24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardNot if it misdirect persons into ignorance and sinful life.
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
The false teachings of the Bible allow persons to slaughter animals without conscience and this is allowing for the continuance of sinful life..
It is devoid of true spiritual knowledge which is required to raise the consciousness to the platform of love of God.
Without true knowledge the person cannot advance in spiritual understanding and remain ignorant.
Persons who remain ignorant shall only take birth again in this world of suffering again and again.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by Dowardwell how about he did not die on the cross, got down married mary mag moved to india had children etc
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaExplain to us why eating meat is sinful? I agree inhumane treatment is not the best solution but for many meat is sustenance.
Not if it misdirect persons into ignorance and sinful life.
The false teachings of the Bible allow persons to slaughter animals without conscience and this is allowing for the continuance of sinful life..
It is devoid of true spiritual knowledge which is required to raise the consciousness to the platform of love of God.
Without true knowledge the pers ...[text shortened]... sons who remain ignorant shall only take birth again in this world of suffering again and again.
Manny
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardNow that, I can agree with. Rec'd.
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by menace71Your pet dog and cat is sustenance but you do not eat them.
Explain to us why eating meat is sinful? I agree inhumane treatment is not the best solution but for many meat is sustenance.
Manny
Each living creature is on their particular journey though the incarnated body they have received.
No one has the right to end that journey.
Thou shalt not kill is very clear.........is it not?
Persons who have lived the true spiritual life and have raised the consciousness have an aversion to killing even an ant.
This higher consciousness is evidence their religious life is affective in changing their lower materialistic ways.
Religion that is false will not induce any effective change in the person.........sound familiar.
Killing is wrong..... and even a child can agree in this without any influence from some religious doctrine.
Only dishonest persons will defend killing.
Honest persons will embrace animal welfare.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardThat depends partly on what you mean by 'worth while' and which teachings in particular.
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
But in general, I think we can all agree that most of his teachings with regard to morals were good ones. But we agree, because we already know them. We do not need to be taught, nor do we need to 'follow'.
Interestingly, I am sure even you, ignore those of his teachings that you do not already agree with.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardAs an atheist my default position is that most, if not all, the stories in the bible are not true
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
so I don't need the 'even if' in your postulate ;-) anyhow, to answer your post....
I don't agree with your proposition.
The supposed reason for following the 'teachings of Christ' is that they are of divine origin.
They are the word of god and were devised by a vastly superior being who knows better than
we ever will and so his teachings should be blindly followed.
If your saying that Jesus isn't the son of god and his teachings are not divine, then they were
created by men, who are fallible.
If these men (and I say men not people because it was very much MEN coming up with the
scriptures, women are very second class citizens) could come up with a set of guiding principles
and morals for their time why can't we devise some for ours?
Why would we think that the people 2000 yrs or more ago were more moral or better at devising
moral systems than we are?
At the very least we can analyse the morals they devised and update them to take into account
the modern world and scientific knowledge they did not have access to.
If we devise morals for ourselves (as a society) then we have an understanding of why we have
and want these morals. If you simply follow the word of someone who lived 2000 yrs ago in a
different age, you will find yourself following morals that are very much outdated, and obsolete.
Now if you're taking the bible as the teachings of Christ then I would point out that it teaches many
things that are not compatible with modern society and moral values, many of which are not practised
or preached by most denominations of Christianity. The secular morals of society have overridden
the ones espoused in the bible, usually kicking and screaming and centuries late, but nevertheless
many of what you would consider Christian morals are in fact secular ones that have over-ridden the
immorality of the bible.
For a more in-depth discussion of why it is better to have a secular moral system I would recommend
watching this video (quality isn't great but its watchable)
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html
But basically it comes down to this.
If you 'own' your moral values, if you had a hand in creating them (as part of a society, morals don't
exist in a vacuum, if you were the only person in existence there would be no need for morals) and
it turns out that some part of your moral code doesn't in actual practice work. Then you can through
reasoned argument and debate with other members of your society, change those morals to make them
better.
If your morals are imposed from outside your society (in this case by some dead bloke who lived 2000
years ago) and you find out that some part of your moral code doesn't work very well...
Then you are stuck, you can't argue with the bloke who has been dead for 2000 yrs, you either have to
lump it, and live with bad morals, or give up and invent your own.
Now this isn't to say that the bible (or any other religious document) doesn't have some good stuff in it,
they didn't get everything wrong and there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
We have thousands of years of humans trying to get along with each other and work out how best to run
society, and allot of that work was done by religious thinkers. But those moral positions need analysed and
the reasons for having them explored and tested before using them. They can't just be taken on faith.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not sure whether I would agree with the statement that 'most' of his teachings
That depends partly on what you mean by 'worth while' and which teachings in particular.
But in general, I think we can all agree that most of his teachings with regard to morals were good ones. But we agree, because we already know them. We do not need to be taught, nor do we need to 'follow'.
Interestingly, I am sure even you, ignore those of his teachings that you do not already agree with.
were good.
Given that there are a good number of ones I definitely object to (depending again on
what you are classing as the teachings of Christ) I would have to see a complete list of
what is considered to be Christ's teachings (with good reasoning for what is and is not
included as a teaching of Christ, listing sources and so on) and go through and enumerate
those I do and do not agree with.
As such I would consider it a safer bet to go with...
"I think most of us would agree with some of Christ's moral teachings"
Until such evidence is presented to back the stronger statement.
It might seem pedantic, but I am not going to sign up to a proposition I don't have a
firm enough evidentiary basis for.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardFollwing your own dharma would be even better.
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by menace71The way I see it is that you can get all your nutritional needs from vegetables,fruit and grains. So we really only kill animals for the flavour, which is aquired over years.
Explain to us why eating meat is sinful? I agree inhumane treatment is not the best solution but for many meat is sustenance.
Manny
I'm sure the world would have no problem with converting to vegetarinism if there were no animals left to eat.
So the "good" here (the flavour of meat) is outweighed by the killing of the animal.
Or so one arguement goes.
25 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Dasa
[b]Your pet dog and cat is sustenance but you do not eat them.
tribalism. i don't eat my pet, but i eat my livestock (if i had any...hope to get some rabbit breeding going soon).
Each living creature is on their particular journey though the incarnated body they have received.
true, and if it's their destiny to be eaten, then they will be eaten.
No one has the right to end that journey.
correction, no one can end that journey.
Thou shalt not kill is very clear.........is it not?
it's clear if you accept it. but whose command is it?
Religion that is false will not induce any effective change in the person.........sound familiar.
all religions are false.
Only dishonest persons will defend killing.
this is a dishonest thing to claim.
Honest persons will embrace animal welfare.
animal welfare may require culling.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelactually that is not true. One can gain only the nutrients available in the locally offered fruits veggies etc... The Dhali Llama eats meat on the advice of his physician 9for medical reasons) and Buddhists on the steppes of Mongolia must eat meat if they are to survive, as little in the way of produce exists there.
The way I see it is that you can get all your nutritional needs from vegetables,fruit and grains. So we really only kill animals for the flavour, which is aquired over years.
I'm sure the world would have no problem with converting to vegetarinism if there were no animals left to eat.
So the "good" here (the flavour of meat) is outweighed by the killing of the animal.
Or so one arguement goes.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by DowardWhat if Christ didn't exist?
The creation story were a myth...
Jesus was not born of virgin birth...
Noah never built an ark or even existed...
Jesus didn't walk on water...
None of the stories were true, following the teachings of Christ would still be a worthwhile endeavour.
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him." Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian.
25 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThose directly attributed to him.
(depending again on what you are classing as the teachings of Christ)
Obviously if we are talking about the Bible as a whole, nobody agrees with all its moral teachings (though many fundamentalists will claim that what we think those teachings are is in error).
I certainly don't think Jesus spoke out strongly enough on some issues, but who could blame him? He would have been hanged much earlier if he condemned outright some of the Jewish laws and the prevailing racism.
I don't agree with most of his religious teaching, but I cant think of any moral teaching he gave that I would say was flat out wrong. If you can, I would be interested to hear it.