Should we live by good maxims?

[marco]

We have countless proverbs that give us wise counsel. In his parables Jesus illustrates the same type of wise advice. Is it enough that we do good to others and try to live honourably, without accompanying mantras?


I say this because countless multitudes have, in serving their God, harmed humanity. Surely service to God should never lead to atrocities, since God, the recipient of man's offered service, would surely not allow it to harm his creations. And yet he seems to.


So is God an unnecessary addition to our life of good works? Is the service of mankind preferable to serving a deity?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 37 by Jagella]


"The practice of faith healing attributed to Jesus is a very cruel lie. I should know because I was conned out of a lot of money by the faith-healing scam."


Some would say the same about chemotherapy.

Fortunately for all those people whose lives have been saved by chemotherapy, what some would say about it doesn't refute the empirical evidence that shows otherwise...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I read the whole thing. It's one of the reasons I became an atheist. Read the whole thing, and think about the number of contradictions in it...

https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html

These lists from non believers crack me up. Take this for example from the site;

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Sorry, but read those verses -- there is no inconsistency. Not to mention not all of Genesis is literal. God doesn't work in time like we do. The purpose of the story is not about which came first the chicken or the egg. Obviously, you miss the point and cry inconsistency. It's non sense.

Gen 1 - Birds on day 5, man on day 6. Clearly birds come first in this Chapter.
Gen 2 - Man is formed in verse 6. After that plants show up (also different from Chapter 1 you will note since plants are created on day 3). In verse 18 the god decides that Adam needs a helper. In verse 19 "NOW" the god being makes the animals, brings them by Adam, and Adam names them. BUT no helper is found. So then the god makes a woman. Obviously a supreme being, capable of forming a whole universe, would have already known if there was no good helper among the animals if the animals had already been there (and for that matter such an omni-everything creature should have known even before they were created). Clearly the animals (and the plants) show up in different orders between the two chapters.

But naturally you pull out the standard canard that the Bible isn't 100% literal anyway. Fascinating, in that there is no direction anywhere in the book that your god wrote (or inspired depending on the sect of Christians) to take some parts literal and some parts figurative. So not only are you saying that a fairly big chunk of Christians are wrong about their opinion that the Bible is all literal (Ken Hamm won't like you very much), but you can't validate your claim with any direction or instructions from the same book that tell you to take Gen 1 and Gen 2. Which means you are guessing.

I mean your website has lists and lists of things like this;

GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

Really? Sorry, that is really reaching to find fault with something and once again missing the point!!!!

I totally agree that some of the items are weaker than others (which, by the way, it's rather a Freudian slip on your part to say that because if some are "really reaching" then that means that some aren't...)

The point that you seem to miss is that it doesn't really matter how many of these contradictions there are. The fact that there is even one contradiction in a book that a god being of supreme knowledge and power dictates (or inspires) is itself an inane contradiction. An all knowing and powerful creature (which is also logically impossible) makes a book so everyone knows it exists, and it can't even keep the first 2 chapters of the first book in order. You are worshiping the cosmic equivalent of Mr Bean.

There shouldn't be any contradictions in it, and a god being with the characteristic of not being deceiving can't hold that title if it contradicts itself and/or tells allegory that has no clear meaning.

If these are the things that truly caused you to become an atheist, you must struggle in this life and find it unbearable when human beings find different ways to describe things.

The only thing unbearable to me is purposeful ignorance.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

But naturally you pull out the standard canard that the Bible isn't 100% literal anyway.

Uuummm . . . well in life man speaks literally and figuratively sometimes doing both even within the same sentence. Perhaps someone who didn’t speak the language being spoken might be confused, but typically we understand each other. Then again we often don’t, which is proven time and time again in miscommunication via human beings. Sooooo . . . yeah I naturally point to this explanation as it is a legitimate one.

Fascinating, in that there is no direction anywhere in the book that your god wrote (or inspired depending on the sect of Christians) to take some parts literal and some parts figurative.

Huh? Sure there is. Jesus told us to listen to His Church. “He who hears you, hears me�. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�. In Scripture the Church is referred to as ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’. This means, Christ left His Church the authority to interpret Scripture. Soooo actually it isn’t that difficult to know what Christ wanted us to know.

So not only are you saying that a fairly big chunk of Christians are wrong about their opinion that the Bible is all literal (Ken Hamm won't like you very much), but you can't validate your claim with any direction or instructions from the same book that tell you to take Gen 1 and Gen 2. Which means you are guessing.

No. See explanation above. Also, I’m not sure I would say there are a big chunk of Christians that take the Bible entirely literal – some of course – and like I demonstrated – they would be wrong. So, Ken Hamm, whoever he is I guess won’t like me very much. And this should concern me, why?

I totally agree that some of the items are weaker than others

Ya think?

(which, by the way, it's rather a Freudian slip on your part to say that because if some are "really reaching" then that means that some aren't...)

No, it just means some might take a longer explanation to help you see the problem with your erroneous “contradiction�, while others are a joke to even be considered a contradiction in the first place.

The point that you seem to miss is that it doesn't really matter how many of these contradictions there are. The fact that there is even one contradiction in a book that a god being of supreme knowledge and power dictates (or inspires) is itself an inane contradiction.

The point you seem to miss is there is no contradiction. Each and everything on your list can be explained.

An all knowing and powerful creature (which is also logically impossible) makes a book so everyone knows it exists, and it can't even keep the first 2 chapters of the first book in order. You are worshiping the cosmic equivalent of Mr Bean.

LOL! Perhaps, you are acting like Mr. Bean in your method of reading the Bible.

There shouldn't be any contradictions in it

There isn’t.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 58 by RightReason]

God did not force them to eat their children – He predicted it.

He predicted he would force those good people to eat their own daughters and sons.

Get back to me when you learn to read...

...and when you can recognize evil for what it is.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Jagella]

Quote:
God did not force them to eat their children – He predicted it.


He predicted he would force those good people to eat their own daughters and sons.

Nice try.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 52 by RightReason]

I got warned and advised to avoid the word "you" and "your" when they are to be followed by negative comments. It was explained that many posters, yourself included, can get away with insults as long as the insult is generalized -- like toward Christians or Religion or Jesus. That’s all fair game. Of course a Christian or religious person cannot complain about such comments or take them personally as long as the poster avoids any personal pronouns. I need to just sit back at listen to you illogically claim all clergy and Christians scam people. I mean even though I’m a Christian and have many good friends who are clergy I shouldn’t take what you said personally. Semantics.

I just can't resist this one. All of this complaining about alleged anti-Christian bigotry and persecution reminds me of a very relevant teaching. Matthew 5:11-13 English Standard Version (ESV)

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I don't see much rejoicing and gladness in this forum (except for myself, of course). But hey, I don't know the Bible or Christianity, so no doubt I'm misinterpreting Matthew 5:11-13. Somehow Jesus really taught us to gripe.

[marco]

Huh? Sure there is. Jesus told us to listen to His Church. “He who hears you, hears me�. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�. In Scripture the Church is referred to as ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’. This means, Christ left His Church the authority to interpret Scripture. Soooo actually it isn’t that difficult to know what Christ wanted us to know.

But unfortunately there are many churches that claim to spring from Christ; some loudly demonstrating that they go to the horse's mouth, so to speak, rather than to the interpretations of Councils. And Christ promised that they would be loved:

As John 14: 21 tells us: " Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them."

And many who do this don't accept the Church that claims to be Christ's. What a dilemma! Sooo - it is pretty hard to know.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 67 by marco]

But unfortunately there are many churches that claim to spring from Christ

True, but that does not negate my original response. The original quote I was responding to was this:

Fascinating, in that there is no direction anywhere in the book that your god wrote (or inspired depending on the sect of Christians) to take some parts literal and some parts figurative.

I responded that there actually is direction. The book itself says to listen to the Church.

Now you suggest there is no direction to tell us who is the Church. But that is not true either. Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but we are also informed about how we can know Christ’s Church. For this reason, there are many out there who claim to be Christ’s Church who can be ruled out because they don’t meet the criteria.

As for loving them anyway? Of course, he who is not against us is with us. Good can come from outside the Church. However, truth is still truth and if one wants the fullness of faith, it does matter from where you are getting your information.

So, a dilemma? Perhaps, but I can know it is wrong to cheat on a test, but it still be a dilemma whether I do so. Just because something can be a dilemma does not prove that right and wrong (truth) can’t be known.

[marco]

[Replying to post 67 by marco]

But unfortunately there are many churches that claim to spring from Christ

True, but that does not negate my original response.

It does unless there is an unambiguous way of identifying the TRUE Church, if there is one. If we say we can know a good Church by its fruits, many would point out the crop of bad fruit produced by the Catholic Church, or by others. If we say Christ handed his Church the figurative keys, then we can say that those who follow Christ are in possession of the keys. Had Christ named a list of Popes, that would be concrete evidence. He had no idea what would result.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

It does unless there is an unambiguous way of identifying the TRUE Church

Not really. The same faith required to believe Jesus Christ existed, walked the earth, and is who He said He is is the same faith required to believe the Catholic Church is the one, true faith.

If we say we can know a good Church by its fruits, many would point out the crop of bad fruit produced by the Catholic Church, or by others

If we say we can know God is loving and real, many would point out the things God has done that they conclude are not loving and or impossible. The skeptic will always cry, “Ambiguous!�

Just because there exist only ambiguous ways of knowing if super symmetry exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t. It could simply mean we have not yet become accurate enough in proving it. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but whether it does or doesn’t is not dependent on what others consider acceptable proof.

If we say Christ handed his Church the figurative keys, then we can say that those who follow Christ are in possession of the keys.

Not if we are honest about everything else Scripture says. Scripture goes on to show the followers of Christ accepted the authority of those Christ appointed. Scripture shows the people took their matters to the Church to have the Church decide. Scripture reveals the hierarchical structure of the Church from the get go. There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority, as well as from early Church history. In Acts in Scripture we see abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced.
The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther, George Fox, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for over 2,000 years.

Had Christ named a list of Popes, that would be concrete evidence.

Christ appointed the first Pope, Peter, and gave the Apostles the power to carry on His tradition. Scripture reveals this.

For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.


They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the ... succession

And history corroborates all of this as the first Christians and writings of the early church fathers all prove the acceptance and understanding of Apostolic Succession.