How You Can Prove the Bible Wrong

[Danmark]

Romans 1:28-31: (ESV)
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Doesn't this mean that if we do not believe in God, we will act as described?
And if so, can atheists not disprove this passage simply by being kind, considerate, and loving; refraining from the long list of evils above?

Is it fair to say the standard is not too high to reach; that all we have to do is meet or exceed the performance of the average Christian?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Romans 1:28-31: (ESV)
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Doesn't this mean that if we do not believe in God, we will act as described?
And if so, can atheists not disprove this passage simply by being kind, considerate, and loving; refraining from the long list of evils above?

Is it fair to say the standard is not too high to reach; that all we have to do is meet or exceed the performance of the average Christian?

Romans 1 also says

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Everybody loves to interpret Paul their own way. But one interpretation of this that allows the rest to make sense is that God has given everyone a natural sense of right and wrong. Worshipping gods other than the one naturally revealed in our innate sense of morality leads to wrongdoing and evil. Explicitly believing or not believing in God is not the point. Rather the point is that abandoning what we know is right action results in wrong action.

[Danmark]

The 'subversive' idea of the topic is to get people to compete by being more gracious. =o)

[ThatGirlAgain]

The 'subversive' idea of the topic is to get people to compete by being more gracious. =o)

Paul also says...

Rom 1:26 ...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones

Sorry, not giving that up.

[Danmark]

The 'subversive' idea of the topic is to get people to compete by being more gracious. =o)

Paul also says...

Rom 1:26 ...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones

Sorry, not giving that up.

Who's asking you to? I mean besides Paul and a bunch of other tight . . . uh . . . I mean people not minding their own business. We all agree on a basic core of good conduct: not stealing, civility, kindness, treating people the way they would like to be treated. Being patient and kind and NOT telling healthy adults what to do with their own bodies in private. Jesus rang in loud and clear on this with his parable about the two men who went forward to pray. The first focused on another's conduct; the second simply asked for forgiveness.

[cholland]

The 'subversive' idea of the topic is to get people to compete by being more gracious. =o)

Paul also says...

Rom 1:26 ...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones

Sorry, not giving that up.

Who's asking you to? I mean besides Paul and a bunch of other tight . . . uh . . . I mean people not minding their own business. We all agree on a basic core of good conduct: not stealing, civility, kindness, treating people the way they would like to be treated. Being patient and kind and NOT telling healthy adults what to do with their own bodies in private. Jesus rang in loud and clear on this with his parable about the two men who went forward to pray. The first focused on another's conduct; the second simply asked for forgiveness.

and which one are you?

[Moses Yoder]

One thing to keep in mind is that most people are only a generation or two removed from very religious people. My understanding is morality decreases as it gets further removed from religion. The percentage of atheists is still very small, although it is bound to grow.

In 5th grade my teacher, Mrs. Burkholder, told us at the start of the year we only had one rule to follow; to be courteous to each other. That was the most well behaved class I had in school. Every time somebody was obnoxious all she had to do was point to the rule and they settled right down.

[Danmark]

The 'subversive' idea of the topic is to get people to compete by being more gracious. =o)

Paul also says...

Rom 1:26 ...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones

Sorry, not giving that up.

Who's asking you to? I mean besides Paul and a bunch of other tight . . . uh . . . I mean people not minding their own business. We all agree on a basic core of good conduct: not stealing, civility, kindness, treating people the way they would like to be treated. Being patient and kind and NOT telling healthy adults what to do with their own bodies in private. Jesus rang in loud and clear on this with his parable about the two men who went forward to pray. The first focused on another's conduct; the second simply asked for forgiveness.

and which one are you?

There was a reason I ended the post where I did. The whole point was that your question is what you and I should ask ourselves.

[Danmark]

One thing to keep in mind is that most people are only a generation or two removed from very religious people. My understanding is morality decreases as it gets further removed from religion. The percentage of atheists is still very small, although it is bound to grow.

In 5th grade my teacher, Mrs. Burkholder, told us at the start of the year we only had one rule to follow; to be courteous to each other. That was the most well behaved class I had in school. Every time somebody was obnoxious all she had to do was point to the rule and they settled right down.

I like that, very much. One rule, the golden rule. I disagree with the notion that morality decreases as it gets further removed from religion. It may even be the reverse, depending on how one defines the terms. One idea is that as immorality increases, the number of rules multiplies. As Mrs. Burkholder knew, one rule can be sufficient. As rules increase, so do the opportunities for gossips and hypocrites, focusing on the rules and the rule violators, instead of on their own conduct.

It may be simple, but it isn't easy to focus on the log in one's own eye. It is more natural to look for the speck in my brothers' eye. Rats!

[Divine Insight]

Everybody loves to interpret Paul their own way.

This is true. For me, Paul was clearly a very troubled man who clearly had a very desperate need to be "saved" himself. He had done very horrible things that any human should be ashamed of when he was Saul.

So he was clearly troubled with guilt.

I view Paul as not merely someone who was in desperate need for a salvation myth, but he was also one of the very first apologists for the original gospel rumors about Jesus (to whom Paul had eventually turned for his salvation)

His apologetic argument that "God" has reveled his existence, is the very same argument that modern day apologists give via their "Intelligent Design" argument. Paul argued that all a person needs to do is look around at the wondrous complexity of life, and they should clearly see that it there must have been an intelligent creator behind it. And thus he concludes that there is no excuse for not believing in "God".

We realize today that this argument is not logically sound.

Moreover, Paul then simply assumes that the religion of his choice should then be seen as having merit since he feels that it's obvious that "God Exists". And living in his culture he probably didn't even consider other possible religion. Like many people today, they just view other pagan religions as having no more merit than Greek Mythology.

The problem is that the Hebrew mythology doesn't have anymore merit than Greek mythology either.

But one interpretation of this that allows the rest to make sense is that God has given everyone a natural sense of right and wrong. Worshipping gods other than the one naturally revealed in our innate sense of morality leads to wrongdoing and evil.

I can honestly say that religions such as Taoism, Buddhism, and even some forms of Wicca have far higher morals than the Abrahamic religions.

So I find it ironic that my innate sense of morality draws me to other religions as I see as being far more highly moral than things like Christianity.

I wonder what Paul would have to say about that?

Explicitly believing or not believing in God is not the point. Rather the point is that abandoning what we know is right action results in wrong action.

Well that's actually the core of Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism. It doesn't matter how you think of God, all that truly matters is how you behave.

In fact, even the Christian New Testament rumors about Jesus have Jesus supporting this very view:

John.12:47-48 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Jesus is saying here that a belief in him is irrelevant and unimportant.

What's important is the words that are being spoken. And the words that were being spoken were saying do to right actions. The core of Mahayana Buddhism.