Discussion about Jesus’s death which now encompasses creationism and the second coming. Thread 2

[ZoggyStirdust]

Continues from here if anyone wants to

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5318577-to-not-understand-why-christians-think-jesus-died-for-our-sins?page=40&reply=143772264

Does not all that allow you to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself? How does that impinge on your logic, open-mindedness etc? And it is justice we need to care about, rather than fairness.
Open-mindedness is not necessarily a virtue, btw. One can be so open-minded one's brain falls out - not everything is acceptable or should be.

Belief in God is a belief. It is not subject to proof, as you will know, only knowledge is subject to proof. You have to find your own way, I cannot offer mine, it won't work for you.

But that is predicated on someone accepting the idea that there is such a thing as a state of sin. Sin is such a limited concept: it doesn't allow for many shades of grey and it is obsessively focused on the sexual.

The idea of a state of sin also skates perilously close to the concept that it is impossible to be a good and moral human being without a faith in a deity, and that is offensive to the legions of non-believers around the world who manage to be excellent human beings without needing a god.

It is perfectly possible to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself without needing a religion. It is perfectly possible to be just without being religious.

And I can't think of a single fellow atheist who believes that 'everything is acceptable'. We do tend to be opposed to all the usual things. In addition to little things like the oppression of women and homosexuals, as practised in so many religious organisations.

But what does this belief feel like? How does one know the magic moment when all is revealed and your belief is a certainty in your own mind? This is the crux of it - your belief is a choice, pure and simple. You are conferring on yourself whatever benefits that belief apparently brings to you. In which case, we can all declare ourselves God. But that's not what Christianity says - it says you have to believe in something external to oneself, only access it through priests and via a book, worship it and fear it. Which could all apply to oneself, but is deemed extremely arrogant, especially if you're a woman.....

Sin is not obsessively focused on the sexual. Sex is considered to be a gift to be enjoyed, for example, and the material world is always seen as good, as sacred. Sex itself is sacred and makes a bond between the participants which can last a lifetime. But we do many things that lead us to a state of sin. We turn aside from those we could sustain, we use the resources of the earth without thought, we ignore the plight of those who are persecuted, we blame others for our own faults and failures, we lie to ourselves and others...Certainly you can live a good life without believing in a god but where did the moral precepts you based that humanist life on come from? You don't have to believe in God, but the idea that humans are made in the image of God underlies our belief that all humans lives are worthy of respect and preservation. Removal of this idea lays us open to basing our values on feelings. Thus, we can say that assisted dying is a good idea, ends suffering, without understanding the pressures this idea puts on the old, the disabled, the sick, who may not want to die but can reach the point where they see themselves as a burden to be removed. That a life is sacred subverts the idea that someone can be a burden, or better off dead, at their very core. And that is a moral decision, but it is based on the idea that human life, all human life, is sacred. Which comes from the idea that humanity is made in the image of God.

Sin is connected to religion. As an atheist not something I pay any attention to. It’s a made up religious concept to control others.

Did you have any thoughts on the responses of those of us who answered your question about where behaving in a ‘good’ way comes from, if not from religion @Grammarnut? The concept of evolutionary cooperation in humans predates religion and can be found in parts of the animal kingdom too.

First, I am a Protestant, I don't need a priest as intermediary, I can address God myself. Other branches of the faith believe that a priest can help to open the channel for a believer, or that prayers to the saints can open that channel. All are valid ways of looking at the problem of reaching God.
Second, what does belief feel like? I'm not sure. Sometimes it is like battering a door which will not open and from behind which comes no sound - but still you batter the door till it opens, if it opens. Sometimes it's a fleeting sense of knowing, understanding, perhaps illuminated by some word or sight or smell. Sometimes it's a sense of certainty that will not go away, a settling of the mind, a sense of purpose.

There's so much wrong with this that I can't even begin, but I do have to pull you up on assisted dying. Last week, my cousin had an assisted death. He was Belgian, living in Brussels and had been living with an incurable degenerative illness for well over a decade. He was 48. Nobody put pressure on him. He made the decision and chose the time. The idea that life is sacred puts enormous pressure on people to continue suffering when it is not necessary to do so and serves no good purpose. My cousin made a moral decision. I will not have the likes of you tell me otherwise and accept it. Like anything else, assisted dying can be done badly. Canada does it badly. Other countries, my own included, do it well. Not perfectly, but well.

And let me flip your concept around: Man makes God in his own image. Flawed, fallible, cruel, capricious and unreasonable as well as good, caring and moral. I am an atheist because I understand that the world is a complex place that we must all navigate in our own way. There are moral codes and laws that we have in common because they keep human society working and in some kind of order. The idea that we need religion to accomplish this is nonsense.

I didn't say that. I said that the ideas of right and wrong come from reflection on what we believe in and if we believe in a God that intervenes in history. And organised religion has existed for several thousand years, being used to codify behaviour and give reason for obeying the rules/laws that make it possible for society to function. Before organised religion? Maybe people didn't know right from wrong, so it was ok to take women from the next door clan and to kill their menfolk because you could. Religion is an attempt to regulate life so that all can live together, co-operating if possible and with a code of conduct that means we are not all at each others' throats in order to sustain our lives and get and keep resources. As Hobbes said, the state of nature is usually nasty, short and brutish. Societies without boundaries are dangerous to live next door to.
Arrogance is an easy weapon to throw. Hobbes point was a valid one.

Amazing that us non believers manage to behave when we don’t follow religious rules!

The rules you cite are, of course, necessary for a society to function. However, the co-operation you say is built into us only extends to our own social group. Outgroups are not co-operated with. Ethical systems and religious systems were created to allow the in-group to interact with an out-group. And moral precepts are not the same across the world. What counts as a moral position to an Amer-Indian probably won't work well with someone from an urban civilization such as those in Europe. Some religions posit temporary marriage, some promote polygamy, some condemn scientific research. Most will say that treating other people the way you would like to be treated is universal - but it isn't, it's culture specific. Treating your neighbour as you would like to be treated is very culture specific and depends on the answer to the question 'who is my neighbour?'. The answer isn't always what you would expect.

Back to my earlier message of 18.05 - life is so much happier and straightforward for non believers.

As it happens, I agree. But the precepts you are talking about were first hammered out by people who believed in supernatural dieties and in relation to what they thought those dieties required.

What happens, though, when your moral compass is knocked sideways by events. Will you be able to stick to your principles?

But you do follow religious rules. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc are religious rules.

Of course - being a decent person has nothing to do with following any religion. Why would things be any different?

No, they are pragmatic rules that keep a society functioning. That is why they are there.

Take the prohibition against eating pork. Back in the day, that made sense because of trichonosis and its consequences. Now we live in different times and between technology and food hygiene rules, we can eat pork safely. The problem with religious rules is that they fail to adapt to changing times.

Obviously killing people (against their will) and stealing are never acceptable because they cause societal imbalance.

There are the laws of a country, upheld by the government and courts of that country. Punishment based on those laws - country specific.
There isn’t a religious court to judge the population.

Annnndddd... we're back to the 'you need religion to maintain a moral compass', with an added dose of 'there are no atheists in foxholes'.

It must be delightfully comforting to think that atheists who do not turn to God have wonderful lives with ne'er a hint of adversity, and that when adversity hits, they will come running to God.

Nope. I won't bore you with the little details of my life, but basically: been through it, still a good moral human being, still atheist.

Why can you not see how patronising the things you say are?

Civilisations lived to those principles long before religion came along!

One could easily make a case that it’s much easier to stick to your principles without religion, because there’s never a conflict between protecting the religious organisation and doing the right thing. As the cover ups of so many abuses by churches all over the world over the centuries would attest. Power corrupts, and religious organisations are no different.

Do you really not think this is something atheists go through and manage without religion? Awful and upsetting events? Times they are torn about what to do? Times where it would be easier to put themselves first than others or the greater good?

We are perfectly capable of sticking by our principles in such situations, not everyone needs scripture or fear of a deity’s punishment in order for that to be the case.