Browning Slayer
Official Voice Of The Dawgs !
Your point?
That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.
Your point?
That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.
Thanks for the acknowledgment. We can always depend on you to deliver insightful comments.
There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.
Christianity is immoral
Thanks for the spellcheck. I corrected it.
If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.
If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc. Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also. Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion. It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.
Not many sane, intellectually honest people would agree with you regardless of their belief, but again I expect no less and it's sad.
Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians. That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
)
The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts. Again, non-debatable.
Wrong again. Beliefs shape values(or lack thereof) and values dictates actions. And again, non debatable.
Christianity holds that ALL life, because we are ALL created in the image of a Holy God, has infinite sanctity and infinite value. People that actually HOLD to that belief don't commit these atrocities.
Atheism on the other hand ......
2 questions -Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians. That's non-debatable.
If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.
If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc. Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also. Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion. It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.
2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?
Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there ofLogic.
Yeah, I'm not sure which school but ok....Schooled!
Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there of
He's actually trampling all over the fundamental component of Christianity's belief in God's choice of who, how and what to forgive.
No sir, its non negotiable. SFD must be a pretty important guy, making those kind of decisions for his god.
Squeeler was impressed though -
Yeah, I'm not sure which school but ok....
2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?
I learn more about the religious side of Christianity on this forum more than the Christianity forum. I can see the Sadducee and Pharisee types down here and compare that with the "salvation by grace" types on the other forum.
The Sadducees and Pharisees (Christians in name only)
the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the articleThe most reliable allies in any moral struggle will be those who respond to the ethically significant aspects of life, whether or not they conceive these things in religious terms. You do not lose morality by giving up God;
neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.
I have yet to figure out how the article ties in to the thread; but what I find most agreeable is
the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the article
I find myself inadequate to the task of expressing the thought succinctly, but it hinges on "finding Him".
His general revelation of "Himself" (the Bible) starts out by saying "In the beginning God"; from which can be drawn that what God commands are a revelation of Himself. The portion of the article that deals with God's commands (as either the source of morals or statements of morals without (outside of) God) deals with God as though He were some sort of Superman; perhaps a man of another realm; rather than that which is reflective of "In the beginning God". That same conception of God could be said to underlie the whole of the article.
If you find God, you find the beginning, does that not necessarily include morality.
Waite, the tie-in is atheist morals ... please excuse my denseness.
Post #25
Post #25