Atheism, a dangerous idea?

In his exposition of the need for and mechanics of the Gospel, Paul in Romans, deals with a couple of natural objections that will be raised by someone who hears the gospel message of salvation by Gods grace only (man cannot do anything to enable his salvation like you have been told).One objection is "what about the law?" The gospel does away with any notion that a man can be saved through his adherance to the law. You see that argued against frequently enough here. Such argument requires insertion of ideas not contained within the gospel. For instance, Jesus commands: "do", "don't do" have the words "try to/try not to" inserted on front of them. For all would accept that one cannot obey these commands all the time thus "try to" must be the intention. But that is gospel-in-my-own-image-and-likeness territory.The other of the few objections that can be raised by the gospel of grace is "sure, that means I can do anything I like at all and still get into heaven". This is more or less what you are saying above. Paul has been expounding on the mechanism of salvation by faith and has talked about the assurance a Christian has of his destination (in Romans 4 and 5). Then the objection arises from Kongstad who has listened to this argument: At the start of Romans 6, Paul takes the place of you in posing this very objection to the gospel he is presenting:

quote:

---

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

​

The answer?

​

2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

---

Did you see it? "Died to sin". Look at his indignation. "Don't you know what has happened to the person on being made a Christian - have you not been listening to what I have been saying?!!" A Christian is a person who does not share the natural mans mindset anymore. Whereas before, as a natural man, he was an enemy of God (said Paul earlier) now he is a son of God. He occupies a different place. He has been adopted. This is not to say a Christian will not sin - he will. Desparately at times. But it disturbs him, he dislikes it, he wishes he didn't and takes steps to avoid sinning.A Christian has a very good reason to act morally (although that is not to say he will). Not to ensure his salvation - for that is certain. A Christian has come fully to see the ugliness of sin, the complete and utter depravity of all sin. Any sin. He has come to detest sin.There is no stronger motivation to act morally than for a person to detest sin. In comparison, the law or threats of the law are no match at all. As we all well know...Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I don't know who Penn Gilette is, but being happy and loving and so forth has got nothing to do with either morality or purpose.

---

"Your friends, if they can, may bury you with some distinction, and set up a monument, to let posterity see that your dust lies under such a stone; and when that is done, all is done. Your place is filled up by another, the world is just in the same state it was, you are blotted out of its sight, and as much forgotten by the world as if you had never belonged to it."--William Law

quote:

---

I don't know who Penn Gilette is, but being happy and loving and so forth has got nothing to do with either morality or purpose.

---

Er, sure they do.To love others and feel compassion for them are part of many moral codes.It is also part of many people's chosen purpose.

Well, of course one can make up any code or purpose that one wants to.

Like a moral code that involves killing people who you think are immoral for example?

Sure, why not?One code is as valid as another, logically speaking.

As I understand it 'logical' is as open to discussion as are 'morals'so you might be threading on thin ice there RR.Insanity, insanity - all is insanity

Is that intended as a comment on capital punishment? And if not, why not?

Actually it wasn't intended as a comment on capital punishment. I was drawing out the extent to which "any moral code at all" can be considered as valid and logical as any other - irrespective of which adjectives-unto-objective-evaluation we might attach them.I might just have easily been pointing to the moral which permits a burglar to kill the homeowner who disturbs his burgling. The burglar might hold the homeowner to be immoral for wanting to consider property absolutely his up to the point of preventing someone taking it. The moral at work there would be "survival of the fittest"I suspected Robin would agree with me. And he does.Just drawing out, thats all.

Does this mean that there is no Bible-based definition for murder? If not, then how can the prohibition against it be considered absolute? Especially, since God considers the killing of innocents (infants) tho proper thing to do at times. I would think that absolute morality rules would be well defined enough for anyone to be able to follow them exactly. By this quote you seem to be saying that killing or fighting is not to be done at all. It seems that a "Christian" nation should have no need for armed forces since they should always turn the other cheek. And how many of these enemies were trying to end your life or enslave you?

Wow, you can speak for everyone here, amazing. Well, thats just not true. I know what you called me, I am just honored that you think I can be so slick, when I am really not slick at all. It's pretty funny actually, and just another mark in the belt of marks where you have decided to attack the person, and not the arguement. Congrats.

IT is obvious that murder cannot be summed up into one rule. There are many different levels of murder, and manslaughter. God's morals are not physical ones, but ones of heart.Too many people in here like to refer to the killing of the OT, as if they actually undertand it completely.You pay taxes and support a nation that kills innocent people, and infants as well. Are you morally incorrect? That is exactly what I am saying. But that is not what happens. People say there are verses that can support that fact that we go to war, but I don't know what they are.Think about it, if we spent 100 billion helping Iraq, instead of bombing them, would the outcome be better?That is why I say I don't know what to believe when it comes to that.
Maybe my faith is not strong enough. No-one has tried to kill me, but there has been some tuff things to let go of.Should start a thread on defending yourself, biblically speaking.

quote:

---

Wow, you can speak for everyone here, amazing.

---

I never said I spoke for everyone.I said only what I know, and I know that many posters here don't bother responding to you anymore.Why did you change "many" to "everyone"?

quote:

---

Well, thats just not true.

---

I'm just telling you what things seem like to me.You write in simple declarative sentences. If we get it wrong, it's because you were unclear. If we continue to get it wrong, it's because you continue to be unclear.However, it seems to me that you mean exactly what you say, and that we understand you perfectly well the first time we read your posts.But hey, if you would rather be considered to convey your ideas so poorly that many people continually misunderstand you, then OK.

quote:

---

I know what you called me, I am just honored that you think I can be so slick, when I am really not slick at all. It's pretty funny actually, and just another mark in the belt of marks where you have decided to attack the person, and not the arguement. Congrats.

---

I'm not attacking you, I am attacking your debating tactics.I don't think that dishonest debating tactics arise from particular cleverness or "slickness". I think that they are a symptom of a combination of not thinking through all of the logical or factual ramifications of a position before stating it, a tendency to forget one's own claims and position in the midst of debate, and also a tendency to dig one's heels in and refusing to budge no matter what.They are a last resort; a grasping of straws, as it were, in debate. It's done without needing to think about it much; sort of like the man who says "It's not what it looks like!" to his wife when she walks in on him in bed with some woman he's having an affair with. Trying to weasel out of things occurs naturally, as a reflex.You just indulged in one above; I said "many" and you changed it to "everyone".Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I didn't expect you to "sum it up in one rule". What I did expect was that you could at least use the Bible to provide me with the limits of authorized killing. Some sort of line where it is no longer mere killing but actually a sin.
Perhaps expounding on the morals-not-being-physical-butl-of-the-heart statement would get us closer to this absolute moral standard that Christians have and Athiests lack.The killing of the OT is not completely understood by me. That's why I was asking you to provide some instruction here. Clearly, killing other humans is not always catagorized as murder regardless of their manevolence or history of bad behavior. So the question is still out there for those who claim that there is an absolute morality displayed in the Bible.What constitutes murder according to the Bible? It seems that if I want to follow that absolute law, I need to know what killing of other human beings would be labled as murder by the Biblical Standard. I never claimed the higher ground here. Of course I don't like innocent people being killed by our country's warfighting. That's part of war and is called collateral damage. If our soldiers deliberately killed someone and knew that person was a noncombatant then I believe those soldiers should be treated as if they committed murder in our own country. But if they were mistaken and killed a noncombatant then I think wide latitude should be given because of the grave situation that they were in.
I pay taxes because Jesus said I have to.

I would like to pose a question that relates directly to the question in the OP.Can anyone cite examples of where atheism has caused any actual harm? Not where it has been incorporated into some other ideology (such as Bolshevism), but where the idea itself that there is no God has caused any harm? And please don't cite Hitler, as I would argue that way more Christians supported Hitler than did atheists. I would argue that Christianity and Islam have caused way more harm than atheism. I am not saying that these religions haven't done just as much (or more) good as harm but that less harm has been done in the name of atheism than in the name of Christianity or Islam.