- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by OdBodI don't know what your question really means.
If there were no religions, and humans began to take care of each other purely because it was in our best interests to do so, would he/she/it be content?
But the beginning of the creation of man should serve as a underlying principle about God's motivation.
Adam and Eve were only commanded really one important thing.
That is to be careful WHAT they took INTO them.
They were vessels. They were meant to contain.
God warned them NOT to cantain the wrong thing.
They as vessels were placed before two sources of content:
"the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" They were only warned not to take into them as food this one source.
God did not give Adam and Eve 600 commandments.
God did not command hardly ANYTHING else with the exception to guard the garden and multiply. There was no religion. There was only two sources of food which could enter into man's being - "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" .
God's motivation was that man would take into himself divine and eternal life represented by "the tree of life". That is to take into himself God Himself to live in an organic union and blending with God.
That was no religion. That was just "life" - the uncreated, eternal and divine Life which is a Person, God Himself.
God's motivation is that man be as His Son Jesus Christ - the mingling of divinity and humanity.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by OdBodI've had people do that to me on all sorts of issues, I don't think theists have any particular monopoly on refusing to consider counter-factual scenarios.
It's as I thought, religious people seem unable to think outside their box. Still, that's one of the reasons scientific thinking is in the ascendency and religious thinking will in the end die out,as it has no way expanding beyond its dogma defined limitations.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
03 Mar 15
Originally posted by OdBodIt's as I thought, atheists are stuck in their ideological ivory tower; they are unable to look at the evidence from the real world and admit that atheism doesn't automatically make you a moral person - quite the opposite, in fact.
It's as I thought, religious people seem unable to think outside their box.
03 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueHas anyone ever claimed that atheism automatically makes you a moral person? Or am I misunderstanding you?
It's as I thought, atheists are stuck in their ideological ivory tower; they are unable to look at the evidence from the real world and admit that atheism doesn't automatically make you a moral person - quite the opposite, in fact.
And when you say 'quite the opposite' are you merely saying it is not automatic, or are you saying atheism automatically makes you immoral?