has the bible

Skeptics can do all kinds of things but if they miss their eternal life from a misapplication of methodology its a whopper of a misstep.

We can only ponder how the time wasted from applying the wrong methodology to spiritual matters factors into our eternal lives. If it takes forever to receive grace then we may never even get around to trying to obtain the 5 crowns mentioned in Revelation.

It claims to but you said you were a theist in another thread.

What type of theist are you?

I never said I was a theist, more of an Atheist to all gods created out of the human mind. The best answer to the unknown is i don't know.

what does any of this have to do with anything? You seem to have trouble with the fact that the threat of hell is utterly meaningless to a non-believer. You think we're missing out on eternal life, we think you're missing out on the only life we have (this one). All of that is irrelevant. No one is trying to keep you from acting on your beliefs, we just don't want you imposing them on us by trying to make us live by them. The argument is very very simple but you are dancing all around it:

As long as any religion is trying to impose it's doctrines on entire bodies of people, of whom many do not believe in said religion, they should be required to provide proof for the beliefs they want us to base our lives on. It doesnt matter that God said faith is the only way if you don't believe in the Christian God. In the absence of proof, you need to provide a compelling reason for non-believers to conform to your values, and your beliefs need to be justified by sources other than 2000 year old texts that you claim to be the word of God. If the only way you can support your beliefs is to quote from your unproven dogma, then don't expect people like me to keep quiet when you try to impress your values on us

*You= Organized religion, no one specifically.

What country do you live in?

I don't know of any country where religion is imposed today except possibly the fundamentalist Middle East.

what about america?

perhaps you aren't forced to be a certain religion, but the ideals of religious people and religious organizations are placed into laws, schools etc...

The U.S. has the first Amendment that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There's always been overlap between religion and morality. Religious institutions have historically been the only official teachers of moral values outside of the family.

Though now people want to follow moral relativism I guess there'll be no more authoritative moral standard. Everyone can throw out God's anchoring and do whatever they want. Now we'll all be able to pick and chose which of the 10 Commandments we each follow.

Native American children were kidnapped, taken from their homes, their family's and forced into Christian reeducation schools(camps). The first amendment did nothing to stop it.

I'm referring to the present to Claudius Galenus who said something was being imposed.

So who or what is being imposed on him right now.

You cannot judge current day morality by old standards. Any more than someone should hold you responsible for a crime you didn't commit.

read what he wrote again:

do you really believe that christians (and churches as a whole) are not trying to impose it's doctrines on entire bodies of people? Just because they might be unsuccessful doesn't mean they aren't trying (see prop 8 for example).

Fair enough. It did happen all the way into the mid 20th century though i think.

Nothing is imposed in the U.S. today but it's definitely encouraged in many ways Christian's wouldn't except if the roles were reversed.

How would you feel if asked to put your hand on a book other then the Bible when testifying in court.
What about swearing to another god or no god when pledging allegiance to your country.

would you care to back this up with a non-biased source? not disagreeing with you, but i'm shocked you didn't end these bold statements with a link of some sort.

unless you meant just in your little corner of the world ....

Oh my bad.

I was thinking Claudius Galenus was talking about church being imposed on him.

Yes there is definitely some Church groups active in politics.

But I'm about done with the fundamentalist defense threads. I find it tends to a closed discussion. There are at least 17 major denominations in Christianity (of which fundamentalism is only 1) and I don't think you can hold all of them equally responsible every time the Moral Majority or Right wing activists make a move.

Fixed my post.

I'm being sarcastic.

It would also be foolish to ignore those events and think they couldn't happen again. And you had it right the first time those were the standards of the day, our morals have changed. And that would be moral relativism...

I think its split. Moral relativism doesn't rule everybody and there are still theists around who wouldn't want it to.

I actually think there is some deterrence in the idea of a God and deterrence is a good force in the world. Though a lot of people argue it doesn't really keep capital punishment crimes from being committed I think its still a pervasive attitude that has value and how much and when is hard to quantify.

Dostoevsky said:
"If there is no God, everything is permitted." and that's a sobering thought.

The morals of Christianity have and will continue change over time. A good example would be how women were treated in the past compared to today.

As far as what Dostoevsky said. All you need to do is look at chimp society's and their morals to see he's wrong. But you never know maybe they have a God.

Or better yet:

"If there is no God, everything is permitted."

If there IS a Christian God, everything is still permitted. Free will, remember?

Yeah, but you will get a cosmic spanking in the end

Lol....they do have a God...same as ours.

Oh, whoa, hey Jib, did you get this one?

I think that you are confusing morals with society protocol.

I did not see that before. I have just been kinda skimmy this thread. But I just read it.

In light of much of the material that you have shown me I must admit that I have not given certain animals enough credit for moral behavior.

But really all this has done is shown that I am incorrect about the level of morality that some animals hold(I never claimed that there was no moral feature at all).

What this does not show is that animals are moral in the same capacity as humans, nor does it show that morality is an evolved feature.

But I will admit that I was wrong to the degree of morality that existed in certain animals.