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?

[Tex]

Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.


Tex: And lets not also forget what Saint Paul said about the atheist

Gosh! Tex. With thet handle, Ah 'spected y'all to git inta the spirit a things a little better'n thet. 'Stead yah jist quote scripture.
Havent'cha ever met unchurched folk who acted better'n summa those folks yah meet in church?

Tex: Nobody is perfect.

[Divine Insight]

Tex: Nobody is perfect.

Christians are supposed to be perfect, unless they are sinfully rebelling against the commandments of their LORD Jesus the Christ Almighty.

Matt.5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Any Christians who are imperfect are blatantly and willfully choosing to disobey the LORD Jesus.

Shame be on them!

Thar worse then them thar eh thesits.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

...the law...the law...the law...the law...the law...the law...the law...the law...a law...the law...the law...

I dare say, if one had them a shot of morality, there'd be no need to keep carrying on about "the law".

"The law" means essentially nothing to me, if it declares I gotta do what I know ain't right.

16 This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

I challenge any and all, lawyer or not to show...

1- A god judges folks.
2- By means of this Jesus character.
3- And that anyone's "gospel" is anything beyond their own declaration.

Tex: And lets not also forget what Saint Paul said about the atheist

How 'bout you enlighten us that never had the good graces to meet this Paul fellow.

[Divine Insight]

Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Actually what Paul is saying here is that there is no need for any Bible or any written laws.

He was using this to support his position that the laws of morality come from the religious doctrine that he supports, but ironically he actually shot himself in his own foot here because what he is really demonstrating is that people innately know right from wrong. And therefore there is no need for religion or written laws at all.

In fact, I use this very thing myself when arguing against Christianity.

If you are a Christian I put to you the following question: "Where do you disagree with the moral values of Jesus, or your God of Abraham?"

If you show me where you disagree with the moral values of Jesus or the God of Abraham, then you've just shown me that you do not believe that Jesus or the God of Abraham have moral values that are even up to your standards.

On the other hand, if you tell me that you do not disagree with Jesus or the God of Abraham on any moral issues, then you've just shown me that you don't need the religion at all because you already have the same moral values that the religion teaches.

So either way Christianity doesn't work.

You either NEED the laws to be spelled out for you in doctrine, in which case you must necessarily have a different innate sense of morality of your own which disagrees with God's.

Or, you see in this religion moral values that you already innately have, and therefore you have no need of this doctrine or any 'laws' at all.

When I read the moral values of Jesus I instantly recognized that the man was teaching my moral values.

How can I follow Jesus when he's already preaching my moral values?

And when I think about it deeper, if I actually disagreed with the moral values of Jesus why would even want to follow his moral values if they disagree with mine?

So the whole scenario is absurd.

You either innately agree with Jesus' moral values in which case you don't need him,....

Or you disagree with Jesus in which case you wouldn't want to agree with him unless you were willing to compromise your own moral values to do so.

~~~~~

My problem with Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.

I have no problem with the moral values that Jesus taught. Hell's bells, he taught my morals. If their were a copyright on morals I could sue him for theft. Well, not really, because he spoke of them first. But Buddha could surely sue him. Because they are the same moral values that Buddha taught as well.

And ironically, all the immoral garbage that I disagree with concerning the God of Abraham, Jesus didn't care much for either.

So I'm on par with Jesus there. Jesus didn't care for the immoral teachings of the God of Abraham anymore than I do.

My problem with Christianity isn't with Jesus. My problem is when they nail Jesus to the Old Testament and hold him up as the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

And trust me I'm being polite there because I really feel like saying "The Sacrificial Pig" of the God of Abraham. Because IMHO, that whole notion right there is the sickest thing I can imagine.

I have no problem with the moral teachings of Jesus.

But I have humongous problems with any sick demented God who would plan to have his son beaten and nailed to a pole as as symbol for "LOVE" to all of humanity.

Give me a bucket. I need to THROW UP!

Yes, in terms of the God of Abraham (as depicted in the Biblical stories) I hate him. Absolutely. He's disgusting.

Buy not to worry.

He's just a fictitious superstitious fable who has no more reality than Darth Vader.

It's ok to "hate" him because it's not real hate. The hatred is as fictitious just as the character being "hated" is fictitious.

If this were a picture of our real creator, I wouldn't truly hate him.

But I would still need the throw-up bucket because I'd still be sick, but more out of disgust than hate.

So Christianity isn't about Jesus. It's about a God who has his innocent son beaten and nailed to a pole to make some sort of sick demented point.

And that's what I passionately reject.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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)

Pauls original attraction to the Jesus movement may have been related guilt and a desire for absolution. But I see the two main drivers of his epistles as:

Justifying the unexpected death of a messiah figure who ought to have opened the messianic age instead. Representing that death as a sacrifice, albeit rather awkwardly, would turn defeat into victory.

Justifying the expansion of the Jesus movement into the gentile world. The representation of everyone as equal in terms of sinfulness (with some major quote mining) was intended to break down the Jewish-only border.

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.

The real sense of this passage is difficult to discern.

Atheism in the modern sense was virtually unknown in the ancient world. Almost everybody acknowledged the existence of some kind of divinity whether or not they bothered to actually worship. Quite a few of the religions of that day did not even necessarily credit any of the deities being worshipped with creating the world. Claiming to prove the existence of a divinity by ID would have been pointless.

In Romans 1:6 Paul addresses his audience, And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. He is talking to gentiles. When he then talks about God it should not be understood as being strictly the God of Abraham with all that this concept entails.

I think Paul is pulling another fast one here. He talks about the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness (1:18) He then proceeds to say several times that God gave them over to various sins. These sins appear to be the punishment for worshipping false gods, not the reason for punishment. These sins sound a whole lot like what might have been going on among gentiles in Rome in that era.

The implication may be that a gentile who was guilty of these sins is expected to realize that he/she is worshipping false gods and ought to give up the sinful lifestyle to concentrate on having faith in Jesus. This way they could achieve a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith. (1:17)

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?

Buddhist morality is not all that different from what the Gospels have Jesus describe as the way to live, exemplified in Matthew 19 : You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself. These ideas are straight out of traditional Judaism, which after all what Jesus was pushing " a return to true righteousness in place of the hypocritical rule-following of the letter of the Law at the cost of its spirit. This is exactly what Hillel preached, in whose time Jesus would have grown up. It is exactly what the Prophets preached, especially Amos, another nobody upstart who challenged the prevailing ritual oriented authority of his era.

Taoist morality is all about consequences. If I hit my foot with a hammer, it will hurt. But how about: If I rob a bank and get away with it I will be rich. To understand why this is not the Taoist way is not easy. Taoism is for a special kind of personit is not for everyone. (Ref) Even then it seems all about ME and ignores charity, an essential part of the teachings of Jesus, as exemplified in Matthew 25.

The Wiccan Rede says 'An it harm none, do what ye will'. That sounds good as far as it goes but once again where is charity?

Religion likely started as a means of unifying a community to help ensure the well-being and continued existence of that community. The original teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the contrivances of Paul or the actual behavior of Christians) would appear to support that idea. So would Buddhism, at least of the Mahayana and similar flavors. Pure Land and the like seem to be once again about salvation by mere belief and ritual.

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.

Jesus also implies in Matthew 19 that it is all about action and not him. Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. (Matt 19:17)

[Tex]

Tex: Nobody is perfect.

Christians are supposed to be perfect, unless they are sinfully rebelling against the commandments of their LORD Jesus the Christ Almighty.

Matt.5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Any Christians who are imperfect are blatantly and willfully choosing to disobey the LORD Jesus.

Shame be on them!

Thar worse then them thar eh thesits.

Tex: We are only perfect because of Christ.

This will be too hard for you to understand.

[Tex]

Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Actually what Paul is saying here is that there is no need for any Bible or any written laws.

He was using this to support his position that the laws of morality come from the religious doctrine that he supports, but ironically he actually shot himself in his own foot here because what he is really demonstrating is that people innately know right from wrong. And therefore there is no need for religion or written laws at all.

In fact, I use this very thing myself when arguing against Christianity.

If you are a Christian I put to you the following question: "Where do you disagree with the moral values of Jesus, or your God of Abraham?"

If you show me where you disagree with the moral values of Jesus or the God of Abraham, then you've just shown me that you do not believe that Jesus or the God of Abraham have moral values that are even up to your standards.

On the other hand, if you tell me that you do not disagree with Jesus or the God of Abraham on any moral issues, then you've just shown me that you don't need the religion at all because you already have the same moral values that the religion teaches.

So either way Christianity doesn't work.

You either NEED the laws to be spelled out for you in doctrine, in which case you must necessarily have a different innate sense of morality of your own which disagrees with God's.

Or, you see in this religion moral values that you already innately have, and therefore you have no need of this doctrine or any 'laws' at all.

When I read the moral values of Jesus I instantly recognized that the man was teaching my moral values.

How can I follow Jesus when he's already preaching my moral values?

And when I think about it deeper, if I actually disagreed with the moral values of Jesus why would even want to follow his moral values if they disagree with mine?

So the whole scenario is absurd.

You either innately agree with Jesus' moral values in which case you don't need him,....

Or you disagree with Jesus in which case you wouldn't want to agree with him unless you were willing to compromise your own moral values to do so.

~~~~~

My problem with Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.

I have no problem with the moral values that Jesus taught. Hell's bells, he taught my morals. If their were a copyright on morals I could sue him for theft. Well, not really, because he spoke of them first. But Buddha could surely sue him. Because they are the same moral values that Buddha taught as well.

And ironically, all the immoral garbage that I disagree with concerning the God of Abraham, Jesus didn't care much for either.

So I'm on par with Jesus there. Jesus didn't care for the immoral teachings of the God of Abraham anymore than I do.

My problem with Christianity isn't with Jesus. My problem is when they nail Jesus to the Old Testament and hold him up as the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

And trust me I'm being polite there because I really feel like saying "The Sacrificial Pig" of the God of Abraham. Because IMHO, that whole notion right there is the sickest thing I can imagine.

I have no problem with the moral teachings of Jesus.

But I have humongous problems with any sick demented God who would plan to have his son beaten and nailed to a pole as as symbol for "LOVE" to all of humanity.

Give me a bucket. I need to THROW UP!

Yes, in terms of the God of Abraham (as depicted in the Biblical stories) I hate him. Absolutely. He's disgusting.

Buy not to worry.

He's just a fictitious superstitious fable who has no more reality than Darth Vader.

It's ok to "hate" him because it's not real hate. The hatred is as fictitious just as the character being "hated" is fictitious.

If this were a picture of our real creator, I wouldn't truly hate him.

But I would still need the throw-up bucket because I'd still be sick, but more out of disgust than hate.

So Christianity isn't about Jesus. It's about a God who has his innocent son beaten and nailed to a pole to make some sort of sick demented point.

And that's what I passionately reject.

Tex: But people will always ask where they get these laws from. The Liar will say from nowhere. The murder will say he doesn't know of any laws and so on and so on. But the lie!! We all know it comes from GOD. But you play games....and pretpretende you don't know that. So if you pretend that you see no God, then when judgement time comes don't cry when God doesn't see you.

[Goat]

Tex: Nobody is perfect.

Christians are supposed to be perfect, unless they are sinfully rebelling against the commandments of their LORD Jesus the Christ Almighty.

Matt.5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Any Christians who are imperfect are blatantly and willfully choosing to disobey the LORD Jesus.

Shame be on them!

Thar worse then them thar eh thesits.

Tex: We are only perfect because of Christ.

This will be too hard for you to understand.

Or, is it one of those unsupported claims, and a heep of hubris?

[Danmark]

Tex: We are only perfect because of Christ.

This will be too hard for you to understand.

Tex, do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds? How do you expect to 'win a sinner to Christ' when you tell him you have superior knowledge and he is either too stupid, too ignorant, or too spiritually blind to understand?

Many atheists, particularly those on this forum, understand Christianity at least as well as you think you do. They have studied it, lived it, taught it, said some of the same things you say. Many have had a 'personal relationship with Jesus Christ.'

But after further study and honest reflection they have come to a different belief.

We don't need to be told that because we have moved on, we never really had a relationship with Jesus, or that Christ's teachings are 'too hard to understand.' We know better.

Atheists too, should be careful not to treat Christians as the undereducated boobs some think they are. We should have respect for them as at least being sincere.

I try to remind my self that there is something noble in believing in a cause that is greater than myself; that however naive I may think another's beliefs are, at least they are striving for a truth that transcends their ego. That is a good thing and something we all can share as a value.

[Tex]

Tex: We are only perfect because of Christ.

This will be too hard for you to understand.

Tex, do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds? How do you expect to 'win a sinner to Christ' when you tell him you have superior knowledge and he is either too stupid, too ignorant, or too spiritually blind to understand?

Many atheists, particularly those on this forum, understand Christianity at least as well as you think you do. They have studied it, lived it, taught it, said some of the same things you say. Many have had a 'personal relationship with Jesus Christ.'

But after further study and honest reflection they have come to a different belief.

We don't need to be told that because we have moved on, we never really had a relationship with Jesus, or that Christ's teachings are 'too hard to understand.' We know better.

Atheists too, should be careful not to treat Christians as the undereducated boobs some think they are. We should have respect for them as at least being sincere.

I try to remind my self that there is something noble in believing in a cause that is greater than myself; that however naive I may think another's beliefs are, at least they are striving for a truth that transcends their ego. That is a good thing and something we all can share as a value.

Tex: If he tell me he know what I meant....Then his message was a lie, because in it, he does act, like he doesn't get it. So you see....You just helped him from exposing himself of his own bull.