“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

[Diogenes]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'
Christopher Hitchens famously challenged people to find a moral statement that could not be sincerely uttered by an atheist.
"No takers," he claimed.
Stated another way, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Conversely, Hitchens and many others can easily find many examples of immoral statements made in the name of God or of religion.

The question for debate is whether either of these statements can be refuted.

[1213]

...Obviously if all sins were forgiven and Jesus, God and Bible were not needed, ...

Obviously without them, who would have forgiven, no one. I think God is the source of forgiveness of sins.

Of course I mean 600 BC not 6,000. This is the generally accepted date and what evidence do you have that it's wrong? ...

Thanks for the correction. I don't have enough evidence for the 600 BC, but, I can't prove it wrong either.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Obviously if all sins were forgiven and Jesus, God and Bible were not needed, ...

Obviously without them, who would have forgiven, no one. I think God is the source of forgiveness of sins.

Of course I mean 600 BC not 6,000. This is the generally accepted date and what evidence do you have that it's wrong? ...

Thanks for the correction. I don't have enough evidence for the 600 BC, but, I can't prove it wrong either.

You are missing the point. Even if Jesus abrogated original sin with his sacrifice and thus saved all humanity, everyone would be saved whether they were Christian or not. Christianity or even knowledge of Jesus would not be needed. The point of Christianity is that people have to be given the choice to believe in Jesus or not and that (not deeds or even the sacrifice for redemption) gains salvation. Only Jesusfaith does this. It is clear as mud and only ignorance or denial can fail to know it or to not accept it when it is pointed out.

As I said, the date ascribed to Buddha is generally put at 600 BC and has to predate Buddhist king Asoka. Chronology may be questioned, but one risks a false position in rejecting broadly agreed Chronology just because one wants to believe something else. Of course I know that Biblical belief claim that OT Godfaith predates everything, the Flood predates all the early civilisations, Abraham is around Middle Kingdom Egypt and the Exodus and conquest any time from the 15th dynasty to the 18th dynasty. But the fact is that there is no mention of Israel until the 19th dynasty and no hint of Biblical text until the silver scroll of 600 BC.

For sure Israel and its' beliefs predate Buddhism, but (if one accepts Indian Chronology) Buddhism redates Christianity and Buddha cannot possibly have picked up any ideas from Christian Dogma.

[1213]

You are missing the point. Even if Jesus abrogated original sin with his sacrifice and thus saved all humanity, everyone would be saved whether they were Christian or not. Christianity or even knowledge of Jesus would not be needed. The point of Christianity is that people have to be given the choice to believe in Jesus or not and that (not deeds or even the sacrifice for redemption) gains salvation. Only Jesusfaith does this. It is clear as mud and only ignorance or denial can fail to know it or to not accept it when it is pointed out.

Maybe it is good that the word original sin is not in the Bible. I think the reason why people have difficulties with the salvation issue is that they mix up things wrongly, probably because they don't want to hear the truth. In Biblical point of view the situation is:

1. Wage of sin is death. Everyone with sin, is going to die, unless sin is forgiven and so person is saved from the judgment. The forgiveness and salvation from the judgement that comes with it, is offered for all people freely.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

2. Eternal life is promised only for righteous. This means, even if your sins would be forgiven now, it is not useful, if you continue in sin. This is why Bible teaches that there must happen change of heart, person must be born anew and reject sin.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46

Behold, you have become well, sin no more that a worse thing not happen to you.
John 5:14

Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, if one does not receive birth from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man able to be born, being old? He is not able to enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born? Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, if one does not receive birth out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. That receiving birth from the flesh is flesh, and that receiving birth from the Spirit is spirit. Do not wonder because I told you, You must receive birth from above.
John 3:3-7
But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh does not profit, nothing! The words which I speak to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63
Little children, let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, even as that One is righteous. The one practicing sin is of the Devil, because the Devil sins from the beginning. For this the Son of God was revealed, that He undo the works of the Devil. Everyone who has been begotten of God does not sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the Devil are revealed: Everyone not practicing righteousness is not of God; also the one not loving his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

That is why the words of Jesus are important, they can make the change in persons minds so that he becomes righteous.

3. Knowledge of Jesus doesn't necessary make one righteous, but it can help, which is why it is good to tell about Jesus and what he said.

So every good tree produces good fruits, but the corrupt tree produces evil fruits. A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and is thrown into fire. Then surely from their fruits you shall know them. Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but the ones who do the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many works of power? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; "depart from Me, those working lawlessness!"
Matt. 7:17-22

4. Person can be counted righteous, even if he does not know about Jesus.

For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as sinned within Law will be judged through Law. For not the hearers of the Law are just with God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. For when nations not having Law do by nature the things of the Law, they not having Law are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them , and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing, in a day when God judges the hidden things of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ.
Room. 2:12-16

[TRANSPONDER]

You are floundering and trying to fox me by throwing Bibleverses at me. Original sin is not a term used in thew Bible but is given to the sin supposed to be dumped on humans in the Eden event. Don't dicker with the 'It doesn't actually say that' trickery when everyone knows what is being talked about.

Similarly, we all know about the creation of Jesus as the way of pleasing God and being saved, however or whatever that means. You don't need to tell us. But some Christians need to be disabused of the idea that Deeds do not save, only the right kind of Faith. Though sinning can forfeit the Grace, unless a TV Evangeloshow public repentance can rehabilitate them.

That Christians don't seem to know this shows what a crafty lie has been sold to them by the church authorities and savants - that Salvation is down to being good, not to holding the right Party card. It is membership of the Elect and elite that saves,

So don't tell me I'm mixed up or don't understand. The failure to know what the Bible actually says, the failure to understand what Christianity teaches and the desperate (and frankly insulting) attempt to throw Bibleverses in my face in a desperate attempt to confuse me must only show those with any capacity to doubt and question that Bible apologetics are generally terrible.

The bottom line of topic is that the Bible, Christianity and God/Jesus faith is not credible. Even if one believed in it, the morals do not work, not least in the issue of slavery, before we even get to putting the cult - group over the family and taking revenge on non -persons after God had made sure they wouldn't turn, repent and be saved.

To those who actually know or care what's in the Bible and don't go around with a headful of cherry picked Biblequotes to prop up their own take on Christianity it must be a relief to not have to twist the Bible to say what it doesn't say, mean what it doesn't mean and excuse what is inexcusable.

The Book and religion, like all the others, fails; and warts and all, human morals and Ethics is the best we have because, like science, it does not do Dogma - it does reason. Like human knowledge, it has evolved and religions have only popped up later and tried to take the credit, authority, power over others and the money. Always money.

Human morality has nothing to learn from Religion, thanks.

To add a too much p.s. I think you are a good person (so are they all, all honorouable men) and mean well. But trying to support an insupportable Dogma has pushed you into deception, trickery and flummery, not to say disrespect, thinking you can bamboozle me. I don't take it personally as you are doing your best to make work what doesn't. Thing is - I have been here before, many times. In the early days I had a mental metaphor of a scientist watching a mouse scurrying around a maze trying to find a way out and supposing the Scientist was unable to see what it was up to. I know what is going on. And how religion makes even smart people do at least illogical hings (Like Kalam, The disciples would not die for a Lie and contradiction denial) and trust or suppose that nobody knows any better.

We goddless satanspawn know better and it is our mission and duty to tell those who don't, which seems to be everyone. Nobody seems to know what atheism really is, that the nativities are bunk and ethically society does not need religion for the Good, even if it is not true.

[1213]

You are floundering and trying to fox me by throwing Bibleverses at me. Original sin is not a term used in thew Bible but is given to the sin supposed to be dumped on humans in the Eden event. Don't dicker with the 'It doesn't actually say that' trickery when everyone knows what is being talked about.

It seems to me that we are talking about you opinions. If we speak about Christianity and is it good, or right, I think Bible verses are the main thing, and my opinion the only thing that should be evaluated, because in them is the teachings of Jesus. As you may know, Christian means a disciple of Jesus originally. And person is a disciple of Jesus if he remains in word of Jesus. Arguing about human doctrines, that can't be supported with words of Jesus, are not Christian.

... that Salvation is down to being good, not to holding the right Party card. It is membership of the Elect and elite that saves,

What do you mean with salvation?

[TRANSPONDER]

You are floundering and trying to fox me by throwing Bibleverses at me. Original sin is not a term used in thew Bible but is given to the sin supposed to be dumped on humans in the Eden event. Don't dicker with the 'It doesn't actually say that' trickery when everyone knows what is being talked about.

It seems to me that we are talking about you opinions. If we speak about Christianity and is it good, or right, I think Bible verses are the main thing, and my opinion the only thing that should be evaluated, because in them is the teachings of Jesus. As you may know, Christian means a disciple of Jesus originally. And person is a disciple of Jesus if he remains in word of Jesus. Arguing about human doctrines, that can't be supported with words of Jesus, are not Christian.

... that Salvation is down to being good, not to holding the right Party card. It is membership of the Elect and elite that saves,

What do you mean with salvation?

I am quite sure that the human moral codes we all live by (some by going against them ) and which Bible apologists use in judging God's deeds (or they would not have to try to excuse some of them) are not Christian or indeed of any religion; they leech onto them and claim the credit. Human morals and ethics are not my opinion, nor yours, but a social consensus backed up with legislation.

This is how it works, and generally, states (starting with the US) do not use their religions in formulating a body of law. You may say you are a followerof Jesus but you know what the next question is. Did you give your stuff to the poor, leave your family and friends and follow Jesus? Christians don't do that. They thank Jesusgod that they are doing nicely for money,thanks and socialise with family and friends in the same way mundane secularists do, and still tell themselves they are doing it the Christian way because they claim to believe it. I thank nongod every day that I don't have to lie to myself.

[1213]

...states (starting with the US) do not use their religions in formulating a body of law...

It is people who formulate laws. And the way people formulate the laws depends on their world view. Christian people would formulate laws in Christian way, and non-Christian formulate them in non-Christian way. And I think this can be seen very well in the way laws are formulated.

Did you give your stuff to the poor, leave your family and friends and follow Jesus? Christians don't do that....

Could the reason for that be that Jesus is not on earth? Quite difficult to follow him, if he is not on earth.

[TRANSPONDER]

...states (starting with the US) do not use their religions in formulating a body of law...

It is people who formulate laws. And the way people formulate the laws depends on their world view. Christian people would formulate laws in Christian way, and non-Christian formulate them in non-Christian way. And I think this can be seen very well in the way laws are formulated.

Did you give your stuff to the poor, leave your family and friends and follow Jesus? Christians don't do that....

Could the reason for that be that Jesus is not on earth? Quite difficult to follow him, if he is not on earth.

Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. I don't appreciate it. Following Jesus is following his example and church. Just as he told the disciples with a view (that is the Bible writers pushing the interests of the Church) to telling later church members how to act. Give all you have to the poor down to the last widows' mite, and if she starves, she will go to heaven and the church will add her mite to the overflowing church coffers. You know that's how it works. Which is why you don't do it, and nobody does.

But you are right first off. People devise ethics, moral codes and Laws. We have done this many times and religions simply hi -jack human morality and take the credit or twist it to benefit themselves. Living according to Christian morality Well, there are pros and cons. The pros can be an admirable selflessness, the con, an aggressive pushing of their own faith. The pro, a great sense of community, the con a cynical domination and exploitation of the flock.

The bottom line is not whether it is Good, but whether it is true. And on all reason and evidence, it isn't. And I have Faith that people do not like to be fooled,lied to and ripped off. Though while we may be stuck with the banks and State administration, we really do not need Churches.

[1213]

... Following Jesus is following his example and church....

The scripture you gave, speaks about how to be perfect and that the rich man should go and follow Jesus literally. Jesus was not speaking about following a church, or even about following his example in that scripture.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Following Jesus is following his example and church....

The scripture you gave, speaks about how to be perfect and that the rich man should go and follow Jesus literally. Jesus was not speaking about following a church, or even about following his example in that scripture.

That is absurd. Jesus (taking the Bible and doctrine as valid) was speaking not only for those while he was there, but those to come afterwards. Paul certainly was and Acts shows the church forming after Jesus. Jesus was gone, but his church was there.The message is the same: give all you have to the church and devote yourself to it just as those followers devoted themselves to Jesus while he was on earth. After all, he's still supposed to be here, there and everywhere as Jesusgod.

You may not agree with that but, if so, you have invented your own religion. Which you cannot validate with quotes taken out of the context of similar quotes dealing with the situation after Jesus'crucifixion.