A Railroad Worker and His Son
On February 01, 2008 in Uncategorized
A railroad worker brought his son to work one day, to show him what his father did for a living. “See Son, pull this lever and the bridge goes up so the boats can pass. Push it so the bridge goes down so the trains can pass.” His son was excited about his dad’s job.Lunch came along and they were sitting and eating. All of a sudden the train-horn sounded, and it was time to lower the bridge. The little boy raced over to the stairs, and started climbing up to the lever. Losing his balance he fell and landed himself in the large gears beneath the stairs.
His father panicked and tried to reach his son. The train horn sounded yet again, and it was time to make a decision. Hundreds of people on that train are going to die, or his son is going to die. After a painful moment, he turned away from his son and reached for the lever. In tears he pushed the lever, and lowered the bridge. The scream of his own son filled the air.
As the train passed with the hundreds of people who were just saved on account of a horrifying sacrifice, the father screamed at the carts, “Don’t you see what happened! Don’t you see what I gave for you!” The people laughing, drinking, and carrying on to their own business didn’t even see the father screaming, or know of what he did for them.
The Father allowed his Son to be killed, for the many people passing by on the train.
God the Father allowed his Son to be brutally murdered in order to save us. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to believe we are in any form of danger - just as the passengers had no idea the bridge was up. Some of us cannot hear the Father crying out, because of other distractions.
So you’re saying, God is no more powerful than the railroad worker? How sad. If this is the God you believe in, I don’t believe in your Bible or your interpretation of it. I’d rather believe in a God who is so powerful He can save His son AND the train. I’d rather believe in a God who didn’t sacrifice His son and doesn’t kill people for their sins. I’d rather believe in a God that’ll judge people by their behavior, not their belief. Too bad no religion offers these, so I’ve chosen to be a non-believer, since the God that I believe in or want to believe in is hiding from me, he must not care!
Josh, ok then
Josh,
As stated in another post, you cannot match analogies up 100% with their real counter-parts. If I said talking to you is like pulling teeth, would you object and say I’m not a dentist and have no medical expertise to be pulling teeth to begin with?
God is orderly and logical. He’s not arbitrary or random. Do you think any legitimate Judge should let criminals go without dealing with their crimes? If somebody killed your brother or sister, do you think the judge should just turn his head and ignore it?
God has a system similar to our legal system established. When a crime is committed, it must be resolved. When a person sins, their sin must be addressed. In the Old Testament, the Jews has Sacrifices of lambs, etc. to cover their sins, but nothing to cleanse them.
For God to deviate from His established structure of righteousness to and let sinners go without dealing with their sin would be irrational and unrighteous. To release any criminal while turning a blind-eye to their crime is not righteous.
Just like the father in the analogy, it’s one way or the other. He cannot have both. And for God to be logical and rational, it’s His established way, or no way at all.
You cannot fault God for being rational and consistent.
God limited to logic, not logic created by God? That’s heresy in my opinion, but that’s my opinion, don’t listen to me. Keep believing in a God who can’t prevent His son’s death and needs human sacrifice (and can’t do it again), sad things to believe in. I’m happier believing that God can take care of everything and I’ll be happy to take his judgment when I see Him.
So God can lift His son from the dead (violation of science), but not prevent his death (is coming from death easier than keeping safe?)? Ridiculous.
I never said analogies have to match 100%, but the point of whether God is limited or has difficult choices is contradictory to my idea of God. Besides, God is also all-knowing, therefore knew His son was going to die yet let it happen anyway, unlike the railroad worker who didn’t know until it happened.
So to compare God to a railroad worker who didn’t see His son’s death coming, then couldn’t save him, is WRONG. God could’ve prevented His son’s death, so He is fully responsible for it happening. I do fault God, and He can argue with me directly, no need for you to defend Him (just like a just court’s Judge, he can speak for himself).
Josh,
If God can defend himself, then you can go to him with your complaints about his practices yourself. No need to tell everyone else about it. However if you do feel the need to talk about it then let’s do so.
First off I do not like the Train worker analogy. I saw a video on it earlier and thought it was out of place.
That aside it really sounds like you have created a God in your mind that needs to meet up to your standards. How can this work? You are most likely not the one who should be setting those standards just based on the nature of man.
If you do decide to come to the end of yourself Jesus is waiting for you. But he will not be there forever so if you are unsure of your stand ask him for help. If you are sure of your stand then there is no more point in conversing.
All the best.
God limited to logic, not logic created by God? That’s heresy in my opinion, but that’s my opinion, don’t listen to me.
Yes, God is rational and logical. He doesn’t act unreasonable, or illogical. If you are upset that the Christian God is has followed a rational and reasonable pattern, then you are more than welcome to reject Him. I’m curious, how can you logically decide that it’s reasonable to reject a God who refuses to act illogically or unreasonable?
So God can lift His son from the dead (violation of science), but not prevent his death (is coming from death easier than keeping safe?)? Ridiculous.
How is raising Christ from the dead a violation of Science? Science observes life starting every moment of everyday - how on earth is the resurrection a violation of Science? My dad died twice in his life-time, and will someday die again. Do you want to tell the doctors that it’s unscientific for him to be brought back to life after he’s dead?
I never said analogies have to match 100%,…
You sure had me fooled. The Analogy is suppose to paint the picture of a Father who loved his Son, but made a decision to save many people, by making a very big sacrifice. Those are the points the analogy is intended to convey - nothing more.
Besides, God is also all-knowing, therefore knew His son was going to die yet let it happen anyway…
Yes, and praise God for that! It was either we pay for our sins, or Christ pays for our sins. According to God’s rational and logical structure, SOMEBODY has to pay for the sins. Imagine a world where nobody was accountable - how great of a society do you think it would be? Somebody rapes a child, and no punishment is exercised? Is that you think God should have done? Is that logical?
If nobody paid for the sin, people like you would complain that God isn’t righteous or just, because he didn’t address the crimes and sins of the people, but instead just turned a blind eye to it all. What a horrible god that would be.
I do fault God, and He can argue with me directly, no need for you to defend Him (just like a just court’s Judge, he can speak for himself).
Evolutionists ignore the Creator. They commit the sin of attributing His actions to other entities. Just like the Scribes and Pharisees declared Christ’s ability to cast out demons coming from Beelzebub, so you attribute God’s creation to Evolution.
You cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a police officer. If you do not want me to defend theism against you, then why did you come here and begin these discussions in the first place?
Hey J. Sampson.
I heard a christian rap group that detailed a very similar story. The story is almost identical to the one you displayed here. Although there is bit more development of the people.
“I’m curious, how can you logically decide that it’s reasonable to reject a God who refuses to act illogically or unreasonable?”
Easy, my God can defy logic,science and nature, because He created it (you’re willing to say how incredibly powerful your God is, yet you happily limit him to logic when it’s convenient for your arguments) ! Yes, my God can make square circles, your God can’t. I’m not sure if my God can make a rock he can’t lift himself, but I’ll make sure I ask him next time he calls (can you?).
Wrong, I DO want to find God and I am asking him for a sign on a daily basis. What you say and do was not what I asked of him.
Yes, if people will complain whether God is just, and they can complain just like I do, so what? So looks like you and I both have some idea (some similar, some different) of what a just God is, I’ll wait for God’s word, and his judgment. I don’t reject God, I reject hearing from man about God. God is all powerful, so I will be happy to hear directly from him.
Oh I see, so you’re saying your dad dying twice and will a third or fourth time makes the equivalent of a Christ story? WOW, I’d have more respect for your dad who died twice and is still living, THAT is a miracle (wait, did he rise up 3 days later? Or withing an hour?)
If that’s true, everytime somebody DIDN’T come back to life again is too God’s fault, like your sister who was killed by a drunk driver. I don’t like to talk about these things, but I bring it up to point out how many bad things happen to be people for every good thing you can say. I am not complaining, I am giving you my reason why I reject such belief.
Evolutionists don’t all ignore the Creator, they ignore the Bible or your interpretation of the Creator. A judge, a President, an officer can always speak for themselves directly, it is only then logical that an all powerful God can speak for himself directly (actions are louder than words, but words are clearer sometimes). So keep making your analogies, you don’t need them because God is unique and all powerful, he can defend himself since he has all the time and all the energy.
Easy, my God can defy logic,science and nature, because He created it (you’re willing to say how incredibly powerful your God is, yet you happily limit him to logic when it’s convenient for your arguments)!
I’m not limiting God. I’m telling you what He says about himself. To say that I’m limiting God is like claiming a Mathematician limits Math because 2 + 2 doesn’t equal a brownie.
You are more than welcome to reject the Christian God because he’s logical, and rational. I doubt you will reject your accountant for doing your taxes in a rational way, or maybe your employer for paying you a reasonable wage for the work done. Funny how you will only take an absurd “I hate reason” position when it comes to the Creator.
I reject hearing from man about God. God is all powerful, so I will be happy to hear directly from him.
…which is why you reject the Bible (God’s Word), but believe Atheist writings (Man’s word about God)? How logical!
Oh I see, so you’re saying your dad dying twice and will a third or fourth time makes the equivalent of a Christ story?
No. If you read what YOU originally wrote, you claimed that Christ coming back to life was non-scientific. Actually, your exact words were “So God can lift His son from the dead (violation of science)”. I pointed out that it’s NOT a violation of science for somebody to be dead, and then be alive. Shoot, children become “alive” in their mother’s wombs, and dead people come alive after having died. Stick to your guns, and don’t abandon your arguments, please.
everytime somebody DIDN’T come back to life again is too God’s fault, like your sister who was killed by a drunk driver.
Sure, Josh. And it’s your fault that people aren’t hugged when you walk by them in the mall. In truth, Yes, God could resurrect everybody who has ever died - but why would he? They would only die again, and then what, he’s to resurrect them again? Continuing to do so ad nausea until the Universe suffers a heat-death, and then he needs to resurrect the Universe…oh, and then all of the people in it…etc?
I don’t like to talk about these things, but I bring it up to point out how many bad things happen to be people for every good thing you can say.
Bad things happen to people, therefore God doesn’t exist? That would almost be logical if you can find a teaching the the Bible that says “The Christian God doesn’t allow bad things to happen to anybody.” Then you would have a reason to reject the Bible. If you really feel that this is a logical position, then it’s logical for me to say “Good things happen, therefore God exists!” And my view is just as valid as yours based solely on that one flawed statement.
God can speak for himself directly (actions are louder than words, but words are clearer sometimes).
God HAS already given us His Word - but since you reject a logical and reasonable God who does things in an orderly fashion, you will never find your Savior.
You’re creative. I don’t take atheists’ words as my idea of God, I take atheists’ words as my reason and rationale for why it makes sense not to take the Christian position, but I will let God convince me He exists, not atheists or Christians or any people.
Ok, so if lifting Christ from the dead is not a violation of science, and it happens either normally or reasonably, WHY IS CHRIST’S RESURRECTION A BIG DEAL? It’s not a miracle then, right? It can happen again, right? Obviously it’s a big deal because it doesn’t happen on a regular basis, what else makes it worth a mention more than your father’s multiple deaths?
Oh I see, so you’re proposing to embrace death just because you think it’s boring to live again and again? You don’t think people should have the choice to decide whether they want to live until they want to die?
No, you read about people who claim to have heard or spoken to God, if that’s good enough for you, good. It’s not good enough for me, so I’ll wait to hear from Him directly, you can laugh at me in hell when you’re in heaven, I’m ready.
I will let God convince me He exists, not atheists or Christians or any people.
Ah, so how many books by Christian Philosophers have you read? I am just curious - you claim to be neutral, and not allowing either side to sway you to their beliefs, yet you seem to have only a resevoir of books containing atheist material…when was the last time you read any Van Till, or Bahnsen?
so if lifting Christ from the dead is not a violation of science…
You still haven’t told me why you think a dead man coming back to life has to be a violation of science…I’m waiting. If you’re going to affirm a statement, then the burden of proof is on you.
It’s a big deal in Christianity because there were 16 highly-trained guards watching that tomb. Christ told everybody he would be killed, and raised three days later.
you’re proposing to embrace death just because you think it’s boring to live again and again?
Nope. I’m suggesting you embrace it because it’s inevitable.
You don’t think people should have the choice to decide whether they want to live until they want to die?
Sure…if you can figure out how to do it.
No, you read about people who claim to have heard or spoken to God, if that’s good enough for you, good.
Claims aren’t good enough, Josh. Numerous claims from convergent sources with consistency are pretty darn good though. If 8 guys come to me from Miami, none of which know eachother and all say, “Wow…at about 8:30pm the sky was bright red. It was awesome.” I will likely believe them. I don’t need the red sky to demonstrate itself to me in the same way - I have the eye-witness accounts.
…you can laugh at me in hell when you’re in heaven, I’m ready.
Why in the World would I be laughing at you in Hell? Do you know what Hell is, Josh? A place of torment and punishment, created for the Devil and His Angels that rebelled against their Creator. It wasn’t even prepared for you, or any other person. But we are all naturally sick, full of sin and it gets worse the longer we live as we continue to sin. Without redemption and forgiveness (only through the Blood of Christ, as per a rational system of debt-payment that God has outlined) we will experience the ultimate end to Sin, eternal punishment.
Fortunately, Christ made a way for you, Josh, to escape that natural end to Sin. There is absolutely no way I could ever laugh at the idea of somebody being in Hell.
Good call, no I haven’t read much of Christian philosophers, try to appreciate this, but I read the Bible and look to people like you as examples of the best apologists, and thanks for pointing to me there is more. But that’s still beyond the point, for all the biographies written about Bob Hope, I can verify them or ignore them if Bob Hope himself speaks to me (but he’s dead, he was too busy when he was alive, and he doesn’t care about my belief in him). So again if God exists, I’ll ask to speak to him directly.
I thought lifting a person from the dead is a violation of science because it’s not the norm, but I’ll take it as face and fact from you, because it hurts your argument to say it’s not a violation of science. So the only difference between your dad’s death and Christ’s death is 16 guards? That’s all the big deal? C’mon! Otherwise Christ’s death and resurrection is normal and no big deal because your dad experienced too (more than once!)?
I agree, we embrace it because it’s inevitable. I embrace going to hell because it’s inevitable in my opinion too, I am willing to face my judgment for my actions and beliefs.
People shouldn’t have to figure out how to prolong life if God can do it already, so it really sucks God doesn’t help those who want to live longer.
So all you need is 8 people to conspire to lie to you, and what if they had a reward for doing so? Such as future centuries of moral people? Would them lying to you be justified? (I think so, so I think it’s not a bad thing if Christianity was a conspired lie and Christianity has had good results) Joseph Smith lied and made up his stupid religion, but I think his followers are generally very moral people and he’s done great good for humanity in result of his deliberate lies. I think it’s good to use Christianity as a tool to create moral societies, but it’s not the same as saying Christianity is scientifically, historically accurate.
Too bad you can’t laugh and you find such grief in even things I am willing to accept, that makes your world view much more miserable and pessimistic than mine. So whether I am wrong, ignorant or naive may be beyond the point. I am smiling and willing to accept what comes, like you said, embrace the inevitable, that’s my way of life. (try not to slippery slope what I said)
I read the Bible and look to people like you as examples of the best apologists
I don’t really think you’ve read the Bible, since you fail to understand the basic tenets of God’s Nature in our discussions. And don’t look to me as “the best apologist”, because I’m far from it. Like I said, get something from Van Till or Bahnsen and see where it takes you.
I don’t shield myself from the critics. I read most of the secular science magazines everytime I’m in Walmart or B&N. I keep up on popular figures like Dawkins and Shermer. I pride myself in following the opposite camp closely, you should do the same.
So again if God exists, I’ll ask to speak to him directly.
So I’m assuming you’ve concluded the Bible is NOT the Word of God?
I thought lifting a person from the dead is a violation of science because it’s not the norm…
It’s not the norm for a Universe to be born, yet it happened. Is that a violation of Science? “Not the norm” doesn’t mean “violation of Science”.
So the only difference between your dad’s death and Christ’s death is 16 guards? That’s all the big deal?
Dude, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Dang. Think about it, Josh, really, think about it. Suppose you have official decree from a man to guard a box, or else you will be killed.
All you have to do is guard it for 24 hours or so. Shoot, you can even have 15 other friends help you. If the box is missing after the watch, you’re all dead. To top it off, you and your friends are some of the deadliest box-watchers of your area.
Now, is it a big deal if somebody gets that box away from you and your friends without you guys noticing? Think about it. This is only the FIRST issue you have to address.
People shouldn’t have to figure out how to prolong life if God can do it already, so it really sucks God doesn’t help those who want to live longer.
Right. And babies shouldn’t learn to walk if Daddy can just carry them around all the time. Do you think about these things before you speak? Seriously?
God does help those who want to live longer. I’ve got Eternal Life as a result.
So all you need is 8 people to conspire to lie to you, and what if they had a reward for doing so?
Right. Dozens of authors from all over the world, spanning thousands of years, all got together and conspired to trick me. Heck, they all laid down their life’s too in order to fool me. Died excruciating deaths just to play a game on me. Saul, who once killed the Christians because a Christian in order to fool me! Heck, even when he was stoned almost to death he still got up, went back to preach, just to trick me into believing something he knew wasn’t true! So what was the reward every disciple, and their disciples got?
I think it’s good to use Christianity as a tool to create moral societies
This is what I’m talking about. Another red-herring right out of nowhere. Who said Christianity was started to create moral societies? If this were the case, the disciples had a horrible method of doing so.
…embrace the inevitable…
Fortunately, Hell isn’t inevitable.
So again if God exists, I’ll ask to speak to him directly.
So I’m assuming you’ve concluded the Bible is NOT the Word of God?
No, I am open minded, but my standards are high. Just as once you’ve decided the Bible is the word of God, you would not accept any critic’s word, because it’s the word of man (yet you will read from apologists, which are words of man, this means, we all read the word of man, but you pick and choose what you believe)
Ok, fine, if you think the deadliest guards are the big deal, that’s a fair enough argument. However there are two obvious flaws in my opinion, one is that the guards can simply conspire to lie if they knew the story had good merits. Second, tell people that Christ’s resurrection is OTHERWISE no big deal and your father did the same, see what they say.
Yes, I believe babies should be carried around if their father can afford to, and kids should be spoiled and never learn if their parents can afford it (so by making this analogy you’re saying God can’t afford to do all these silly things I’m demanding?).Your eternal life is not scientifically observed, that’s in your faith and wishful thinking.
The stories of the fates of disciples and Bible writers are based on the Bible itself, aren’t they? The fact people are persecuted and killed for their beliefs makes them worthy of mention and pity, but not evidence something is true, just that somebody believed it enough to die for it. Suicide bombers don’t make their religion true or their political agendas valid just because they lay their lives, do they?
I didn’t say Christianity WAS, I said it might have been created for moral models. Ok, so what would you propose as being a better method of creating moral societies if Christianity was a bad method (Please tell, we may agree even more)?
…you would not accept any critic’s word…you pick and choose what you believe.
When did I say that? If you want to have a discussion with me, stop assuming my positions.
…the guards can simply conspire to lie if they knew the story had good merits.
What about Christ’s death do you think the guards are prepared to die for? Now you think all 16 were secretly Christians, conspiring to remove the body themselves?
Yes, I believe babies should be carried around if their father can afford to, and kids should be spoiled and never learn if their parents can afford it (so by making this analogy you’re saying God can’t afford to do all these silly things I’m demanding?)
Actually, if you think babies should never learn to walk because daddy can just carry them, I think you’re an idiot. Sorry man, but that is the most absurd thing I’ve heard all day.
And you incorrectly assume that a decision not to do something demonstrates an inability to do something. Just because God doesn’t do everything for us means he cannot do everything for us? That’s brilliant.
I think I can tolerate another day of this nonsense before I stop wasting my time with somebody who doesn’t even think about his arguments before tossing them out everywhere.
Your eternal life is not scientifically observed…
Never said it was. Doesn’t have to be. Logic isn’t Scientifically observed, yet we know it’s trustworthy and reliable.
The stories of the fates of disciples and Bible writers are based on the Bible itself, aren’t they?
No.
The fact people are persecuted and killed for their beliefs makes them worthy of mention and pity, but not evidence something is true, just that somebody believed it enough to die for it.
The fact that a dozen men who walked with Christ, were willing to die horrible deaths for him. If they knew he didn’t walk on water, or heal the sick and raise the dead, why would they die for him? Give me a logical scenario here. Would you have died for somebody you knew was a sham?
Your example of Suicide bombers doesn’t work here. They are indoctrinated from birth to believe these things. They are molded as children to believe that if you blow yourself up killing innocent people, Allah will favor you.
The Disciples were grown men, who were with Christ for 3 years. Try convincing a dozen adults that you can walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, and eventually die brutal deaths for your Name sake - I’ll be back to check on your progress.
what would you propose as being a better method of creating moral societies if Christianity was a bad method
Christianity wasn’t a “bad method” for creating Moral societies. It wasn’t even created to make people Moral. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, “Without this book, you cannot be Moral.” It teaches the exact opposite.
When did I say that? If you want to have a discussion with me, stop assuming my positions.
You said that by asking me : which is why you reject the Bible (God’s Word), but believe Atheist writings (Man’s word about God)? How logical! What do I make of this other than the fact you are unwilling to consider criticism and reject it at face value?
I said, “You reject the Bible, and believe Atheist writings.” You think that is equivalent to me saying, “I reject Atheist writings at face-value.” Are you friggin’ serious!? Do you hablar ingles, Josh? I didn’t even mention myself in that sentence - where the heck do you come up with this nonsense, man?
What about Christ’s death do you think the guards are prepared to die for? Now you think all 16 were secretly Christians, conspiring to remove the body themselves?
Yes, or better yet, an author wrote the story altogether.
Never said it was. Doesn’t have to be. Logic isn’t Scientifically observed, yet we know it’s trustworthy and reliable.
Ok then.
Your example of Suicide bombers doesn’t work here. They are indoctrinated from birth to believe these things. They are molded as children to believe that if you blow yourself up killing innocent people, Allah will favor you.
Yes it does, so simply Jesus (or those who want the story) can brainwash the so called disciples (as early as childhood, who knows) and followers into believing if they die horrible deaths, God will favor them , or the religion will be taken seriously. Suicide cults who were brainwashed for less than years don’t make their cult’s creed valid either. The fact is people dying is sad, but it’s not enough to say therefore it is something true.
Try convincing a dozen adults that you can walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, and eventually die brutal deaths for your Name sake -
I can’t but I can try to tell them if they can tell a lie with me and tell people they witnessed all this, I’d become Christ, and they’d be revered as martyrs, then I’d probably get somewhere, EXCEPT, they’ll laugh at me and say “Christ already came, nice try”, the fact grown men today believe Joseph Smith’s nonsense and the story that 5 or 6 witnesses saw his gold plates means nothing.
What you’re really saying here is, that if Jesus was not the Lord, he’s a lunatic or a liar.
I asked you a question, So what would be a better method if this was a bad method? Or is it a bad thing to create or facilitate a moral soceity? Can’t even imagine?
What’s the opposite? With this book you can’t be moral? Or without this book you can still be moral? What good is being moral when you’re going to hell so long as you’ve not accepted Christ? What good is accepting Christ if you’re not going to be moral?
So basically you re-write Christian history, and then demolish it? Excellent! I believe they call that straw-man argumentation. But you likely don’t care about adhering to any formulated rules of logic.
Jesus was a myth created by thousands of people for no observable purpose what-so-ever. The disciples (although picked by Christ largely) were all prepared from birth to believe Jesus would be the man-god, and die for him (even though they didn’t come into the picture until they were grown men, when they met Christ). The guards were secret helpers of early-Christians and helped hide Jesus’ body, against the official commands of their politicians and leaders, putting their life’s on the line, and all they could come up with as an excuse was “Sorry, we all 16 fell asleep.” Meanwhile, Paul was out killing Christians and ended up becoming one after a false-conversion, and then decided he would die for something he knew wasn’t true. Not only would he die for it, but he would suffer several beatings and stonings before hand. Blah blah blah - this is the pinnacle of idiocy.
What you’re really saying here is, that if Jesus was not the Lord, he’s a lunatic or a liar.
Haha. Where did I say that?
So what would be a better method if this was a bad method? Or is it a bad thing to create or facilitate a moral soceity? Can’t even imagine?
Christianity wasn’t built as a method to create moral societies. The legal system was. Dude, why don’t you READ what I write before you go off on these irrelevant tangents. Nowhere did I say Christianity is a method of creating moral societies.
My conspiracy theory is idiocy if you’ve already accepted the story, yes. It’s simply a myth, fairy tale, or lie you’re defending if you’ve not accepted it.
You certainly said :“Try convincing a dozen adults that you can walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, and eventually die brutal deaths for your Name sake -”
Which basically means if this was not all true it takes a good liar, a few good liars , a good con artist, or a bunch of gullible believers to make the same story.
Legal system was created to faciliate moral society? Ok, thanks for finally answering my question. But I doubt you’d accept everything in the legal system simply because our system was created for moral society, especially when it conflicts with your moral standards.
What are you even arguing?
I am arguing that Christianity could’ve been made up for the good of society, since you seem to disagree, I asked you what is made for good of society, and you say the legal system. Ok.
You’re probably saying now that the legal system isn’t enough, lying to people a religion that’ll scare them into doing good might be better.
Mormonism teaches people to be moral, Islam does, Buddhism does, judging by the overall behavior of these people, I would say their religions are stupid, but the result is good for society therefore I wouldn’t criticize their religion’s role. This does not mean their religion is valid and factual regardless of how many people have died in the name of their religion.
a religion that’ll scare them into doing good might be better.
Sure, a religion that could scare a lot of people might work. But you have to first convince them of the tenets of that religion. The less extreme its claims are, the easier it will be for people to believe it, it would seem.
Christianity would fail miserably at scaring people into submission, since it teaches that you won’t be held accountable for anything you do, and that you will be viewed as perfect no matter what on judgment day if you accept Christ as your replacement.
How on earth would that scare people into acting more moral?
I would say their religions are stupid, but the result is good for society therefore I wouldn’t criticize their religion’s role.
Society doesn’t need religion to be moral, Josh.
“How on earth would that scare people into acting more moral?”
So are you saying Christianity doesn’t help societies become moral? If so, I agree!
“Society doesn’t need religion to be moral, Josh.”
Oh really? Can you name me a society that’s moral without religion?
So are you saying Christianity doesn’t help societies become moral? If so, I agree!
It can. You think it doesn’t? If so, then why did you say “the result is good for society”, in regards to religions today? How is Christianity good for Society if you think it doesn’t help people be more morally-aware?
Can you name me a society that’s moral without religion?
Does the majority of atheists in the world count?
Does the majority of atheists in the world count?
Ok, good, so we agree.
I do think Christianity, like most other religions help people become morally aware, but it is not a guaranteed path.
So I think, the only thing we disagree is, you believe being saved by Christ is more important than morality in the living world, that’s fine.
Okay, you contradicted yourself again. You said you didn’t think Christianity helped societies become moral (“you saying Christianity doesn’t help societies become moral? If so, I agree!”), and then in this comment you’re saying it does (“I do think Christianity…helps people become morally aware”)?
Which is it?
…you believe being saved by Christ is more important than morality in the living world, that’s fine.
Huh? What are you talking about?
“…you believe being saved by Christ is more important than morality in the living world, that’s fine.
Huh? What are you talking about?”
Why do you preach or argue unless you are trying to convert? Obviously getting people saved is important to you, more than the fact they are moral people, otherwise you’d leave moral people alone. Right? (or do you already and I’m just harassing you?)
No, I didn’t contradict myself. I agreed with you that Christianity CAN (does but not always) help create moral society, but its not necessary. And I said I believe Christianity MAY have been created for the purpose of moralizing society, but you and I agree if that were the case it’s a bad method.
You need to restate your question. You made it sound like we’re given one (Salvation) or the other (Morality), and it’s not possible to have both.
God created humans with a moral-compass according to Scripture. We don’t need the Bible to tell us its wrong to murder children, or lie, cheat and steal.
If you ask, “Do you believe being saved, it’s more important than just being moral?” Then yes, I do. Because being moral alone will not get you into Heaven. What’s more important to a cancer-patient, a cure for their cancer, or their ability to be moral?
Ok, then we agree.
You think salvation is more important than morality, but morality is still important. I just don’t believe salvation is necessary.
I think birds are more important than freckles too. Drawing this distinction is pointless - what on earth are you trying to argue in asking what is more important, salvation or moral-behavior?
I’m trying to argue I care more about life here, now. You care about afterlife, hopefully the only difference between you and I.
By the way, let me ask you. Do you say “majority of atheist societies around the world” are moral in the sense that
1. Just moral enough they haven’t killed each other,
or
2. Moral almost like Christians, but they are just not saved.
Just asking your opinion, doesn’t matter that much.
Nobody is moral simply because they’re a Christian. And nobody is immoral simply because they’re not.
Agreed.
So why did you even bring this up? What were you trying to argue?
I brought it up because I thought we disagreed, but looks like we agree more (and you’re able to see it, good).
And yes, I’ve linked your posts in my blog to show people our exchange. Nothing to hide, no shame, I stand by what I said, so do you, good.
we saw this video at our good friday service. a clip from the movie…do you know what the movie was called?
Kabby,
I’m sorry. I recalled hearing this story years and years ago, but wasn’t aware that it was part of a movie. I wish I knew the name
Let me know if you find it online.
Jonathan
Add A Comment