What the Gospel of Judas really says

[tommyjones]

Oh NO buddy. You don't answer my question with a question. I've told you why the Bible is from God, now you tell me the answer to my question.

it was written by a man, or men, just like ALL books.

 

[wxtornado]

Where does the basic concept of "right" and "wrong" come from to guide morals for a non-religious person?

Sympathy, social ties and need, education. No religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

 

[Marie]

God's Will, Man's Will and Free Will

Actually, the answer is a resounding "yes", the notion of free will is not compatible with an omniscient god, and *that* is what *you* won't accept.

God's Will, Man's Will and Free Will

http://www.gracesermons.com/boicebondage.mp3

Monergism :: Essays

 

[Marie]

How do we reconcile the fact that God is

I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Nobody is saying God forces anything, but how could I chooose A if he already saw me choose B? What choice to I have if the outcome is already known?

<CENTER>[SIZE=+2]How do we reconcile the fact that God is sovereign with the fact that he has given us free will as persons?[/SIZE]</CENTER><CENTER>by R.C. Sproul</CENTER><HR width="100%" SIZE=5> I don't see any problem in reconciling the sovereignty of God with man's free will as long as we understand the biblical concept of freedom. With respect to mankind, human beings are given the ability to make free choices, but our freedom is a limited freedom. We are not absolutely free. Remember, God said to Adam and Eve, "You may eat of all of the trees in the Garden." But then he added a restriction: "Of this tree you may not eat. If you do, you will surely die."

Now, God is a being who has the ability to make free choices, and I am a being who has the ability to make free choices. The difference, however, is that I am not sovereign. God is sovereign. God has more authority than I do. God has the right and the power and the authority to do whatsoever he pleases. I have the power and the ability and the freedom to do those things that I can do, but my freedom can never override the power or the authority of God. My freedom is always limited by the higher freedom of God. What is a contradiction is God's sovereignty and human autonomy. Autonomy means that man can do whatever he wants without being worried about judgment from on high. Obviously those two are incompatible, and we do not believe that man is autonomous. We say that he is free, but his freedom is within limits, and those limits are defined by the sovereignty of God. This is a simple analogy: In my house I have more freedom than my son. We both have freedom, but mine is greater. <CENTER>[SIZE=-1]Reprinted by permission of Ligonier Ministries from "Now That's A Good Question" by R.C. Sproul.[/SIZE]</CENTER><CENTER>[SIZE=-1]This book and others are available at Welcome to Ligonier Ministries.[/SIZE]</CENTER>

 

[This_person]

Sympathy, social ties and need, education.

So, again, environment. Taught behavior. In a land of 83% Christians, significantly more religious people of other faiths.... You're taught to act as religious people are taught to act, by the moralities of religious people, adopting them as your own. Thank you for reinforcing that point.

Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

You, once again, show you don't understand what I've repeatedly said earlier. It's not fear and selfishness, stick and carrot, punishment and reward. It's doing right because it's right, not doing wrong because it's wrong, to glorify those concepts. Period. Completely selflessly. Fear, greed, etc., do not play into doing "right" and not doing "wrong". They may play into learned traits of social behavior as you describe above (fear of jail or reprisal, reward of higher pay, food, sex, whatever - base animal instincts), but not what a person with a foundation of understanding right and wrong do. Sure, there are people who claim to be religious that act in a certain manner thinking it will get them into heaven or keep them out of hell, but that's not the reason a truely religious person (in my view) does these things.

You've probably heard it said that the true test of character is what a person does when they know they won't get caught doing wrong. This is the concept of which I'm speaking, with the knowledge of what's "right" and "wrong" having the foundations in religious teachings - not social teachings.

 

[Xaquin44]

So, again, environment. Taught behavior. In a land of 83% Christians, significantly more religious people of other faiths.... You're taught to act as religious people are taught to act, by the moralities of religious people, adopting them as your own. Thank you for reinforcing that point.

actually, I never learned any kind of morals in church because there were (are) never any solid answers about anything. Religion doesn't teach anything. It instructs you to have faith that it (religion) is correct.

 

[This_person]

actually, I never learned any kind of morals in church because there were (are) never any solid answers about anything. Religion doesn't teach anything. It instructs you to have faith that it (religion) is correct.

Then you went to a crappy church. Sorry!

But, my point isn't that you learned them in church. My point was that atheists learn their morals from their surroundings, most of which include how people around them act and teach others - society. A society that is 83% Christian, and some more of other religions (my guestimate is 90% religious, 10% atheists and agnostics).

 

[Xaquin44]

Then you went to a crappy church. Sorry!

well you know #### all about it, so you can bite me.

 

[Harvick29]

This Person - Whats your take on the Book of Revelations ? Isnt this quite different from other faiths ?

 

[Toxick]

Then you went to a crappy church.

That was out of line.

 

[This_person]

well you know #### all about it, so you can bite me.

I don't know about your church, you're right. But, if it you "never learned any kind of morals in church because there were (are) never any solid answers about anything", then your church did a very lousy job. That's like if you said you never felt any better or got any medical advise from a doctor, I'd say you had a crappy doctor. Your church should have taught you things, for there are solid answers.

 

[toppick08]

actually, I never learned any kind of morals in church because there were (are) never any solid answers about anything. Religion doesn't teach anything. It instructs you to have faith that it (religion) is correct.

Try to read the whole book of Proverbs and instruct yourself. We Methodists were exposed to that Book relentlessly, but It's true.

 

[wxtornado]

So, again, environment. Taught behavior. In a land of 83% Christians, significantly more religious people of other faiths.... You're taught to act as religious people are taught to act, by the moralities of religious people, adopting them as your own. Thank you for reinforcing that point.

Funny that. I wonder what church these babies went to.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Babies 'show social intelligence'

Again, no deities even needed.

 

[This_person]

Funny that. I wonder what church these babies went to.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Babies 'show social intelligence'

Again, no deities even needed.

"We don't think this says that babies have any morality but it does seem an essential piece of morality to feel positive about those who do good things and negative about those who do bad things - it seems like an important piece of a later more rational and moral system."​

She's saying the instinct to recognize negatively aggressive behavior might be a piece of morality later. I'm not sure where that thought comes from, nor if she understands the dictionary definition of morality, but she's describing the same thing you do. She describes a self serving instinct to recognize someone who can help in the survival of the infant. She does not recognize, test, nor in any way describe anything that has anything to do with morality. I do recognize where she describes it as a precursor to "rational" thought, but not "morality".

Evidence that babies so young show some social intelligence comes as no surprise to Kiley Hamlin. She said one message for parents is that babies are able to figure out a lot on their own.​

Preconceived notion?

Previous research has shown that babies in the first six months of life show preferences for others based on the attractiveness of their face.

But it is not until the age of 18 months that toddlers are true social creatures, and will cooperate with others of their own accord.​

Hmmmm

 

[fredcaudle]

Funny that. I wonder what church these babies went to.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Babies 'show social intelligence'

Again, no deities even needed.

"These babies are recognising interaction between other beings they are watching," he said.

"These interactions we can imagine are a foundation for social understanding but I'm not sure yet they truly reflect social understanding in the sense we would apply to an adult or older child."

Home... church... school... life begins at life. One learns what they are taught from parents and then as they progress in school (and learn at church for those who have parents that take them to whatever church - good, bad, indifferent). Early childhood development is the most critical time of life.

Observation is powerful learning. This is why the Bible instructs THE PARENTS to teach their children and this is why THE PARENTS are held accountable by God.

 

[tommyjones]

Then you went to a crappy church. Sorry!

But, my point isn't that you learned them in church. My point was that atheists learn their morals from their surroundings, most of which include how people around them act and teach others - society. A society that is 83% Christian, and some more of other religions (my guestimate is 90% religious, 10% atheists and agnostics).

and my point is that these ideals predated christianity so they can not be attributed to it. Plato's Republic was written around 360 BC, which predates the new testament by a lot and is contemporary with the old testament, and the whole disccusion in the book is about justice and what is the moral ground for such.....

Is plato equally responsible for the morals of christians as christians are responsible for the morals of atheists?

 

[This_person]

and my point is that these ideals predated christianity so they can not be attributed to it. Plato's Republic was written around 360 BC, which predates the new testament by a lot and is contemporary with the old testament, and the whole disccusion in the book is about justice and what is the moral ground for such.....

Is plato equally responsible for the morals of christians as christians are responsible for the morals of atheists?

I don't think so, and it doesn't follow logically what you said. I spoke of religion, not of only Christianity. There was religion long before the old testament was written and followed. Cavemen believing in sun gods was religion. Adam talking with God was religion, long before it was written down.

I truly doubt there has been more than 15 minutes of humans existing without religion.

 

[tommyjones]

I don't think so, and it doesn't follow logically what you said. I spoke of religion, not of only Christianity. There was religion long before the old testament was written and followed. Cavemen believing in sun gods was religion. Adam talking with God was religion, long before it was written down.

I truly doubt there has been more than 15 minutes of humans existing without religion.

thats all guess work

but what i said did folow. Religion comes from our inant morals and need for justice, these have been around long before your religion, which you are claiming is responsible for nonbeliever's morals.
I say that it is just as likely that the morals of christians came from philosppers who origianlly penned these ideas is stories.

BTW, there was philosophy long before the dialogues of plato were written.

 

[fredcaudle]

thats all guess work

but what i said did folow. Religion comes from our inant morals and need for justice, these have been around long before your religion, which you are claiming is responsible for nonbeliever's morals.
I say that it is just as likely that the morals of christians came from philosppers who origianlly penned these ideas is stories.

BTW, there was philosophy long before the dialogues of plato were written.

"but what i said did folow. Religion comes from our inant morals and need for justice"

For those who believe we evolved from something... this makes since. A believer's doctrine is that we are created from God. So our belief is that God created and therefore gave mankind the "law" (morals to many by definition) in which to live.

The argument is like the chicken and the egg... God being creator would have spelled out how to live and so "religion" (your word) would come from God and not man. Those who have deviated from God's plan make religion to their liking.

From a believer's perspective, Philosopher's or any other society and religion only borrowed from that which God ordained. Their religion (from those who deviated) would certainly not be the same, for it has to be modified to fit their belief structure.

Romans 2 defines this very clearly FOR THE believer. Romans 2:12-15 (NIV) "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"

Note verses 14-15.

 

[This_person]

thats all guess work.

On both of our parts, I agree.