Comments on Young Freethought: Who's Moral?

You made a great point on moderates and cherry pic...

2009-12-07T11:19:09.729Z

You made a great point on moderates and cherry picking. I will definitly need to use that point in my next conversation on the subject.

First, I'm sincerely impressed by the writing abil...

2009-11-30T22:39:34.277Z

First, I'm sincerely impressed by the writing ability and reasoning that you and the others writers on this site have demonstrated.

As far as this speech/article goes I would agree with most of what you've written - Your point about those people who claim to have been saved from their rebellion and then blatantly deny clear teaching of the Bible is right on. But I'm not sure what you've proved. Your conclusions regarding the necessity of religion for good are correct. I agree that one does not need to be "religious" to do good in the world. The issue for the atheist is justifying how you can call anything "good" at all. You condemn stoning "because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life." I share your opinion but I get the feeling you believe this to be far more than an opinion. Am I correct? If so, I'm not sure how you can claim that this is universally true. If it’s not universally true then I’m not sure how you can condemn it in any other culture.

Regarding the new covenant you're right to anticipate this response but as far as Matthew 5:17-19 goes I think you're guilty of the very thing you've accused these Christians of. You've taken a relevant passage and come to a hasty and emotionally charged conclusion regarding its meaning and relevance. I'll try to be succinct with why I believe that. Notice that Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law. He’s not abolishing it but he’s letting it stay the same either. He’s fulfilling it. It is widely understood that the OT law consists of civil, ceremonial and ethical regulations. The Christian belief is that Jesus's life, death and resurrection accomplished all that was laid out in the Old Testament but the ethical regulations remain summed up in "the law of Christ" - to love God with all of our being and to love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:35-40, essentially the summary of the 10 Commandments). This is not cherry picking. To use your example of stoning children for dishonoring parents: The civil code that was necessary for a specific people in a specific time (The Israelites) because of the presence of sin in humanity has been fulfilled but the ethical requirement to honor parents is still intact (see Ephesians 6:1-2). To use another example, stoning as a consequence for homosexuality was evidently necessary at one time. Christians today would not do that because we know that that civil requirement is no longer necessary (Christ took that upon himself in his death on the cross) but the NT still explicitly condemns homosexuality, just as it does gossip, boasting, disobedience to parents, etc. (See Romans 1:18-32).

Let me also make a clarification that may not seem important to you but is foundational to real faith in Christ and I think relevant to this discussion. There used to be a day when the word religion positively referred to the right exercise of one's faith. Today it stands negatively for any sort of approach to life that is not atheistic. Hence, you may have heard the cute cliche "Christianity is not about religion, it's about a relationship." There's truth in that statement but I still think it's misleading. The thing that separates Christianity from other religions is their approach to salvation. Salvation in all other religions, including forms of what is termed Christianity, is attained through moral effort. The gospel, which is the essential Christian message, refers to salvation through grace. These are two fundamentally distinct ideas. Christians don’t obey to be accepted by God, they obey because they’ve been accepted.

To conclude, you (and Hairtonic) make good points about the inconsistencies of those who call themselves Christians but you haven't done anything damaging to the essential claims of Christ or Christianity.

That was quite some speech you must given, Alex. I...

2009-11-17T15:15:24.940Z

That was quite some speech you must given, Alex. I wished I could've seen your audience's reaction.

On a different note, is it just me, or do most theists read their holy scriptures blind? From anecdotal evidence (i.e my own interaction with them), many of them have a pretty shallow knowledge of their holy books. Take for example a survey that found that most American Christian cannot state the 10 Commandments. These people get surprised when you quote biblical passages detailing various cruelties inflicted on humans by God. And yet, they will tell you that your particular interpretation is wrong! Pretty convenient eh?

Lastly, perhaps you could write in about your coming out story? It's always interesting to read about coming out stories, especially from a peer. I hope it wasn't as painful as this!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdLD-AoUB8

Well put! Only one small thing..Hitler was Catholi...

2009-11-17T10:30:58.052Z

Well put! Only one small thing..Hitler was Catholic, not an Atheist.

Simply and unarguably well put Alex. Thanks for s...

2009-11-14T06:29:27.872Z

Simply and unarguably well put Alex. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

To save you the trouble, here are the Bible refere...

2009-11-14T00:40:36.021Z

To save you the trouble, here are the Bible references cited.

Matthew 5:17-19 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them'

John 15:4-6 "Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."