Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

I wonder how religion creates a fundamental need unless it was natural like eating, sex, & laughter.

I actually think that morality is ingrained in us for the most part. Since the remote tribe ckohler linked to seems to get by on some basic morality, you don't need to learn about God to have them (Although from my POV, that just means God gave them to us, so it's a moot point).

However, I've always wondered why there would be need for duty in a godless society? Why die for a country for example if you don't live to enjoy it's freedoms. Why die for anything for that matter? I can understand if kids are involved, but what if they're not.

I am more than willing to die for someone, but not willing to kill for someone except in extreme circumstances. But my dying is not that big of a deal due to the hopes I have. If I'm wrong, it's not that big of a deal since I wind up as worm food next to the atheist.

So the serious question is this:

What makes an atheist die for something?

Religion arises from a fundamental need, it doesn't create one. (Insert cheap shot about dogmatically enforced self-denial here.) It may, however, promote a psychological reliance or addiction to pointless or harmful activities.

You're right, nationalism is an emotionally based and hence largely irrational attitude. From a selfish perspective it makes not a whole lot of sense to forfeit one's existence for the benefit of others. But there are many unselfish reasons why one might sacrifice one's life for his or her country. To protect family or dear friends, to uphold strong political or philosophical convictions, or perhaps even out of an unspecific yet strong desire to do something "good." Arguably, if one has children then dying for them could be seen as selfishness of a kind, since kids carry their parents genes. I don't personally hold that view.

Nonbelievers' values and morals are similar to those of the faithful, only without most of the irrational baggage. If we give our lives for a cause, then, it's more likely we'll do it for a worthy or otherwise reasonable one. (Insert another cheap shot about the suicide bombing community.)

As opposed to a slave of an invisible deity? What's the difference? The basis of your morality is "God said so." That's not morality. That's a child obeying a parent's command.

Bingo.

 

[wayward archer]

But let me ask for clarification: you would consider that even if morality was designed to control people, that it is a necessary "evil" in order to get people to cooperate with one another in such a way for human beings to thrive?

What do you do then about the people who recognize the system for what it is and choose to rebel against it?

I don't consider morality a necessary evil AT ALL. I consider it a natural evolution in human behavior, one that promotes the most good to members of society that hold to it.

We've seen cooperation and 'fairness' in other animals (if you don't have time to watch the video, it shows two monkeys working together to get food, and one monkey shares with the other despite not needing to give the other anything). I highly doubt these animals have any sense of a higher power, at least not in any ways we can recognize, and it's not hard to imagine this same system of fairness developing among primitive humans, especially since we have more advanced memory and communication skills than these monkeys do.

Anyone who thinks they 'recognize' the system as an evil form of control and rebels against it is free to do so in my opinion, as long as they understand that retribution will be waiting for them by the majority of humans who do follow the system if they go too far.

 

[jdogmoney]

It almost gives me some comfort. I'm certain the Bible teaches perseverance of the saints, and I'm certain that I was once a saint, meaning there is no way I'd be going to hell if the bible is true. Except for the fact that I view God as either nonexistant or an asshole now, which wouldn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL for allowing me to get into heaven, but hey, tons of other stuff in the bible doesn't make sense to me either

Logically, I think you're safe.

1. Assume the Bible is true.

You believed. You questioned, sure, but so did Thomas, and Jesus basically said it was a good thing. You think this perseverance of the saints thing (which I've never heard of) is supported by the Bible, and, given assumption (1.), you're going to heaven, which is the superior of the two options.

2. Assume the Bible is false.

You believed. You questioned, and through your questions you were able to develop your own experiences on life and religion. If there's no afterlife, when you die, you're dead, but hey. You had a good run, and you were at least more intellectually engaged than the majority of your contemporaries.

~~~

:lol :lol :lol
@
"What do atheists die for?"

An atheist dies for a better reason than a theist, I'll tell you that much. The atheist doesn't get a continue or free man. His game is definitely over, so when he's going to make the ultimate sacrifice it means a whole hell of a lot more than the "momentary discomfort than eternal glory of heaven" option of a believer.

 

[JGS]

JGS, I'm not asking why the author didn't explicate. I'm asking why there are inconsistencies. If you actually went through my points one by one, then we could have a discussion here. Why did birds exist before land animals? Why did water exist before land? Etc. It would be great to have these addressed. I don't know how the "there was darkness on the surface" gets by any of these issues.

According to most polls, YEC is a prevalent view, even when looking at the general public at large.

They are comparing the developement of man not YEC. Further the majority believe that God had a hand in creating man which I have no argument with and it's a pretty close margin between the two polls about whether man evolved over time with God's help or was simply flat out created. Not exactly an overwhelming majority.

As I look further down the link it becomes even more clear that it backs up what I say, especially this one:

1999: Beliefs among conservative Christians:
In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs, mainly about age of the earth. Results were:

God created the universe, but I don't know when: 46%
God created the universe thousands of years ago: 43%
God created the universe billions of years ago: 10%
Life came into being and evolved on its own: 1%
I don't have a clue: 0.4% 6

So 56% of Christian Conservatives have a hard time believing the earth and the universe were created thousands of years ago and that was 11 years ago. Believe it or not, conservative Christians are not the only Christians out there. Once again, if you knew that, it wold make understanding a Christian's beliefs a whole lot easier. But feel free to continue telling me what I believe.

It doesn't matter how many times you mention something else that occurred in another place in the Bible (which you yourself haven't even quoted yet) if the contextual clues from the first chapter of Genesis itself makes it obvious that it is talking about a literal seven days. There has to be a good reason to apply it in this case, and you just haven't mentioned any. At best it is gross negligence on the author's part based on the prior figure of how many people still believe it.

Lastly, your run around on the topic of the origins of life are exaspirating. Either you accept the evidence we have now or don't. But don't claim that there is absolutely nothing.

Hmmm...Maybe if I cap this:

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE. STOP SAYING YOU HAVE. SINCE YOU HAVEN'T THEN OF COURSE I DON'T ACCEPT IT.

You are correct. I avoid quoting because I hate being accused of cherry picking. Each verse must stand for itself but you have the whole of science to back up a fictional idea. It is usually completely worthless because I know the person I'm quoting to won't actually bother to consider it as has been the case throughout this entire discussion. You have gotten the verses you've read off to me wrong and I have acknowledged when I was incorrect.

What exactly is the point of quoting from a book you don't believe in? If you ask I'll provide some (You haven't yet have you? If you have I apologize for missing it). Otherwise, I've got better things to do with my time than wasting my horrible typing skills.

Why it would be odd for a person that has no time constraints whatsoever to be bound by a very human time constraint just because the man he chose to write Genesis wasn't a literalist lol ) is beyond me.

But just like the other fallacies made by you and others about what Genesis says, all you had to do was read the first few chapters better to figure out what would be a no brainer regarding my views unstead of fake teaching me about a book I already know.

Things we know from science and from what the Bible tells us if we actually read it. I'm mixing them together:

-The universe is billions of years old based on the time light travels
-The earth is billions of years old
-God is timeless
-There is no exact time reference in the first few chapters of Genesis, including the warning to Adam that he was going to die the day he ate the fruit.
-That the seventh day never ended unless the writer was too stupid to remember that too.
-The writer was a human being living in ancient times prior to microscopes and telescopes &, what the heck, kitchen sinks since you or someone else will probably throw that in there too eventually.
- The Bible was not written in English. Do you know the Hebrew word for day used here? Maybe you should.

Now why exactly is it impossible to accept my view of creation when the signals point to it - unless you don't believe in God in the first place? Your lack of belief is a fair position and one I couldn't care less about. Why not view mine the same way?

One last point about this birds and animals thing which is kind of a pointless argument if looked at from your viewpoint. After all, would any evolutionary process be happening in a literal 24 hour period in the first place? So why does it matter if this is an error?

However, wiki'ing the info from a purely evolutionary timeline revealed a small gap between the 3 groups- reptiles, birds, & mammals. However, since this is a creation account & not a purely evolutionary timeline, why would someone find it odd that God created things in the order listed?

I think I've said enough that at this point I can just copy and paste the answers!

 

[jdogmoney]

JGS, I think a problem here is that, to me at least, you sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes view things metaphorically, and there's no way of knowing where you distinguish what.

 

[JGS]

People are attacking your country and you decide to help. You end dying for your country.

Why is your country so important? Is it a fear of enslavement or the thought that you're going to die anyway. I admitted that I would not die for my country, so I'm not taking a higher patriotic ground here.

Your mother is being attacked by a robber, he points a gun at her and jump in the way to save her from harm. You died to protect your mother.

I gave that as an exception.

Minorities were mistreated in the past - and even now - and this resulted in numerous opportunities to speak out and unfortunately a lot of people died for no reason due to these circumstances.

I'm not calling atheists cowards or shurkers of responsibility. I'm sure there are several brave ones that speak out on tons of things and many that died exposing religious falsehoods.

None of this has to do with religion or spiritual belief.

Well, from an atheist's view, your points don't. But believe me, a lot of people died solely on the basis of God and country even if God wasn't in the picture.

The thought process that theists and only theists have some kind of moral higher ground when there are news reports about bombings, and children being molested is beyond the definition of self absorption.

You did not get that from my question without assuming something. This leads me to say that the thought process that atheists and only atheists have some kind of mind reading ability when it comes to non-atheists' thought is beyond the definition of self-absorption.

What you're essentially saying is that because someone doesn't believe in God they don't have the means or resolve to defend their country, protect their mother, or fight for their rights, and among other unmentioned things.

Uhh, I'm not saying that at all. I'm ASKING why you do die for country? I know asking questions may be an unfamiliar concept to you but...:lol

With all due respect, do you realize how foolish the question you posed was?

We both know there was no respect behind that. I was always told there are no foolish questions, only foolish answers. You just proved that.

 

[JGS]

:lol I always find it funny when religious people use that argument. Sadly, I used to be one of those people who made that argument and it never made any sense to me when I made it. I remember believing that without God, man would be completely immoral and evil. Then I started thinking about it and realized that if I needed a god to tell me it's wrong to rape a baby, then the issue isn't about morality, it's about my sick perverted ass not being fit to live.

It wasn't an argument. Seriously guys.

This little symbol right here "?", means a question. Quit being so distrustful of people.:lol

Morality does not have much to do with duty or obligation when one's life is on the line- especially in connection with something they may not believe in - like the Iraq War for example.

Now for someone who has been duped into thinking that God is on his side and even if he dies, he goes to heaven, going off into battle may not bother him as much - even if he doesn't understand what he's fighting for.

I'm simply asking because I did not know what would drive an atheist to do so since they would never listen to that religious stuff?

I hardly see how this is any dumber or sillier a question than asking why Christians should be moral.

 

[Saren is Bad]

Old Earth is pretty easy to get around.

In the water to wine miracle, Jesus turned the water to wine for a marriage. Now, since the marriage celebration lasted close to a month, the wine used at the end of the celebration was of the cheaper sort because all the people had become jaded, if you will, by the taste of the good wine. Now Jesus comes and turns the water not into crap wine but into some of the finest wine the people had tasted. Now anyone knows that the older the wine, the better it is, generally. So if you believe God can create a fine wine, therefore an old creation, whats to stop him from creating an old Earth?

 

[JGS]

JGS, I think a problem here is that, to me at least, you sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes view things metaphorically, and there's no way of knowing where you distinguish what.

The Bible is full of all of metaphorical statements and literal statements, so I use them. I'm sorry I can't wrap things in an either or scenario, but there's no reason to take it out on me like I write the book. This is what happens when you don't actually read or remember the things you aregue about.

The problem I have with some of you is that you claim evidence and just spout off less than what I did or link me to a guy who has an obvious dislike for religion. What would be the point of that exactly?

That's the fundamental flaw of conversations between atheists and religious folk - the gap is too wide.

 

[jdogmoney]

I hardly see how this is any dumber or sillier a question than asking why Christians should be moral.

The difference is, according to their beliefs, Christians are guaranteed a cushy spot in the afterlife no matter what, whereas atheists don't have anything beyond this life.

You asking "what makes an atheist die for something?" is implying that atheists, to a man, are self-centered enough to place themselves above everything else no matter what.

Some are, of course, but sweeping generalizations are usually not a good thing.

Christians, though, have heaven. This life is close to meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so it's not the same thing as saying "do atheists have morals?" or however the original question is phrased. I know for a fact that Christians are usually good people. They behave morally. My question, (though mostly a response to the implication that atheists don't ever behave morally without twisting their arm,) was about Christian tenets, and so is different from asking the same of atheists, which have no tenets at all.

 

[soul creator]

JGS, I think a problem here is that, to me at least, you sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes view things metaphorically, and there's no way of knowing where you distinguish what.

universe being created in a week, women coming from ribs, a flood to kill off most of humanity, talking snakes, leviticus laws, etc.

"oh it's just a story, it didn't really happy, obviously it's not literal, why would someone believe that? That was a different time period. Why are you making up a strawman version of my religion? Not all Christians believe crazy things like that."

invisible being creating an entire universe from scratch, waiting billions of years to create the Earth, another few million years to create human beings, then waiting thousands of years to send one guy, who's actually really his son, to a small region in the middle east to repeat some generic moral precepts that Buddah probably already mentioned years beforehand, with the specific purpose of getting him brutally killed, but not really, because he came back alive afterwards, and then put all documentation of these events in a convoluted collection of books.

"oh, that totally happened, and makes perfect sense. See, religious beliefs can be reasonable!"

 

[JGS]

Religion arises from a fundamental need, it doesn't create one. (Insert cheap shot about dogmatically enforced self-denial here.) It may, however, promote a psychological reliance or addiction to pointless or harmful activities.

You're right, nationalism is an emotionally based and hence largely irrational attitude. From a selfish perspective it makes not a whole lot of sense to forfeit one's existence for the benefit of others. But there are many unselfish reasons why one might sacrifice one's life for his or her country. To protect family or dear friends, to uphold strong political or philosophical convictions, or perhaps even out of an unspecific yet strong desire to do something "good." Arguably, if one has children then dying for them could be seen as selfishness of a kind, since kids carry their parents genes. I don't personally hold that view.

Nonbelievers' values and morals are similar to those of the faithful, only without most of the irrational baggage. If we give our lives for a cause, then, it's more likely we'll do it for a worthy or otherwise reasonable one. (Insert another cheap shot about the suicide bombing community.)

Thanks for not being offended. I certainly didn't mean any.

I was actually going to follow up with another question for Christians in particular about why they do fight for their country. That's probably as bad an idea.:lol

Sacrificing one's life for friends and family makes sense and would be natural for all people (like morality), but we all know that wars are often not fought for noble/worthy causes- but political ones. Would fighting for the King be a worthy enough cause? I say no.

 

[Sibylus]

I hardly see how this is any dumber or sillier a question than asking why Christians should be moral.

There's really no satisfying universal answer to the question.

"You, atheist, What makes an atheist die for something?"

"Love"
"Obligation to protect"
"Sense of duty"
"Mold spores in my apartment"

 

[JGS]

The difference is, according to their beliefs, Christians are guaranteed a cushy spot in the afterlife no matter what, whereas atheists don't have anything beyond this life.

You asking "what makes an atheist die for something?" is implying that atheists, to a man, are self-centered enough to place themselves above everything else no matter what.

Some are, of course, but sweeping generalizations are usually not a good thing.

Christians, though, have heaven. This life is close to meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so it's not the same thing as saying "do atheists have morals?" or however the original question is phrased. I know for a fact that Christians are usually good people. They behave morally. My question, (though mostly a response to the implication that atheists don't ever behave morally without twisting their arm,) was about Christian tenets, and so is different from asking the same of atheists, which have no tenets at all.

You're reading it wrong. My question alludes to atheists dying for something, that they have a sense of duty and obligation which is different than morality which I acknowledged atheists have too.

I'm simply asking why.

You're reading too much into the question. To be blunt, you seem to think I'm acting like you - at least in regards to why you may feel Christians don't need morals.

Your premise about how a Christian gets salvation is wrong & I pointed it out. You must have actions/works to get to any cushy spot in Christianity. Two verses at the exclusion of several others does not create any more of a legitimate question on the matter.

 

[JGS]

There's really no satisfying universal answer to the question.

"You, atheist, What makes an atheist die for something?"

"Love"
"Obligation to protect"
"Sense of duty"
"Mold spores in my apartment"

That was actually a satisfying answer! Thanks!

 

[jdogmoney]

You're reading it wrong. My question alludes to atheists dying for something, that they have a sense of duty and obligation which is different than morality which I acknowledged atheists have too.

I'm simply asking why.

You're reading too much into the question. To be blunt, you seem to think I'm acting like you - at least in regards to why you may feel Christians don't need morals.

Your premise about how a Christian gets salvation is wrong & I pointed it out. You must have actions/works to get to any cushy spot in Christianity. Two verses at the exclusion of several others does not create any more of a legitimate question on the matter.

Well, if you accept the Bible as being completely accurate, then surely every part is a valid entry into the discussion, right?

You may feel going to heaven is based, in part, upon good deeds, but I'm afraid the Bible is pretty clear* on the matter, and most branches of Christianity definitely believe that a belief in Jesus being the Son of and/or God is the only way to get to heaven.

*first time for everything, I suppose

The question itself is offensive. It's like saying to a Christian, "You don't keep slaves? Why not?"

 

[JGS]

Well, if you accept the Bible as being completely accurate, then surely every part is a valid entry into the discussion, right?

You may feel going to heaven is based, in part, upon good deeds, but I'm afraid the Bible is pretty clear* on the matter, and most branches of Christianity definitely believe that a belief in Jesus being the Son of and/or God is the only way to get to heaven.

*first time for everything, I suppose

The question itself is offensive. It's like saying to a Christian, "You don't keep slaves? Why not?"

I am convinced now that you have never picked up the book unless it was to hold something down.

I'm sorry you are so offended by a simple question, but I am now equally offended by the stance you take on requirements for salvation so we're even.

If the Bible is completely accurate it is as a whole not in the pieces you want to chop it into. After all if I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God than that would mean that there would be an overall them and purpose to it.

It would be silly to think that one verse stands on it's one in absence of the verses proceeding and following which is what your stand lacks which is why Christians disagree with it.

However, this is not new. Please let everyone who thought they jknew their beliefs learn what they really are by your expert knowledge on the matter. To use even less effort, I suggest you boil it down to one verse. You don't want to overload our brains.

 

[JGS]

And yet it is no different from the past answers you were given.

I was happy with the answers before unitl it became the ramblings of a jerk that didn't know how to answer a question.

This one lacked jerkiness.

 

[JGS]

Because it's where I live and it's a part of my pride. How is it NOT important? It's to protect the country, not fear of death.

I understand happiness in living in a particular country. But since the fact that you were born there was 100% chance, if you had been born somewhere, would you be equally proud since you wouldn't know any better.

It sounds like blatant indoctrination to me.

However, if I'm 20 and the President tells me to go blow up some Afgans and I may die in the process, is that protecting the country or do the Afgans have to physically attack your country?

You give it an exception and yet you still ask that question? Why?

Uhh, maybe because there's more things to die for than family?

This...what's the point of saying,"What would an atheist die for?" because now you're back pedaling.

I didn't say that. I said "What makes an atheists die for something". You have provided answer 3 times and two of those times you have been a jerk about it, & I'm still addressing you without disagreement except for the accusations and yet I'm backpedaling on it? OK.

What are you even talking about? None of these things have anything to do with the spirit. They're about defending beliefs and things you love. Your argument is a strawman, because it is irrelevant. I could pose a similar question,"Well believe me, a lot of people died solely on the basis of their beliefs and nothing more."

How in the world could the original question be a strawman in an argument. Stawman must be to you a question that brings up something you don't like to discuss. If my question were what's your favorite car color, it wouldn't be a strawman because that was the topic starter.

Speaking of strawman...

You wonder how I got that? I don't have to assume anything. You are the one who asked how atheists are capable of dying for something, which makes no sense and the only natural conclusion is that you feel that theists are on moral higher ground, which is a common belief.

Not true. You're deconstructing and if you thought that was a natural deduction after I specifically said my views on morality in the same post, then you're not that bright, or not that trusting- neither of which are my problem.

Good Lord (Sorry). I ask a question that has nothing to do with suffering. You don't answer it about that in any of your snarky comments, you are able sift through all of my metaphorical rhetoric, can clearly see my question is being used to expose atheist cowardice, & are able to determine that I was REALLY saying that atheists don't care about the plight of the world and are a bunch of immoral reprobates.

Durn you smart, mind-reading Himuro- you got me. The jig is up. :-/

It looks like the person who told you this got it backwards.

Well, for arrogant people, I guess it would be. I'm sorry to have wasted you brain energy.

However, here's an exercise for you. The next time I ask a foolish question- try not to answer it.

 

[The Librarian]

I hardly see how this is any dumber or sillier a question than asking why Christians should be moral.

The fact that you don't understand the absurdity of your question proves that you are dense. The important question now is, though, how dense are you? Do you not realize that people who don't believe in God still have emotions like anger, jealousy, love, hatred, anxiety?

 

[JGS]

The fact that you don't understand the absurdity of your question proves that you are dense. The important question now is, though, how dense are you? Do you not realize that people who don't believe in God still have emotions like anger, jealousy, love, hatred, anxiety?

If I'm dense, show pity on me. It's certainly better than making an icon face. Better yet, don't comment. If no one insulted you then why would you feel the need to insult back?

You are dense if you are equating a duty to country with base human emotions which I didn't bring up.

 

[Shanadeus]

I have to say that people are being quite a bit hostile towards JGS, I'm gonna accept that he is just curious and try to give an answer of my own.

What makes an atheist die for something?

Probably what makes a theist die for something.
I sincerely doubt that a theist only die for something merely because they know they will live on in the heavens.
Both atheists and theists die for the same reasons - for love, pride, obligation and other causes that might or might not have been indoctrinated into them.

 

[JGS]

I have to say that people are being quite a bit hostile towards JGS, I'm gonna accept that he is just curious and try to give an answer of my own.

Probably what makes a theist die for something.
I sincerely doubt that a theist only die for something merely because they know they will live on in the heavens.
Both atheists and theists die for the same reasons - for love, pride, obligation and other causes that might or might not have been indoctrinated into them.

Thanks and good points. Your last sentence would have to be the answer I guess.

I'm actually kind of surprised that there is doubt that many religious people die in a war because they think they're getting an reward with a common albiet incorrect view that God is backing whatever side they're on.

Morality and duty are not the same thing by a long shot which some are apparently thinking. One can be a completely immoral person that serves their country well. A soldier tasked with killing Jewish kids in a concentration camp for example.

I also understand that if one is being attacked, it may make some sense to join forces with the country of origin to fight back or to defend family. However, what if you are part of the offensive or a preemptive defense?

For example, after 9/11, the "enemy" is clearly in the hills of Afghanistan, but the President says the immediate danger is Iraq. There are strong religious connotations on both sides and no particular reason to go after them except for perceived danger, not realized danger. You're a young 20 something atheist who only has this life to look forward to which is fine. Why cut short that life to join in a war that you may not necessarily believe in? The general offended consensus is you would do it for the same reasons as religious people.

However, the religious people are often doing it on the basis of the "God & Country" mantra- meaning that not only do they think they're going to heaven or whatever anyway, they also feel that they have the power of God/Allah/whoever on their side as well increasing the likelihood they won't die at all. There's a pretty big difference regarding the reasons for sticking one's neck out there.

- Is going because your country says so good enough for an atheist?
- Would there be atheist Nazis that also weren't psychopaths?
- If an atheist fights for a worthy cause as someone mentioned, does that mean they would pick and choose the battle? Would their country let them?
- Would there be an atheist suicide bomber?

The answers appear to be yes to the above based on the offense taken at the question by so many. I would think that atheists would be in a better position to see they were deluded by their country since they know so much about being deluded by religion.

If I were condemning atheists as immoral or yellow bellied just on the basis of whether they would serve their country, I would be condemning myself since I wouldn't either although the reasons are very different. I consider myself a pretty moral person but not a particularly patriotic one.

FAKE EDIT: I also understand there are other pieces of psychology at work. The younger you are the less likely you see yourself as dying. Another one is the size of the army can build confidence and put the odds in your favor of not dying. However, there are plenty of older patriots out there and plenty of weak armies that still maintain their numbers. One can assume that at least some of them do not believe in a deity of any kind.

 

[Mumei]

If I'm dense, show pity on me. It's certainly better than making an icon face. Better yet, don't comment. If no one insulted you then why would you feel the need to insult back?

I think that your question has been answered at this point, but I thought I should say this: My first impression of your post was that you were asking a question that is bound to offend, and I didn't see how you couldn't realize that. So, I didn't think you were dense; I thought you knew full well that people would take offense to the question. It essentially implies that the things that motivate a religious person to lay down their life for a cause - aren't going to motivate an atheist to the same level of self-sacrifice. It seemed like a thinly veiled insinuation - in a question form, for plausible deniability, naturally - that theists are capable of self-sacrifice for causes, institutions, or people other than themselves, but atheists are not motivated by the same human impulses that causes a theist to engage in self-sacrifice.

If you meant it as a genuine question, I apologize for thinking that you were being disingenuous, but I'm puzzled that you don't understand the fact that some people have been short with you.

 

[JGS]

I think that your question has been answered at this point, but I thought I should say this: My first impression of your post was that you were asking a question that is bound to offend, and I didn't see how you couldn't realize that. So, I didn't think you were dense; I thought you knew full well that people would take offense to the question. It essentially implies that the things that motivate a religious person to lay down their life for a cause - aren't going to motivate an atheist to the same level of self-sacrifice. It seemed like a thinly veiled insinuation - in a question form, for plausible deniability, naturally - that theists are capable of self-sacrifice for causes, institutions, or people other than themselves, but atheists are not motivated by the same human impulses that causes a theist to engage in self-sacrifice.

If you meant it as a genuine question, I apologize for thinking that you were being disingenuous, but I'm puzzled that you don't understand the fact that some people have been short with you.

I knew some would be offended by previous posts I offend them simply for believng we were created. Plus this is Gaf so there's offense over saying District 9 wasn't that great.

I'm fine with people being short wth me. That happens on the sole basis of my opinion which are clearly in violation of the majority opinion on the board. What irks me is the idea that a bunch of people have the nerve to deduce my very thoughts when those thoughts don't link up to the original post in any way shape or form. They are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate. If that hurts some people's feeling that I say I'm not lying, then so be it.

However, the question was sincere, never brought up before, & no more offensive then telling me I don't need morals because because that's what my religion teaches which is insane talk.

I flat out said everyone has morals whether they know God or not and yet I'm accused of saying that atheists don't have morals. Huh!?!?!? Wat!?!?!?

You better believe that makes me hot under the collar.

 

[Slightly Live]

I flat out said everyone has morals whether they know God or not and yet I'm accused of saying that atheists don't have morals. Huh!?!?!? Wat!?!?!?

You better believe that makes me hot under the collar.

Was it the other dude saying that religion and god give morals to humans and thus without religion/god, humans would have none?

 

[Mumei]

What irks me is the idea that a bunch of people have the nerve to deduce my very thoughts when those thoughts don't link up to the original post in any way shape or form. They are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate. If that hurts some people's feeling that I say I'm not lying, then so be it.

However, the question was sincere, never brought up before, & no more offensive then telling me I don't need morals because because that's what my religion teaches which is insane talk.

I flat out said everyone has morals whether they know God or not and yet I'm accused of saying that atheists don't have morals. Huh!?!?!? Wat!?!?!?

You better believe that makes me hot under the collar.

Fine, fine.

I don't think that their (or my) attempts to deduce your thoughts based on what you said was particularly unfair to you. It was perhaps a bit distrustful, and I think justifiably so; you'd have to be a complete moron to simply come right out and say, "Atheists have no morals and aren't motivated the way religious people are," so it would make more sense to structure it in the form of a question. And that is what my initial reaction was to seeing that post.

It's water under the bridge at this point, though. Your question has been asked and answered multiple times, you say that you weren't being disingenuous, I'll take you at your word* and we can stop worrying about this.


*

Spoiler

as long as you promise not to use !?!?!? anymore. It make me so sad.

 

[Zaptruder]

Arguing with JGS about the bible is fruitless. If we're not attending his bible study class, we're obviously not interpreting it correctly. The correct interpretation should be clear and obvious in all cases, except where the many other people who call themselves christians fail to interpret it in the same way that I do.

That guy's delusion is too deep and too mired for him to admit that there may be some inconsistency in the way he thinks about the bible and religion in general.

But to that, he's hardly any sort of exception; it's just how it is for people that are exhorted to reject the precepts of critical thinking, in favour of... not thinking critically, and accepting fundamental dictates as best they can.

Much of the religion of christianity (and indeed many others) is not about seeking the truth, so much as it is creating layers of delusion and distortions to help square observed reality with the fundamentals of the religion.

 

[JGS]

I don't think that their (or my) attempts to deduce your thoughts based on what you said was particularly unfair to you.

I sort of disagree. If you attribute negative connotations to something I said that both wasn't negative and diffused in the original post, it's is an unfair position to take that I'm looking to offend someone intentionally. It's asking me to go beyond what is usual and customary just to appease some people that were offended but not actually damaged. Further, that courtesy isn't often extended in kind.

It was perhaps a bit distrustful, and I think justifiably so; you'd have to be a complete moron to simply come right out and say, "Atheists have no morals and aren't motivated the way religious people are," so it would make more sense to structure it in the form of a question. And that is what my initial reaction was to seeing that post.

I disagree about the justifiably so. I answer questions all the time assuming that people actually want to know the answer. How is a distrustful state an effective way to communicate with someone who is not an enemy to begin with?

It's like saying because I'm religious, I'm looking for ways to condemn the non-religious at every possible second. In all honesty, your beliefs (this is for anyone) aren't that important to me beyond curiosity, so don't worry about me trying to trick or insult you.

It's water under the bridge at this point, though. Your question has been asked and answered multiple times, you say that you weren't being disingenuous, I'll take you at your word* and we can stop worrying about this.

Thanks & agreed.

*

Spoiler

as long as you promise not to use !?!?!? anymore. It make me so sad.

Spoiler

No promises but I'll try. Those suckers come out when I'm ranting.

:lol

 

[JGS]

Was it the other dude saying that religion and god give morals to humans and thus without religion/god, humans would have none?

Yes, it was definitely some other guy.

However, keep in mind that since I believe in God, basic morals could come from him even if we don't know it. I just think it's more on the lines of being instinctual/logical thought than learned behaviour.

Now the other guy may be right if we live our lives by religious morals (which are an extra layer) or if laws are based on them, but overall I think that even the mosts basic tribes have a sense of what's right or wrong in the context of their culture.

 

[EzLink]

For what its worth, I really respect JGS and DeusTrinitas for being so open and honest about their beliefs. Must be hard on a place like GAF where everyone thinks you are "delusional" and unable to think critically (even though I would say its pretty clear both of these dudes are smart and have critically thought through the issues at hand, they just arrived at different conclusions)

Plus this thread would suck if everyone had the exact same anti-religion stance

Keep it up guys ^_^

 

[Chaplain]

A daily devotional that encompasses the message of Good Friday:

http://www.horizonsd.org/devotion.asp

"Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." - Luke 6:38

Have you ever gone gift-shopping for someone who already has everything? If they already own the latest gadgets, the hippest clothes, the finest jewelry, and everything else under the sun, it's difficult to find a gift that will be of any value to them. What do you possibly give someone like that? In a word, you.

Gifts are not nearly as important as people, so if you are going to give something completely unique, something that they will value, your best bet is to give something personal -- something that only you could give. Give of yourself, and you will give the greatest gift of all: love. And that's exactly how we should give to the Lord.

When we offer gifts to the Lord, it's not what He stands to gain that matters. God has all the resources He needs to accomplish His saving work here on earth, without a penny from us. Not one penny. But that's not why He wants us to give. We are to give because we love. Just as we give gifts to family and friends as a sign of our love for them, so we should give to the Lord. And just as we try to make the gifts we give as unique as possible that they'll be valued by their recipient -- so we should give the most unique gift of all to the Lord: ourselves.

You see, to give of ourselves to the Lord is to show our love for Him. Love is what matters. Love is what makes a gift valuable. 1 Corinthians 13:3 tells us that we can actually give our every last dollar to feeding the poor, but if we don't have love, our gift is worthless -- we profit nothing. We can give our bodies to be burned, sacrificed for others, but if we do it without love, we're wasting our time. Love is the currency of heaven, more valuable than anything we could ever touch with our hands or see with our eyes.

Jesus says in Luke 6:38 that when you give, "it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom." See, Jesus is telling us that the way we treat others will dictate how we will be treated. Forgive, and you will be forgiven (Luke 6:37). Give, and you will be given. Love, and you will be loved. It's not what we stand to gain that should motivate our giving. Love should be our motivation, and our very lives should be our gift.

What are you willing to give to the Lord? And what are you willing to give to others? Give your whole self. The gospel springs to life when people like you and I give of ourselves to the people around us. God becomes real to those who don't yet know Him when we show our love by giving. If we give our whole self, we don't hold on to anything -- everything is His. If our entire being is an offering to the Lord, we give Him full access to our plans, our thoughts, our families, our finances... everything. And when we do, He is faithful to give back to us a richness that is "running over," a life made abundant by His unwavering love. After all, it was His gift to us that started everything: He gave His whole self. It was a gift of love, and no gift could be any greater.

 

[JGS]

Arguing with JGS about the bible is fruitless. If we're not attending his bible study class, we're obviously not interpreting it correctly. The correct interpretation should be clear and obvious in all cases, except where the many other people who call themselves christians fail to interpret it in the same way that I do.

I never said that. In fact, I never cared what you believed. My concern was what you say I believe and it tears you up apparently that you can't figure it out.

I'll leave the rest of your ramblings alone.

 

[Mumei]

Plus this thread would suck if everyone had the exact same anti-religion stance

That's one of the things that bored by about the freethinker group at my campus - everyone had the exact same views and exact same reasons for those views, and any debates centered around semantics or emphasis of one particular reason over another.

It's interesting being around like-minded people, but it's so much less interesting than people whose opinions drive me nuts. :lol

Game Analyst, I think that was an interesting article. When I went to church, I was lucky enough to go to a parish where the priest was very good at taking the lesson of a particular passage and explaining it in terms that I, as a teenager without any religious inclinations, could appreciate. He essentially explained things in very secular terms, but eventually connected it back to God. I sort of see that in what you posted - the first part using a metaphor of a person who has everything to stand in for God and illustrate a point, and then referencing Scripture to back it up.

I obviously don't agree about the relevance of the Scriptural stuff, but it is a bit nostalgic for me.

By the way, did you ever get the chance to look at that link I gave you to the website explaining some of the lies that were in Expelled? I was hoping to hear back from you on that.

 

[Shanadeus]

Okay in an effort to steer the conversation away from this mess it is in I'm gonna go ahead and pose a question to both theists and atheists.

What would you think about a situation where God actually exist, but where we have no life beyond death?
I don't find the idea of a supernatural being creating the universe completely far fetched, just that such a being is unnecessary and superfluous, but there are many deists and theists that try to argue for their belief in God by referring to the big bang as an event that requires a creator. Now some take this idea even further and believe this creator to be the God in their own religion, good and interested in humans, and that the existence of an afterlife follows from the existence of God.


So what if God exist, but there is no afterlife?
E is omnipotent and omniscient (or just powerful enough to have created the universe), but for whatever unknowable reason e have e doesn't have an afterlife prepared for any of us.

 

[Mumei]

Okay in an effort to steer the conversation away from this mess it is in I'm gonna go ahead and pose a question to both theists and atheists.

What would you think about a situation where God actually exist, but where we have no life beyond death?
I don't find the idea of a supernatural being creating the universe completely far fetched, just that such a being is unnecessary and superfluous, but there are many deists and theists that try to argue for their belief in God by referring to the big bang as an event that requires a creator. Now some take this idea even further and believe this creator to be the God in their own religion, good and interested in humans, and that the existence of an afterlife follows from the existence of God.


So what if God exist, but there is no afterlife?
He is omnipotent and omniscient (or just powerful enough to have created the universe), but for whatever unknowable reason e have e doesn't have an afterlife prepared for any of us.

Wouldn't that make him completely irrelevant, at least in practical terms for people's day-to-day lives?

I mean, if we have nothing to go on but faith in this life, and we're not going to have some sort of afterlife where we are rewarded or punished for believing / not believing / doing certain things / not doing certain things / what-have-you, then... yeah.

 

[JGS]

Okay in an effort to steer the conversation away from this mess it is in I'm gonna go ahead and pose a question to both theists and atheists.

What would you think about a situation where God actually exist, but where we have no life beyond death?
I don't find the idea of a supernatural being creating the universe completely far fetched, just that such a being is unnecessary and superfluous, but there are many deists and theists that try to argue for their belief in God by referring to the big bang as an event that requires a creator. Now some take this idea even further and believe this creator to be the God in their own religion, good and interested in humans, and that the existence of an afterlife follows from the existence of God.


So what if God exist, but there is no afterlife?
E is omnipotent and omniscient (or just powerful enough to have created the universe), but for whatever unknowable reason e have e doesn't have an afterlife prepared for any of us.

Worship is voluntary anyway, so if we wanted to worship God, the reward would be like icing on the cake even now.

I think we should be thankful for being created.

We are grateful for our parents even though they don't have the ability to extend our life or grant us life after death, so I think the same could apply to someone who created us and then let's live our life until we die.

 

[Zaptruder]

Okay in an effort to steer the conversation away from this mess it is in I'm gonna go ahead and pose a question to both theists and atheists.

What would you think about a situation where God actually exist, but where we have no life beyond death?
I don't find the idea of a supernatural being creating the universe completely far fetched, just that such a being is unnecessary and superfluous, but there are many deists and theists that try to argue for their belief in God by referring to the big bang as an event that requires a creator. Now some take this idea even further and believe this creator to be the God in their own religion, good and interested in humans, and that the existence of an afterlife follows from the existence of God.


So what if God exist, but there is no afterlife?
E is omnipotent and omniscient (or just powerful enough to have created the universe), but for whatever unknowable reason e have e doesn't have an afterlife prepared for any of us.

Is he an active god or a passive god?

If he's an active god that participates in the machinations of the world, then it's only reasonable to treat him as though he is active in the world.

If not, then it's irrelevant... interesting, but no more relevant to my personal situation than knowing that the big bang occurred.

I never said that. In fact, I never cared what you believed. My concern was what you say I believe and it tears you up apparently that you can't figure it out.

I'll leave the rest of your ramblings alone.

The proof is in the pudding. The way you answer, the way you rebutt arguments about the bible, it is clear for us to see, even if you're in denial of it, that your view of the bible is such that you believe that it has a readily apparent and easily discernable intepretation that allows it to be an accurate and worthwhile recording of the word of god.

Rather than a document that is old, wishy washy, inconsistent and open to too many intepretations for it to be worthwhile as a manuscript for dictating human behaviour (because in practice, it's a document that people selectively take from to justify their current behaviour, than the other way around)

 

[Shanadeus]

Worship is voluntary anyway, so if we wanted to worship God, the reward would be like icing on the cake even now.

I think we should be thankful for being created.

We are grateful for our parents even though they don't have the ability to extend our life or grant us life after death, so I think the same could apply to someone who created us and then let's live our life until we die.

Pretty much what I was personally thinking, you'd might feel some gratitude as that being did create the universe and thus us humans. This is assuming it's an caring God who foresaw the we would arise due to evolution and not a being that created the universe for no discernible reason whatsoever.

I also believe that the belief in God and in an afterlife are very much intertwined because they are less attractive and interesting on their own rather than when combined together (Though the latter belief on its own is reincarnation when I think about it).

 

[JGS]

The proof is in the pudding.

I don't even like pudding.

Thanks again for setting me straight on my beliefs or else I wouldn't known them.

Also, thanks again for reinterpreting my posts, otherwise there would have been confusion about what I really meant to say and we can't have that.

Boy, you sure told me...again and again and again...

Spoiler

*yawn*

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Perfection is the impossible state that only megalomaniacs, mostly but not exclusively religious, dare to claim with their assertions of infallibility. In itself, perfection is a futile goal at best. At worst a hellish one, because a static state with no possibility of improvement is one of infinite tedium.

I wasn't arguing that altruism produces a perfect society. I was arguing that altruism—our naturally occurring instinct to help others—is sufficient to produce a functional, self-sustaining society. No gods required.

Okay, let me go a little bit further--what, based on empirical observation, leads you to conclude that a majority of individuals are altruistic, rather than selfish, in nature? You seem to believe that every human has a "naturally occurring instinct to help others," but is that necessarily the case? What if there were a society in which helping others was frowned upon and people were unabashedly selfish, yet the society still flourished?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Sure. I was raised in a Christian household (but not a super strict one) so I had been going to church most of my life. I had always considered myself a Christian until age 15. At that point, I started to question everything (much as I'm doing now, the difference being I'm coming to different conclusions at this point). For a while I was incredibly concerned with all of the questions and seeming inconsistencies. I even considered myself athiest for a few short lived days :lol I eventually got really into apologetics and that convinced me that the Bible was indeed the inspired word of god. I was a mediocre Christian at best, until a few years later when I REALLY got into it. I got very serious about my faith. It was the most important thing in my life for sure. I was praying not because I felt like I had to, but because I wanted to know god more. I wanted to read the bible not because I felt like it was just the christian thing to do, but because I loved studying and absorbing gods knowledge. I would always be worried sick over my friends that were nonnies (that's a word I made up btw :lol) and I would do my best to be a good example of the love of christ.

I eventually decided that I was called to be a pastor (again, lawl :lol). I applied to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and while waiting to hear back from them I was doing everything I could to work on my sins and learn more and more about what the bible taught.

And that was that. A new semester of college started, I got busy, and I stopped reading my bible and praying so regularly. And eventually, gradually, I ended up to where I am now.

So when i say I'm certain I was a Christian as how it was defined in the Bible, I really mean that.

It almost gives me some comfort. I'm certain the Bible teaches perseverance of the saints, and I'm certain that I was once a saint, meaning there is no way I'd be going to hell if the bible is true. Except for the fact that I view God as either nonexistant or an asshole now, which wouldn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL for allowing me to get into heaven, but hey, tons of other stuff in the bible doesn't make sense to me either

I understand all of this, but was there a point in which you accepted Christ as Savior and asked him to forgive you of your sins? A turning point from unbelief to belief, if you will?

 

[jdogmoney]

I am convinced now that you have never picked up the book unless it was to hold something down.

I'm sorry you are so offended by a simple question, but I am now equally offended by the stance you take on requirements for salvation so we're even.

If the Bible is completely accurate it is as a whole not in the pieces you want to chop it into. After all if I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God than that would mean that there would be an overall them and purpose to it.

It would be silly to think that one verse stands on it's one in absence of the verses proceeding and following which is what your stand lacks which is why Christians disagree with it.

However, this is not new. Please let everyone who thought they jknew their beliefs learn what they really are by your expert knowledge on the matter. To use even less effort, I suggest you boil it down to one verse. You don't want to overload our brains.

Okay! John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That succinct enough? I don't want to overwhelm you.

Spoiler

I like responding earnestly to sarcasm. That was from memory, by the way.

I am convinced now that you have never picked up the book unless it was to hold something down.

Dude, you get offended when we try to figure out what you think, and then you assume that because I don't feel the same way about the Bible as you do I must not have read it. Perspective, much?

I was a Christian for, let's say, eight years. (For this estimate I'm shaving off the ends where I was too young to know any better and where I began questioning.) Eight years. That's quite a bit of time to devote to one book. Suffice it to say, I think I know what I'm talking about. I'm no expert, by any means, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the text. And for that matter, what part, exactly, of saying "Christ = salvation" is putting down the Bible?

Most denominations, to my knowledge, say that entrance to heaven is not based on works.* If your denomination teaches differently, that's cool, but you have to realize that other Christians don't all feel the same way.

*every single one I tried, anyway, when I was church hopping for one that felt right

Spoiler

none did

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Correct.

The jist of their argument is that if God didn't "tell" them what to do, they'd murder, rape and steal willingly without any manner of free will despite the fact that it clearly says that God gave humans free will to begin with.

Let's create a hypothetical situation:

Little Jimmy was told by his parents to look after his sister Samantha. When the parents left, Jimmy beat up his sister repeatedly to the verge of death but when the parents got home, he says she fell down the stairs. What they're arguing is that it's okay to beat up and shove shit in your sister's face so long as mommy and daddy aren't around. If the only thing that's keeping you from feeding your sister shit are the 'rents, that doesn't make you a A GOOD PERSON and that is what they are actually arguing.

That is not morality, that is being good at church just because dad says he'll take you out for some ice cream afterwards as a treat.

That may be the gist of some people's arguments, but not mine. I'm not going to say that outside of moral constraint everyone would do so-and-so, because it's impossible to know that. I do believe, however, that the fundamental nature of every human being is evil. Humans are not good by nature. They are evil. And that is precisely why every human being is need of a Savior who can bring him or her to right standing before God.

As for your hypothetical example, I don't think it fits my understanding of Scripture. Psalm 14:3 states, "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Romans 3:23 states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Belief in God and not performing wrong actions because of such belief does not make you a good person--you're absolutely correct. The only thing that makes you a good person is the fundamental change that can take place only through acceptance of Christ as Savior: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I don't consider morality a necessary evil AT ALL. I consider it a natural evolution in human behavior, one that promotes the most good to members of society that hold to it.

We've seen cooperation and 'fairness' in other animals (if you don't have time to watch the video, it shows two monkeys working together to get food, and one monkey shares with the other despite not needing to give the other anything). I highly doubt these animals have any sense of a higher power, at least not in any ways we can recognize, and it's not hard to imagine this same system of fairness developing among primitive humans, especially since we have more advanced memory and communication skills than these monkeys do.

Anyone who thinks they 'recognize' the system as an evil form of control and rebels against it is free to do so in my opinion, as long as they understand that retribution will be waiting for them by the majority of humans who do follow the system if they go too far.

I understand your position, but it presupposes that human beings are simply advanced animals that evolved from primates, something I do not accept. As such, our presuppositions are so different that it's impossible for us to have an agreed upon foundation from which we can each make our cases.

Again, in line with an above response of mine, I believe that the basic nature of every human being is an evil one.

 

[Dever]

DeusTrinitas, are you a good person? Would you say accepting Christ has fundemantally changed you?

 

[JGS]

Okay! John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That succinct enough? I don't want to overwhelm you.

Spoiler

I like responding earnestly to sarcasm. That was from memory, by the way.

I'll use King James although that's not my translation of choice:

John 3:20 - For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

It would appear that actions do have something to do with salvation unless it is impossible to do evil deeds once Jesus is believed in.

The bulk of Matthew 5 outlines moral actions that determine true followers of Jesus. Ditto for chapter 6. Ditto for chapter 7.

Matthew 24 tells us that a component of Jesus presence would be the works his followers accomplished, not just their belief in him. Their works defined that they were followers of him.

He spends the bulk of his ministry telling them to imitate him and Jesus did more than sit around waiting to be murdered. he was a man of action and expected his followers to be the same.

That's just Jesus and not even all of it of course. There is still the Apostle Paul to consider, but I know some don't count him.

Dude, you get offended when we try to figure out what you think, and then you assume that because I don't feel the same way about the Bible as you do I must not have read it. Perspective, much?

If only you were trying to figure me out. In reality you thought you already had me figured out and when you don't you think I'm weird. This is despite the fact that your own sources back me up.

Most denominations, to my knowledge, say that entrance to heaven is not based on works.* If your denomination teaches differently, that's cool, but you have to realize that other Christians don't all feel the same way.

*every single one I tried, anyway, when I was church hopping for one that felt right

Spoiler

none did

Then these denominations are in direct contradiction with James 2:20

James 2:20 (King James Version)

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

...and the entirety of Jesus' life an ministry, but if they want to stick to that thought so be it. It's not like I have to join. The easy reason for this is that people don't want to do what they're supposed to so they conveniently ignore the obvious. All this tells me is you know some slacker denominations.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Then these denominations are in direct contradiction with James 2:20

James 2.20 isn't about salvation. its about about the fruits you produce through works because of faith.
Jdogmoney's argument is that salvation is only through grace by faith and not through works.
2 distinct topics.

 

[spunibard]

James 2.20 isn't about salvation.

Doesn't this show that it is?

Ja 2:14 . What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

 

[Chaplain]

James 2.20 isn't about salvation. its about about the fruits you produce through works because of faith.

100% biblical. Written throughout the New Testament is the message that works (good deeds) are just the evidence that a person is saved.

"But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!) For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus. So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2

Too many people get confused between justification and sanctification.

I just got back from a Good Friday service in Maple Ridge, Canada. Here are some pictures from the church: