I think organized religion can be very harmful.
On the otherhand, I have faith in a Christian God (although I’m mostly of the opinion that people of other religions can get in), but I think some people would think of me as an agnostic. I’m pretty solid when it comes to my own belief, but if I’m wrong, I don’t want to lead others down my path of damnation:D
Poly wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree. Those who have made the moral choice to love, including atheists, have chosen Christ and are therefore saved, independent of any religion. They might call Him by some other name, but it is the same divine spirit.
I believe that I concur. Lib., but I trust that you’ll see my point in the alternate connotation of “morality” as “do the good thing and refrain from doing the bad” by whatever ethical system is propounded in which “good” and “bad” are categorized – and which Christianity does not fit?
The question I must ask in response to the first sentence of that quotation is, “Why not? Is there an inherent reason us mere mortals cannot evince a set of morals equivalent to those of Christ? Has God created us with this fatal flaw?” If so, it’s a very unfunny and cruel joke.
Finiteness. It is probably theoretically possible for me to know every contributing factor and every consequence behind every act I take or refrain from taking as regards my neighbor, but in practice it is impossible.
Whatever one’s belief structure, one can only do one’s best.
So the solution is to relinquish free will?
Forgive me, Poly, for pressing on, but I do not believe that morality is found in praxes, but rather is found in the decisions that precede them. An ethical system is arbitrary, but morality is absolute. Love is the only morally good decision.
Hmm, using that logic, love didn’t exist before Christ did. So it wasn’t an option for people. I’d wonder what existence would have been like 2010 years ago. In other words, morality is indepent of Christ/Religion and that’s coming from an atheist.
Christ is God and has always existed. He is also Love.
OK so lets go with your theory, but if we do - Where did God come from?
This might sound ignorant, but:
I dont see how basing my life around some foreign bloke that died over 2000 years ago makes me a better person.
I dont understand why people overlook the fact that their Lord raped a young woman - she didn’t ask for it, then she was told she was pregnant by his mate.
I dont understand that if God exists, why are there so many religions? surely he’d want all the credit for what he’s done? if God exists, and you believe in him (then you assume he is the only lord - im going with Christianity here) then why did he tell Osama Bin Laden to knock down the WTC? why does he let serial killers run around? why doesnt he send them to hell - or is he still holdin that whole ‘apple incident’ against all of mankind?
The way I see it is: once upon a time we KNEW the Earth was flat, Centuries ago we KNEW we were the centre of the universe, and right now we (those that believe) KNOW that God exists…think about it.
While I’m not totally in disagreement with your last sentence (though I’d be inclined to think that morality bases itself on a world created that way by God, though not necessarily on what He has revealed of Himself), let me observe that to the Christian, Christ has always been in existence, as God the Son, just becoming Jesus in about 4 BC. See John 1:1-18 for details.
Sure Polycarp, but the message of love came with Jesus and not before. So change “love didn’t exist before Christ did” to “the message that God is love didn’t exist before Jesus started his ministry” (if you’re a Christian.)
Well, I might nitpick your point by demonstrating that what Jesus taught as the important things to do was from Torah (and probably Zev will stop by with the pertinent quotes), but that merely sets the time frame back from Jesus to Moses. On the other foot, how about a world created by God where love and fair, equal treatment is the paramount standard for behavior because He made it that way?
You might be right Polycarp. My usual impression of the interpretation of the Christian Bible is that Jesus modified the emphasis on God’s commands. e.g. Matthew 5 38-39:
which doesn’t seem to fit in well with some of the actions taken by God in the Old Testament, e.g. Exodus 32 27
Shouldn’t that be S/He? 
If one wants to belive that, then that’s just fine by me, I could think of many more offensive theologies.
Hey, don’t bother thinking of them; just hang out in GD, and you’ll be able to read expositions on them!