Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  myelaine

  dear Adamah...

  You said: " And what's the problem with that? HOW ELSE should a community decide on what laws to implement, aside from using community-based standards"...well the problem would be the majority view would logically have greater decision making power and so given the decline in morals and fickle values displayed in american society...those in the minority (or even those with very strict codes of conduct) who don't want to be involved in the decline would be powerless to go against the flow of society.

  I refer to the noahide laws because unlike the laws of moses they are not culturally or religiously specific...being the laws for mankind.

  dear Island Man...

  you said: " The bible - religion - is not the source of objective morality but only a means used by religionists to motivate others to follow the pre-existing moral code." I'm not sure what you mean by the pre-existing moral code...do you mean the natural code...Survival of the fittest? I would question whether the possibility of anything close to a code outside of the close familial unit. Look at times of limited chaos in america (riots) to see how quickly any code is thrown out the window. ordinary people will loot and vandalise because they can. The reality seems to be that there is only a very thin veneer of civility on civilization. At least the bible has the starting point of an eye for an eye to inject some objective equality instead of survival of the fittest.

  love michelle
• 

  adamah

  Perry said-

  It is a completely different way of living; and one that is likely to appear foolish to an unbeliever. But, I've been doing this for many years now and it gets results, results, results. I'm all about results. It works. Prior to my belief and trust in Christ, there was little that worked to the degree that I wished it to in my life. I was powerless against my vices.

  You do realize that's a benefits-based argument for belief, right? Saying all it's done for you ("results, results, results") is great and all, but you know what ELSE works for people? Placebo treatments like homeopathy, etc. These types of faith-based treatments cannot live up to the scrutiny of light of clinical trials, since the study investigators actually KNOW about the placebo effect, and know to adjust for it. In the end, snake-oil claims don't work.

  Instead, the ONLY valid reason to believe in something is not simply based on whether it works or not (a teleological argument), but primarily IF it is TRUE.

  It's great that you got a handle on your vices, but I've got a new-flash for you: not everyone else has addiction issues and vices, since some of us are too busy to let silly substances or vices get in the way of actually doing something with our lives, living in a productive manner.

  myelaine said- I refer to the noahide laws because unlike the laws of moses they are not culturally or religiously specific...being the laws for mankind.

  No response to the pedophilia question, myelaine?

  BTW, are you a Noahide? You DO realize that those seven Noahide principles are incorporated in civil and criminal law, right? eg try eating the limb from a living animal (likely a practice from the age before refrigeration was invented), and the SPCA and sheriff's deputies will be all over you for cruelty to animals.

  See, that's the same problem with Jesus' law of love ("love your neighbor as thyself"): it sounds great in theory, but it offers NOTHING on specifics, so everyone is forced to exercise their own moral sense of what it means.

  eg what if the person doesn't love themself, and their self-hatred leads them to act hatefully to others? Technically, he is loving his neighbors as he does himself, so he's following Jesus' principle. And is it loving your neighbor to use a 5%, 10%, or 15% capital gains tax rate on uneraned income when filing one's 1040?

  Principles are great for generalities, but short on specifics: that's WHY we need complicated legal codes (often based on community standards), to be able to tell the cop on the street and the judge in the court which actions are prohibited in order to provide the citizens a sense of fairness and equal justice for all. "God-given moral codes" are a Xian pipe-dream and fantasy, often spoken of, but being non-existent in practice.

  Adam
• 

  OUTLAW

  .

  ............................................... I was Powerless against My Vices.

  ....

  ..................................................................................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  Finkelstein

  Quite a precarious human folly to put faith into the lies, ignorance of men who lived thousands of years ago.

  We today call this organized religion.
• 

  tec

  Although your original post didn't directly make this point -- I think you've hit upon something important to both groups. And that, is a sort of plea -- to be understood and stop using extreme examples. I'm an atheist, but I am not at all like Stalin or the Khmer Rouge. Likewise, although technically some Christian literally believe a non-Christian like Mahatma Gandhi is right now burning in hell -- for most who attend a Christian church the subject of hell and who is being punished there is not something often considered.

  Yes, you understand. And I apologize for not making the point clear... that while I know that there are theists who state the things I argue against in the OP... to mine and others' faith, these are a fallacy. So that while I am 'arguing' my faith and what I have learned from Christ, others are throwing the... but if I don't believe in your God, he's gonna send me to hell/kill me at armagaddon/etc.

  I won't respond to everyone else making the point that there are theists who beleive such thing. I did not meant to make it sound as though some atheists were at fault... I only wanted to point out... hey, that is not what my faith states (and I am sure there are other things that others of faith on this board end up arguing, that is not part of their faith either) Like that video. It makes several generalizations... and none of them apply to my faith.

  So far I still think despite what she says Tec is just pretending to want some form of bridge in understanding since she refuses to acknowledge that the bridge in knowledge already exists ( many former believers become non believers and therefore know not only what some believers think about atheism but also what happens on the other side , what caused them to loose belief and therefore what they think about believers - critically what they think about their former self.) Tec is not qualified to make these supposed fallacies.

  There is no presumption, Q, when I am basing the OP off of what atheists themselves state. (such as in that video) But your point as to believers who become non-believers, only applies to those who shared your particular faith. It is not nearly as black and white as some atheists (and some theists) make it out to be. There is not this great divide with all atheists on one side, and all theists on the other side, as if everyone from each camp believes/feels the same.

  Mostly I just wanted to clear some things up, give people something to consider and ponder upon; to keep in mind

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Band on the Run

  There are legal codes everywhere in the world. You don't need a Christian faith to have a legal code. Murder, burglary, and other crimes are punished around the world. Atheist countries also punish these crimes. They are based on custom and prior legal codes. Atheists do not get arrested and convicted more than Christians. Also, as someone pointed out, legal codes existed long before Judaism. Objective facts point out that Christianity is not needed to have values.

  Primitive societies, studied by anthropologists, have rules. Some believers state things as facts that are just not true. I wonder it is lack of education. It is possible to be Christian based on faith alone. Every religion and no religion incorporate basic moral values. C.S. Lewis pointed to this as a reason to believe in Christianity's God in Mere Christianity. In general, humans tend to have basic values. Because of where I lived, I was exposed to people of many different religions. They were all good people with manners and values. Values are not the exclusive posession of Christianity. Noah is not needed.

  What is interesting is that Noah is completely amoral. So many of the Old Testament characters are lawless. Waging war against innocent civilians is amoral. I would argue that the plagues in Exodus are amoral. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is nauseating. The existence of slavery is despicable. There are so many Bible stories that give me pause. To ignore the problem is silly. The worst thing we could is based our present law on such concepts.

  The Bible's depiction and treatment of women is wrong. Our present laws are not based on these stories. When you read the Old Testament, I would venture that our laws today are a repudiation of these stories.
• 

  adamah

  BOTR said-

  What is interesting is that Noah is completely amoral.

  I'd say 'immoral' is more like it, rather than 'amoral'.

  But in fact, the only words spoken by Noah that are recorded in the Bible is when Noah curses Ham (which is the very-first time the word 'slave' appears in the Bible), with Noah creating the institution of slavery as punishment for Ham's offense. This occurs just after God had delegated Divine authority to 'just' Noah to allow men to control their fellow men (as required to enforce the prohibition against bloodshed, i.e. establishing the first justice system in the World, since anarchy existed before the Flood since God forgot to delegate authority for men to self-rule).

  So God actually gave Noah permission to create and institute a system of slavery (which was later regulated under Mosaic Law).
• 

  tec

  the law will be written on the hearts of people who believe in God, written by God. It isn't what's in a persons heart naturally.

  Well, He was speaking to Israel... whose hearts were too hard for the law of love to be written upon them. This is why they needed the law written down. Stone tablets were easier to write upon than their hearts. Even as it is also written,

  "Today, when you hear His Voice, do not harden your hearts..."

  And how would you explain Paul's words here about the gentiles:

  "Indeed when gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirement of the law are written upon their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

  When the scripture talks about love being the summation of the law and the prophets etc...the first and most important was about loving God...even in the OT loving God first was THE motivation to inculcate the other laws into your heart.

  Yes, love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

  in the NT a scripture that reflects this thought is found in 2 john 4-6 ...this is love that we walk according to His commandments, walking in truth as we received commandment from the Father. (The love that God commands is first love Him so that we can walk according to TRUTH and then we love each other.(refering to those in the body of Christ)

  The full verse is (the brackets are mine, not from the written word):

  "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the Truth (in Christ, who IS the Truth), just as the Father commanded us. And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to His commands. As you have heard from the beginning, His command is that you walk in love."

  truth and true love go hand in hand.

  Of course... as Truth comes from Love. Just as Christ (Truth) comes from God (Love)

  the "law of love" that you talk about seems to be an attempt on your part to "allow" for people the OPTION of not making a decision for Christ at this time.

  It has nothing to do with 'allowing' anything. It is simply truth that I have learned from my Lord, that the sheep are those who are clothed in love, as revealed by the acts of love they did my Lord, by doing for even the least of his brothers.

  One makes 'a decision' for Christ out of love, and as the Father draws him. The decision is not forced out of fear of the consequences, but out of love and truth. Unlike the many decisions men have made for 'religion', out of fear of the consequences religion implies.

  The gospel message in context is about this IS the day of salvation.

  Could you clarify this sentence please?

  You're sending a very subtle message when you teach this message and at the same time say "the spirit and the bride say come"...what could be nicer after a high control cult? Someone intamating that no decision is required...it's cool with your lord as long as those, who chose not to make a decision, are nice to the least of His brothers...

  I am not entirely sure of your meaning here.

  Those who love Christ will want to go to Christ, and follow His teachings... as He has said:

  "If anyone loves me, He will obey my teachings. My father will love them, and we will come and make our home with them."

  that is why what you teach is an anti-christ message. It's perfect for priming peoples hearts to accept THE anti-christ...he's all about peace and not repentance and turning to God too.

  Anti-christ ... is against Christ. Something I am not.

  In fact, something that those who would be entering as subjects of the kingdom, clothed in love because of the love that they SHOW... are not against Christ either; because what they did for even the least of his brothers, they did for Him. Now these ones did not know that they were doing good to Him. They simply acted upon what is in them, revealing the love that is in them.

  Someone who is against Christ... truly against Him, Michelle... is also going to be against any who belong to Him, certainly if those who belong to Him do proclaim Him. (if they rejected me, they will reject you also)

  with the gospel message and the great commission in mind do you really think that Jesus sent you ahead of Himself to preach that He's going to give an anti-christ teaching a free pass? I'm serious, do you realise what you are doing?

  Of course not... but I am not preaching an anti-christ teaching. I am not speaking of anything that I have not also learned from Him, that is backed in scripture, that is also backed in love. That mainstream christianity may not teach it... means what? Mainstream christianity teaches many things that my Lord did not and does not teach. Such as an eternal torment of hellfire, for instance.

  Now may I ask you a couple of questions, in addition to the question that I asked you above, regarding the gentiles having the law upon their hearts?

  Who are those who are resurrected from the dead, whose names are written in the lamb's book of life?

  What did Paul mean when he said that all Israel will be saved?

  If there is no judgment for those who are in Christ, then how can anyone who belongs to Christ be judged on the basis of what they DID (to the least of his brothers, or as recorded in their individual books, as is written in Revelation)?

  Peace to you,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  He was speaking to Israel... whose hearts were too hard for the law of love to be written upon them - Tammy

  Anti-semitic racism.
• 

  tec

  Don't be ridiculous, Cofty. There is nothing anti-semitic OR racist in that. I am certainly not anti-semitic OR racist. Or maybe this is just a new tactic for you to try?

  The prophets in the OT - which I assume the Jewish portion of the nation of Israel does not object to at least - spoke of the hard hearts of Israel as well.

  Nor does it speak to everyone in Israel... nor that Israel did not love.

  Peace,

  tammy