, then there is no absolute morality.
|
387
|
You have a very small view of God. If you had a proper view, you could never say the things you say. If God gave us what we all deserve, we'd all be dead.
|
YIKES! I wonder how many Christians would wear that slogan on a t shirt?
|
388
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:13PM
| |
389
|
Therin is the crux..... God doesnt follow his own rules, changes them at will and has murder plenty of people along the way.
| |
390
|
I personally find it hard to follow a hypocrite.
| |
391
|
I do believe in God by the way, just not the Christian interpretation of him because he makes no sense and doesnt do what he preaches.
| |
392
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:27AM
| |
393
|
For those new--or relatively new--to this DB, these issues have been discussed to great length before. If you are interested, you will find one Christian response to these and other such issues here:
| |
394
|
http://christianthinktank.com/objedex.html
|
Zzzzzzzz
|
395
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:15PM
| |
396
|
"If God gave us what we all deserve, we'd all be dead." - That's a superb summary of Chrisianity and Islam. Do you mind if I use that elsewhere?
| |
397
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 9 Aug 2013 at 11:02AM
| |
398
|
Thou shalt not kill (murder/retzach)
| |
399
|
not "We shalt not kill" or "I shalt not kill".
| |
400
|
Even setting aside that, there would still be many Commandments that would have no relevance to God...
| |
401
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 8 Aug 2013 at 4:57PM
| |
402
|
I think it is not a good idea to try to figure out what Jesus would do in a situation.
| |
403
|
As mentioned, I believe Jesus would do nothing and allow God to judge the people when the time comes. From the point of view of Jesus I suppose that is ok.
| |
404
|
From the point of view of a person, I simply do not think doing nothing is the moral thing to do, so it is confusing to me that Jesus, in my mind, would do nothing (and be right in doing nothing since the real judgement is after we die) YET there is the old saying "The only thing evil needs to survive is for good people to do nothing"
| |
405
|
Again, and I dont have the exact quote, Jesus did challenge the fight stance quite strongly preferring a peaceful approach.
|
According to the Bible, Jesus advocated passive resistance. Which is strange because most Christians don’t think it’s practical. (They are right).
|
406
|
I know I would blow the bridge, I would rather go down fighting if forced to, but if I can run I run.
| |
407
|
In essence, the right answer is to do nothing and love your enemy if you take the long term approach. Lets face it, Jesus' message of love and peace has outlived a violent approach.
| |
408
|
My head is spinning, I will stop
| |
409
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by JimC on 8 Aug 2013 at 5:06PM
| |
410
|
I think A Creationist made the point a few days ago regarding the limited value of situational ethics scenarios.
| |
411
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Atheist on 8 Aug 2013 at 5:13PM
| |
412
|
On the other hand, if one does not consider scenarios while they are hypothetical, one might find oneself having to make a difficult decision in a limited timeframe...
|
Fair enough
|
413
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:25AM
| |
414
|
I like "What if... " thinking as it does prepare you for things.
| |
415
|
Situational examples are a great way to debate, consider and learn alterantive ways of thinking and doing things.
| |
416
|
The WWJD thought experiment is interesting, but I dont think the Jesus reply would come about because Jesus isnt really a person
| |
417
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 9 Aug 2013 at 2:36AM
| |
418
|
I haven't responded much to the critiques of the WWJD threads, not to mention your claim that Jesus didn't really exist, but of course the question "WWJD" does require context. "WWJD" is a question that we Christians ought to ask ourselves in all of our moral decision making, assuming--and recognizing--the fact that Jesus exists in perpetuity beyond a first century context. Jesus asks us to model our decisions regarding complex issues that He may not have encountered in His human lifetime but nonetheless challenges us to respond to all specific situations while referencing His deeper values of a wholehearted love of God and a love of others as ourselves.
|
Rather a long winded way of saying that the essence of Christianity is the golden rule.
|
419
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 9 Aug 2013 at 9:35AM
| |
420
|
I will be more clear about Jesus not being a person.
| |
421
|
It was not a reference to his non existence, more that if Jesus was the son of God and had the abilities that he had and the knowledge of "knowing" about God rather than just having faith in God makes him not a person/ human.
| |
422
|
He is the son of God, not a person.
| |
423
|
The WWJD for moral decision making seem rather pointless to me.
| |
424
|
Jesus would just suggest to love everyone, have faith in God, and suggest you use your God given free will to follow the path to God.
| |
425
|
That, it seems, would be about it.
| |
426
|
Maybe a better way to do this is to define what a moral is, how it is to be applied and go from there.
| |
427
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 1:28AM
| |
428
|
From a Scriptural standpoint, Jesus's humanity came with limitations: Hebrews 2:5ff makes it clear that Jesus was made "for a little while lower than the angels." Jesus had special access as it were to The Father, but was still limited by His humanity while living here and exercising His ministry.
|
Surely if this explanation is going to work we need to know the attributes of an angel.
|
429
|
Jesus gave practical examples in His parables and teaching for the people of His time which still find resonance with us today.
|
Parables, fables, legends, stories in general… excellent ways to get a message across.
|
430
|
The Good Samaritan parable might be a good starting point.
|
Possibly, but it is open to interpretation.
|
431
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 11 Aug 2013 at 2:51AM
| |
432
|
Jesus simply talked about stuff.
|
Another great t shirt slogan!
|
433
|
Threw a few miracles around and died on the cross (which I would argue was selfish as he knew it would set actions on a path to spreading the word... death, pain and suffering a a minor temporary thing compared to eternity in heaven.)
| |
434
|
Jesus simply talked about being good and shared a wisdom.
| |
435
|
Taking proactive action was not really his thing.
| |
436
|
The information he shared was given in other places by other people and in other religions, the information he shared was not special or new at the time. The vehicle he created was just picked up by the Romans to resolve their multiple religions issue.
| |
437
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 6:24AM
| |
438
|
Death pain and suffering that resulted from God's self-sacrificial and loving actions is the result of sin in opposition to a God who would have His followers love and serve others. Not sure what your point is here.
|
This is gibberish isn't it?
|
439
|
What do you mean by proactive action and what would you expect that would have accomplished?
| |
440
|
The vehicle He created wasn't "just picked up by the Romans" at all--three centuries of persecution against Christianity was the Roman response! Ultimately Christianity prevailed, but it could not have done so without its ability to transform the spiritual lives of its followers!
| |
441
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 11 Aug 2013 at 7:03AM
| |
442
|
God is not always so loving and forgiving.... think the flood.
| |
443
|
Jesus took a very short term (compared to eternity one life time is not much) hit for a long term result, assuming he was the who he is said to be.
| |
444
|
Proactive - as in not just talking about it.
| |
445
|
Jesus according to the bible had a plan to save our souls, obviously what he did was exactly what was meant to happened and the results after it were also known to him via God and his "all knowing". It is hard to put a foot wrong with that kind of knowledge.
| |
446
|
Romans adopted the Christian religion via Constantine and his conversion in an effort to stop the arguing. It was a political move more than a religious one.
| |
447
|
From that point on, your religion grew fast because of the acceptance of it politically and because of the ease of being a follower of it compared to the alternatives.
| |
448
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Apologist on 11 Aug 2013 at 7:22AM
| |
449
|
God tempers justice with mercy, but does not forsake rendering judgement altogether.
|
?
|
450
|
Yes, Jesus took a very short term (compared to eternity one life time is not much) hit for a long term result, assuming he was the who he is said to be, and the same could be said for anyone who sacrifices themselves for the sake of others--still don't get your point.
| |
451
|
Can't get much more proactive than offering up oneself to suffer excruciating torture and be killed!
|
Offering? According to the Bible Jesus was betrayed and arrested. He didn't volunteer.
|
452
|
You assume that Jesus was privy to all His Godly understanding while in limited human form. He wasn't.
|
That's certainly more feasible.
|
453
|
I don't buy your Constantine explanation, but even if you and others do, there's still that matter of three centuries of persecution of Christians by the Romans that preceded that.
| |
454
|
I'm sure there were those who jumped on the bandwagon for political reasons but there is still that matter of three centuries of persecution, and Christianity not only survived but thrived under those circumstances. Other sects wouldn't have forged bogus scriptures were it not for Christian popularity among many--popularity in spite of a very steep personal price to pay for professing such.
|
None of that demonstrates that scripture is not bogus. Consider the success of Islam or Mormonism.
|
455
|
Re: What Would Jesus Do? Posted by An Agnostic on 11 Aug 2013 at 8:38AM
| |
456
|
I thought God was all about forgiveness rather than slaughtering people.
| |
457
|
Jesus sacrificed himself because he knew the long term effects. He knew God existed. He knew a lot and was ok with the short term discomfort he went through for the very long term result in his favor.
| |
458
|
People have undergone far worse things for much less to the point where what Jesus endured on his last days is not overly extreme, even though it was not nice at all, there is much, much worse that has been done to people.
| |
459
|
My point is Jesus and God did a stunt that was to their benefit.
|
That does make sense,
|
460
|
Jesus knew a lot more than the normal person.
| |
461
|
Many people suffered under Roman rule, not just Christians, they are not unique to torment, so I dont understand why Christian persecution gets to be put onto a pedestal. There is nothing special about it, it happened to them and to many, many more others.
|
