Stumpjumper

The article that was linked was titled Christianity and Evolutionary Ethics: A path toward Reconciliation. It is not a formal argument that results in proof for God's existence. It shows how the evolution of morality CAN be reconciled with Christianity. Not because morality has evolved therefore God. There are formal arguments for God's existence and as long as they stop short of saying "therefore God exists" I agree with many. That is not one and I have no intention of getting into a debate over it because neither of us would likely change our position.

"There is a sign of God on every tree in the garden that no one sees. The fruit trees are there for a purpose; just put the fruit in the basket." (Thomas Merton)

No BadBadBad. Philosphers have been arguing over God's attributes for thousands of years. For example, any PoE argument needs God to be omnimax to make it work. IMO, Plantinga's FWD works to defeat the PoE without limiting any attribute of God. But, it also does not matter because the Bible never explicitly states that God is omnipotent (by the philosphical definition). It is the philosphers who debate these formal arguments that change the attributes not the Bible which describes the God of Abraham. Personally, I think they just want to sell books atheist and theistic philosophers alike.

Well good (I don't actually call it holy but its on the cover)

Allright, you get the passage about turning family members against each other from Matthew. I already explained my take on that earlier but from Matthew the greatest commandment is love.

Perhaps Jesus was talking metaphorically about pinning people against each other. At least, that is what almost every Bible commentary of those passages written in the past 2000 years state. We are to love and serve one another. Look up Matthew 25 and you will see that when we serve each other we serve God.

Also it states that in 1 John that we can only love God and live in the light if we love each other because God whom we have not seen is manifested in others.
Again, the greatest commandment is love and we are called to let that guide all our actions. 1 John also states that God is love. I'll admit these passages in Matthew are a little misleading but if you also admit that Matthew lists the greatest commandment as loving God and the second greatest as loving each other and that in Matthew 25 Jesus says that by loving and serving the least of these we are loving God it makes the message that much clearer.

BadBadBad

I acused you of making a non-sequitor argument, we exist, we have varying morals, therefore God. Then you sited this article where I've pointed out he's done the same thing. The bottom line is that there is no basis for saying that there is a religious god based morality.

Non-sequitor.

And none of them have a clue how to describe a god that doesn't exist.

Yet you didn't explain or even respond to the fact that this "strongest" command is tainted by all of the contradictory messages of hate, violence and utter moral attrocity committed by the messenger of this "strong" command.

Perhaps the unknown author of Matthew was just a con man selling his snake oil cult? It wasn't metaphorical. The author obviously knew how his message would be received, and if history tells us anything about Jesus' message, he was right. The spread of the good news is inseparable from the spread of hate.

It's that way today. It's always been that way, and Matthew 10 said Jesus came to carry that sword. Not to spread peace and love, but to carry the sword of hate. It's the same sword God put into the hands of Moses and Joshua to hack to death the Midianites. It's the same sword the Christian Hutu Rwandans hacked 800,000 of their neighbors to death with in 1994. The Christian missionaries swept through that country in the 1800s and along with Jesus' good news and strong command to love came the biblically based hatred of racism and genocide. Matthew 10 is not metaphorical. They knew 2000 years ago exactly what would happen with the spread of Jesus' version of love, and they were right.

Matthew 22 and John 1 are simply contradictory to Matthew 10, and they are contradictory to a theme of hate thy neighbor and hate thy family and hate strangers that runs throughout the entire Bible. It's the reason that many have so much trouble accepting that the Holy Bible could even be called "the good book." You can get as many Bible commentators as you want, but the Bible says what it says. It represents 2000 years of attrocity, and you and all the Bible commentators that have ever lived or ever will live can't change it.

You can say it as often as you like, but love isn't a commandment from non-existent Gods. It was around long before Jesus and his ilk. You've provided no basis what so ever to have your silly concept of God take credit for that. If you find some big meaning in what Jesus had to say, that's fine with me. Had that message not been bundled with the moral attrocities of God (ie Jesus) in the OT and the contradictory message of hate in the NT, won't you at least agree that Jesus could have had a much more positive effect on the last two thousand years of history? If Jesus' message was such a pure and strong message of love, why are you left quibbling over quotes from the man saying that you must hate you mother and father or you're not worthy of him? Wouldn't your non-sequitor argument that we exist, we have morals, therefore God, if God's strong commandments didn't have so much hate in them? Wouldn't your argument be stronger if the history of spreading the good news didn't go hand in hand with genocide?

TomboyMom

Just trying to understand rhutchin You're not advocating a theocracy? You are not asking for a society in which the laws are based on the bible? Since you have already stated that the bible is the only reason to find homosexuality immoral, then in your society there would be no prohibition against homosexual behavior (other than those prohibitions which also apply to heterosexuals?)
So what you are advocating is a society in which only people who subscribe to some kind of religious faith are permitted, and atheists are excluded?
Questions:
How and why would this be beneficial? Please be specific.
To put it differently, how are atheists hurting anybody?
How would you accomplish this? Deport all the atheists?
Is it your unfounded, unsupported belief that religious believers somehow behave better than, or are better members of the community, than atheists?
The point of all this, you will recall from the other thread, was to allow you to prevent homosexuals from holding hands in publc. (yes, and adulterers, but since I am not an adulterer I am not much concerned with them.) How would kicking the atheists out of your society get you any closer to this goal?
You will recall that your position was that the bible is the source of objective morality and therefore societal rules. How does having a society with people who do not believe in the bible (Hindus etc.) get you there? Have you really thought this through?

Again, have you thought this through? Why would Hindus etc. want to limit themselves to laws found in the bible? If it's in the bible, and therefore a source of objective moral code, why only use those biblical rules that the majority agree on? Why not use all of them? What if the majority reject the biblical prohibition against murder, do you throw it out? What if the majority wants to keep the prohibition against making graven images, do you keep it in? What if you happen to live in Israel and the majority wants to keep the prohibition against eating shrimp, do you outlaw it?
Wouldn't the best society simply be that with the best laws, period, whether they are in the bible or not?