🕯️ Traditions Can people of all religions be saved?

[dummy01]

I gave you the best possible answer i guess you wanted a scenario that she will kill her husband which is not happening in real life filling a law suit is more civilized approach.
No if you read your bible you'll realize something is wrong with this book it's full of contradictions I can give you a lot of examples of it if you want. Yes people are bad in nature (see Marina Abramovic's work) but thanks to religion they were encouraged to do more bad things (killings in the name of religion). Again if you read the bible you'll notice that god is not that forgiving person if you don't believe me start reading now because I already done that thanks to our bible class every sunday btw that's my point your own moral sense made you realize that what's written in your holy book is wrong

Edit: The only reason that christians is not so violent now compare to the past is because secular movements keep them in check in our society today

I don't deny there were bad things happened in the Bible. But why do you pay much attention to bad things than the good things done in the Bible? I'm not saying to ignore the bad things. I think it is important to know that. The Bible is not an exception to be perfect. I wonder what kind of Bible study you are doing to think like that and not to see the good things happened. Does your Bible study tell you to do good or it just tells you to feel bad about it? I hope it is not the latter.

And about killing in the name of religion, you probably mean the Jihadist. I have muslim friends who practice Islam and they condemned the killings in the name of Allah and maybe majority of muslims does.

you have a very big misconception of the word. that's sympathy not empathy. you understand her situation pero I dont think you will do the same thing she have done...kasi you have your own way of dealing things I guess. or papatay ka din kasi ganung ganun talaga nafeel mo??? oh my!

I apologize for the misconception between sympathy and empathy. But don't you think those are based on feelings? I put myself on woman's shoe and that is what I think and FEEL is right. What I think or feel might be different to you and it's subjective. Do you now understand the gravity of it when you based it on feelings (or your so called empathy)? It's terrifying. isn't it?

 

[m9soymax]

I don't deny there were bad things happened in the Bible. But why do you pay much attention to bad things than the good things done in the Bible? I'm not saying to ignore the bad things. I think it is important to know that. The Bible is not an exception to be perfect. I wonder what kind of Bible study you are doing to think like that and not to see the good things happened. Does your Bible study tell you to do good or it just tells you to feel bad about it? I hope it is not the latter.

And about killing in the name of religion, you probably mean the Jihadist. I have muslim friends who practice Islam and they condemned the killings in the name of Allah and maybe majority of muslims does.



I apologize for the misconception between sympathy and empathy. But don't you think those are based on feelings? I put myself on woman's shoe and that is what I think and FEEL is right. What I think or feel might be different to you and it's subjective. Do you now understand the gravity of it when you based it on feelings (or your so called empathy)? It's terrifying. isn't it?

I addressed the bad sides of the bible cause christians think their bible is a perfect example of moral values which is not and is because christians like to cherry pick only the good ones while ignoring the bad ones. Our bible study were just like your average sunday school were we cherry-picked only the good ones btw i'm a curious person i got bored so I challenge myself to read the whole thing which leads me to become atheist,. No i'm not saying i am a good person we all have our flaws and vices but I tried the best I can to always do good without thingking of divine rewards.
Remember the crusades, the reformation, the inquisitions, the reconquistas oh shall I continue giving examples of religious wars by christians not even mentioning ku klun klan not even mentioning racism by the bible and the list goes on,. I'm criticizing religion not it's followers btw

 

[Deleted member 830783]

I don't deny there were bad things happened in the Bible. But why do you pay much attention to bad things than the good things done in the Bible? I'm not saying to ignore the bad things. I think it is important to know that. The Bible is not an exception to be perfect. I wonder what kind of Bible study you are doing to think like that and not to see the good things happened. Does your Bible study tell you to do good or it just tells you to feel bad about it? I hope it is not the latter.

And about killing in the name of religion, you probably mean the Jihadist. I have muslim friends who practice Islam and they condemned the killings in the name of Allah and maybe majority of muslims does.



I apologize for the misconception between sympathy and empathy. But don't you think those are based on feelings? I put myself on woman's shoe and that is what I think and FEEL is right. What I think or feel might be different to you and it's subjective. Do you now understand the gravity of it when you based it on feelings (or your so called empathy)? It's terrifying. isn't it?

now I dont think this makes sense anymore. everything we do or everything the law tells us to do when we go back to the start are based on feelings and perceptions of what is right and what is good. do you think all the righteousness in the world do not came from feeling first, dont you?

 

[dummy01]

I addressed the bad sides of the bible cause christians think their bible is a perfect example of moral values which is not and is because christians like to cherry pick only the good ones while ignoring the bad ones. Our bible study were just like your average sunday school were we cherry-picked only the good ones btw i'm a curious person i got bored so I challenge myself to read the whole thing which leads me to become atheist,. No i'm not saying i am a good person we all have our flaws and vices but I tried the best I can to always do good without thingking of divine rewards.
Remember the crusades, the reformation, the inquisitions, the reconquistas oh shall I continue giving examples of religious wars by christians not even mentioning ku klun klan not even mentioning racism by the bible and the list goes on,. I'm criticizing religion not it's followers btw

Now, I feel bad to those people who teaches you the Bible. To make you only see now the bad things about religion and becoming an atheist. Very sad. A worse case scenario to a believer. I learned a lot from you. How will you now be able to determine between good and evil if you do not believe in God? You don't need to answer that. My guess is you would base it on what you think is good or evil (aka your feelings).

now I dont think this makes sense anymore. everything we do or everything the law tells us to do when we go back to the start are based on feelings and perceptions of what is right and what is good. do you think all the righteousness in the world do not came from feeling first, dont you?

Well, It's not surprising to me for you to make sense about my belief because what is important to you is your empathy (aka feelings). And No, righteousness does not come from feelings. What I think is righteous is probably not righteous for you. If I think killing you is righteous because I feel threatened to what you do/say, then it's good. But killing you intentionally is an evil act, and God condemns the act of evil. So what I think/feel does not matter to God. It's a leap of faith for me that God condemns any act of evil and not killing you is righteous.

 

[m9soymax]

Now, I feel bad to those people who teaches you the Bible. To make you only see now the bad things about religion and becoming an atheist. Very sad. A worse case scenario to a believer. I learned a lot from you. How will you now be able to determine between good and evil if you do not believe in God? You don't need to answer that. My guess is you would base it on what you think is good or evil (aka your feelings).



Well, It's not surprising to me for you to make sense about my belief because what is important to you is your empathy (aka feelings). And No, righteousness does not come from feelings. What I think is righteous is probably not righteous for you. If I think killing you is righteous because I feel threatened to what you do/say, then it's good. But killing you intentionally is an evil act, and God condemns the act of evil. So what I think/feel does not matter to God. It's a leap of faith for me that God condemns any act of evil and not killing you is righteous.

Simple the claim that we need God to provide morality with objectivity does not withstand analysis. To begin with, God would not be able to provide objectivity, as the argument from éùthyphro demonstrates. Moreover, morality is neither objective nor subjective in the way that statements of fact are said to be objective or subjective; nor is that type of objectivity really our concern. Our legitimate concern is that we don’t want people feeling free “to do their own thing,” that is, we don’t want morality to be merely a reflection of someone’s personal desires. It’s not. To the extent that intersubjective validity is required for morality, it is provided by the fact that, in relevant respects, the circumstances under which humans live have remained roughly the same. We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not divine commands. Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around

 

[Deleted member 830783]

Now, I feel bad to those people who teaches you the Bible. To make you only see now the bad things about religion and becoming an atheist. Very sad. A worse case scenario to a believer. I learned a lot from you. How will you now be able to determine between good and evil if you do not believe in God? You don't need to answer that. My guess is you would base it on what you think is good or evil (aka your feelings).



Well, It's not surprising to me for you to make sense about my belief because what is important to you is your empathy (aka feelings). And No, righteousness does not come from feelings. What I think is righteous is probably not righteous for you. If I think killing you is righteous because I feel threatened to what you do/say, then it's good. But killing you intentionally is an evil act, and God condemns the act of evil. So what I think/feel does not matter to God. It's a leap of faith for me that God condemns any act of evil and not killing you is righteous.

lumulusot na lang lagi ah when the truth is empathy naman talaga...our social contract...our consensus that make us do good and right. bakit, nung bata ba tayo religion agad basis ng ating morality? eh di wow.
and to tell you "right" things are subjective esp sa religion. when your religion tells you that's wrong, that doesnt mean wrong na din yan sa ibang religion and vice versa. and you dont have any right to conclude religion mo ang tama and theirs are not. balikan natin ang 'killing' na sinasabi mo, yeah for YOUR RELIGION killing is a SIN no matter what your reasons are. but for OTHER RELIGIONS that may be right under some of their valid and acceptable reasons. now youI tell me, does religion really decides what is wrong and what is right???

 

[dummy01]

Simple the claim that we need God to provide morality with objectivity does not withstand analysis. To begin with, God would not be able to provide objectivity, as the argument from éùthyphro demonstrates. Moreover, morality is neither objective nor subjective in the way that statements of fact are said to be objective or subjective; nor is that type of objectivity really our concern. Our legitimate concern is that we don’t want people feeling free “to do their own thing,” that is, we don’t want morality to be merely a reflection of someone’s personal desires. It’s not. To the extent that intersubjective validity is required for morality, it is provided by the fact that, in relevant respects, the circumstances under which humans live have remained roughly the same. We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not divine commands. Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around

I agree of you saying Morality is neither objective nor subjective because Morality transcends to human understanding. I also agree and believe that in order to be free, you have to control your desires. But Morality is not just a human institution for human needs. Morality exists because God makes it to understand and appreciate not just human life, but every life in existence.

lumulusot na lang lagi ah when the truth is empathy naman talaga...our social contract...our consensus that make us do good and right. bakit, nung bata ba tayo religion agad basis ng ating morality? eh di wow.
and to tell you "right" things are subjective esp sa religion. when your religion tells you that's wrong, that doesnt mean wrong na din yan sa ibang religion and vice versa. and you dont have any right to conclude religion mo ang tama and theirs are not. balikan natin ang 'killing' na sinasabi mo, yeah for YOUR RELIGION killing is a SIN no matter what your reasons are. but for OTHER RELIGIONS that may be right under some of their valid and acceptable reasons. now youI tell me, does religion really decides what is wrong and what is right???

I actually like to answer your questions but I will restrain because I'm sure you won't get it. The thing that you don't understand (or get at least a bit) what I want to point out makes me unhappy. Sorry, but I wish you well in basing your moral judgement to what you think is right (or your so called empathy). I wish society wont grant you power to judge what/who is right or wrong as it will bring more chaos to the world. That is what I believe (a leap of faith on me) and I dont care and it does not matter what you think (feel) of me.

 

[Luckymepoako]

..ang sumusunod lang sa kaloobang ng AMA sa langit ang papakinggan..

 

[Kaiztakaw]

Simple the claim that we need God to provide morality with objectivity does not withstand analysis. To begin with, God would not be able to provide objectivity, as the argument from éùthyphro demonstrates. Moreover, morality is neither objective nor subjective in the way that statements of fact are said to be objective or subjective; nor is that type of objectivity really our concern. Our legitimate concern is that we don’t want people feeling free “to do their own thing,” that is, we don’t want morality to be merely a reflection of someone’s personal desires. It’s not. To the extent that intersubjective validity is required for morality, it is provided by the fact that, in relevant respects, the circumstances under which humans live have remained roughly the same. We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not divine commands. Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around

...maybe you are looking at wrong way... There is a truth to what you say but it can never be the absolute truth remember if there is no standard morality from a Divine who basically knows everything...we will cling to our common sense of nessecities.. We go to our own selves of importance.. But people will always differ no matter what... If there is no standard values or morality... Things such as killing is a crime now can change into a good value in the future.. How? because we might think it is better so we will change it .. We see morality when it serves the common needs of all but by ourselves as human we can never do that we can only serve most or even just some of the people... Remember there will always be a cause and effect to every actions that we do.. If we don't believe in something that is supreme.. Then why are alive in the first place.. Why do we need to keep in mind the common interest of all...? Just live our liveo. s as we please... But know we know to ourselve we are better than animals who eats and sleep and mate and have children then die... We are thinking beings who do better than them... But what to think exactly? The common good of all? Or through what the standard moral thought us?

 

[m9soymax]

I agree of you saying Morality is neither objective nor subjective because Morality transcends to human understanding. I also agree and believe that in order to be free, you have to control your desires. But Morality is not just a human institution for human needs. Morality exists because God makes it to understand and appreciate not just human life, but every life in existence.

And were just going in circles
Let me ask you something what God told you that you have to kill your son? would you kill him? you God asked you to do it? in the mind of sane person of course it's morally wrong
btw I based this story from Genesis 22:1-18 Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

 

[m9soymax]

...maybe you are looking at wrong way... There is a truth to what you say but it can never be the absolute truth remember if there is no standard morality from a Divine who basically knows everything...we will cling to our common sense of nessecities.. We go to our own selves of importance.. But people will always differ no matter what... If there is no standard values or morality... Things such as killing is a crime now can change into a good value in the future.. How? because we might think it is better so we will change it .. We see morality when it serves the common needs of all but by ourselves as human we can never do that we can only serve most or even just some of the people... Remember there will always be a cause and effect to every actions that we do.. If we don't believe in something that is supreme.. Then why are alive in the first place.. Why do we need to keep in mind the common interest of all...? Just live our liveo. s as we please... But know we know to ourselve we are better than animals who eats and sleep and mate and have children then die... We are thinking beings who do better than them... But what to think exactly? The common good of all? Or through what the standard moral thought us?

It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics. Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.
I just have to add that Yew we don't have really have a special purpose in living other than spreading our genes but it's not necessarily mean you have to waste it. I think it's better to find your own purpose either being a good person or a total ****

 

[Deleted member 830783]

yeah we're just going in circles here and i'm like okay I gave up ahahaha

 

[Kaiztakaw]

It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics. Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.
I just have to add that Yew we don't have really have a special purpose in living other than spreading our genes but it's not necessarily mean you have to waste it. I think it's better to find your own purpose either being a good person or a total ****

...what a waste then... Well lets say there is really no God ...just an example...between me and you there is no different.. The earth will eat our flesh after we die then nothing... doesnt matter if we are good or bad.. Rich or poor who we were... BUT A QUESTION to you my friends... What if their is really a GOD then i spend all my life believing HIM... AND you spend all your life denouncing HIM.. Who is in a better position infront of God now?... Who will be doom? Who will be saved?...

 

[dummy01]

And were just going in circles
Let me ask you something what God told you that you have to kill your son? would you kill him? you God asked you to do it? in the mind of sane person of course it's morally wrong
btw I based this story from Genesis 22:1-18 Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

There are many interpretations about God telling Abraham to sacrifice (kill) his son Isaac. It's a dilemma to me as a believer. It does not make sense to ask me to kill (murder) someone to prove my faith. I will stick to what I believe in (again, a leap of faith). God condems any act of evil, and murder is immoral and therefore evil. It's beyond me to answer whether I will follow God to commit an evil act in order to prove my faith. However, in that story, I now know why God abhors human sacrifice. Isn't that why it was written in the Bible?

 

[hacklimit05]

Basta lagi lang natin isipin na iisa lang ang diyos, yung iba kase nagtatalo pa.

 

[dummy01]

Basta lagi lang natin isipin na iisa lang ang diyos, yung iba kase nagtatalo pa.

Not all people think like that. In reality, some people believe in many gods (polytheist). Some people belive in one god (monotheist). And some people do not believe in god(s) at all (atheist). It's actually good to debate whether one believes in God or not. What's not good (imo) is that when you believe in God but your actions does not reflect you really believe in God.

 

[God Rules]

Not all people think like that. In reality, some people believe in many gods (polytheist). Some people belive in one god (monotheist). And some people do not believe in god(s) at all (atheist). It's actually good to debate whether one believes in God or not. What's not good (imo) is that when you believe in God but your actions does not reflect you really believe in God.

may point ka boss

 

[Bojji Ackerman]

Hindi naman po sa nakikipag debate ako or anything...

search nio po kung ano pangalan ng Diyos...
Nabigla lang din ako nung bigla kong natanong ko sa sarili ko....

Lahat tayo may pangalan bat sia wala ? :'(

Anyways tama ka dian t.s. lahat tyo gagabayan at tutulungan niya

Di naman niya kailangan ng name. Tao lang naman nagpapangalan sa mga bagay bagay.

 

[God Rules]

There are many interpretations about God telling Abraham to sacrifice (kill) his son Isaac. It's a dilemma to me as a believer. It does not make sense to ask me to kill (murder) someone to prove my faith. I will stick to what I believe in (again, a leap of faith). God condems any act of evil, and murder is immoral and therefore evil. It's beyond me to answer whether I will follow God to commit an evil act in order to prove my faith. However, in that story, I now know why God abhors human sacrifice. Isn't that why it was written in the Bible?

kung sinabi sa iyo ng diyos i sacrifice ang iyong sariling anak magagawa mo ba ito?

totoo bang may iba't ibang pananaw ang tao? kung oo
sa tingin ko po test yun para kay abraham based sa characteristics niya test yun kung takot talaga siya kay God

kung hindi naman at iisa lang pananaw ng mga tao bakit pinapaliwanag ko ito sayo ngayon at hindi mo naiintindihan

 

[God Rules]

Di naman niya kailangan ng name. Tao lang naman nagpapangalan sa mga bagay bagay.

hindi siya bagay bagay