Speaking personally, I am a Christian. But my beliefs do not define me, my actions do.

Which was:"But my beliefs do not define me, my actions do."

Actions speak louder than words ever can. I try to act out my faith. But I would never say that any faith is necessary for anyone to lead a good life.

I feel that faith can provide a framework, an outline for people. Faith communities can provide a group, and foster a sense of fellowship. But faith is not a necessary component of a good life.

Does this suffice?

My faith provides a matrix, if you will, for behavior. But I hope I would behave much the same way toward others even if I had different spiritual beliefs, or no spiritual beliefs. But I will never know.

Are you a person of faith?

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something, or

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



My personal opinion is that definition #1 could apply to a non-theistic belief system.

I most certainly am, but only after said person or thing has demonstrated reliability. (Like my wife telling me she loves me; in 15 years she has affirmed that sentiment through words and deeds.)

As for the second definition, not at all.

By both definitions I am a person of faith. But I judge people solely by their actions, not by what they claim to believe.

The life and philosophy of Jesus.

in his entirety. A lot of things he the Gospels said he did were...questionable, to put it lightly.

I will stay with His message. Rather than, say, the crude misogyny of Paul.

When you pose a question that the religionistas tie themselves in knot to avoid giving a simple and direct answer to. They can't face up to the fact that all possible answers lead to a contradiction.

But the lack of response from the usual posters in the Group speaks volumes to your point.

as a believer?

Your pointless question still fails to answer the OP.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer such a straightforward question with a straightforward answer?

Mark 11:12-25

Wherein Jesus is an asshole to a tree that wasn't in season to produce fruit anyway.

Jesus cursing the fig tree must be read in context with the story of driving the moneychangers from the Temple. Jesus is comparing the fig tree to Israel. The tree has the promise of fruit, even as it is bare. The same as the Jews, who follow the forms of worship while actually worshipping money.

In like manner, Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple. Their conduct represents the appearance of faith, even as the reality of faith is ignored.

I hope this helps. Many of Jesus' stories must be read knowing that the context of the stories is specific to His times.

The Temple was too big, the changers were all around along the inner and outer walls.

Strictly impossible for one man alone. Even for a group of ten men. One would have needed a few dozens at least.

Mathew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,


The story talks about Jesus entering the court and driving out the money changers. I would think that there was a court specific to money changers and sacrificial animal sellers. But, not being THAT old, I never saw the court myself. If you look at the illustration, the two largest courts were for the Gentiles. Thee would be no reason to look there.

But the point I was making was that the story of the fig tree must be linked to, and understood as relating to, the story of the money changers.

This statement

And how long it would take to remove them, at least in the sense of removing them from whatever court they were in?

Historians say the walls of the temple were lined with money changers, small stalls like this:




Something like a rustic version of the shopping alley of the Shwedagon pagoda in Rangoon

Your comparison to Israel would only make sense if the tree was in season, and still did not bear fruit.

"Jesus cursing the fig tree must be read in context with the story of driving the moneychangers from the Temple. Jesus is comparing the fig tree to Israel. The tree has the promise of fruit, even as it is bare. The same as the Jews, who follow the forms of worship while actually worshipping money.

In like manner, Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple. Their conduct represents the appearance of faith, even as the reality of faith is ignored. "

Jesus spoke often of the appearance of faith, as opposed to the reality. When He compared the Pharisee to a whitewashed tomb He was not literally speaking of a tomb. But we both know that.

Luke 13:6–9 differs from the probably original Mark 11:25

The tree was not in season. It is unreasonable to approach it expecting fruit in the first place.

If there's any comparison going on with Israel, it makes no sense at all. It basically says 'I am an unreasonable asshole and if you don't live up to my unreasonable expectations I will ruin you'.

No believer would answer that question in the negative. They would stop being a believer if they did.

isn't the source of their morality, but they still believe in it because they have faith in their god(s) and religion.

long-time next door neighbor (who always acted like a very nice guy) told me one day that he just didn't know what he might do on this earth if he wasn't afraid of going to hell.

I thought that was pretty scary, actually.

I mean, I've encountered the same argument, but to be honest, I doubt there are that many budding serial criminals in our mist. More likely they have been brainwashed into believing they are "broken" or "fallen", that they are, because of original sin, somehow intrinsically bad people. I strongly believe that this is false. Actually the proof is in how he told you this, he's afraid of how he would act, why be afraid of that, if he were truly an amoral person without his religion, wouldn't he at least feel neutral about the issue. Why would he care how he acted if he found out he wasn't a believer any more?

a believer, but of course I cannot climb into his head and determine whether he is a sociopath or not. I can only take his word for it. He seemed pretty serious about it. He had a truly amoral wife who caused him plenty of embarrassment, so maybe he always thought about whacking her? I don't know.

or how they should behave except when they think other people's perceptions will interfere with their own goals.

Its a rather sensitive subject, and there's debate as to the source of such lack of empathy. But it does appear to only manifest in a small minority of the population.

eom

eom

One can be raised to be a moral person without religion and will become a moral adult. However life experiences can change ones perspective and harden the individual. They would still understand right and wrong but chose to act selfishly. I do not believe religion is a driving force in moral behavior but it can guide one to a moral worldview should nothing interfere. Most people ethically speaking know right and wrong. An ethical person is aware that intentionally harming another person is wrong. A moral person would not harm the other person. Some religious individuals would lead you to believe that without religion it is not possible to understand morality or engage in moral action. I do not believe this at the individual level but I do believe that despite all of the strife caused by religion throughout the centuries, the moral and positive aspects of religion have shaped individuals to be "better people" by passing down a legacy of loving they neighbor (for example). I think a more interesting question would be... would it be possible to be better people without religion having ever existed

-
Thanks for the philosophical question. I live for discussions like this.

If that makes any sense. From a positive perspective I gained a fuller understanding and appreciation for introspection, humility, service, a sense of community and something larger than myself. On the downside I gained a fuller understanding just how limiting a hidebound dogmatic approach to life was to growth, change and that larger sense of life that I still find so positive. Weird dichotomies that happened to hold opportunities for me personally.

And are there other sources from which you could draw reason to show restraint?

I could draw reason from the fact that I might face punishment if I get caught, but if I was in such a position that I was almost above the law or thought I could get away with it, it'd take a lot of will power to resist the temptation. Most people who've never been in such a position don't realize how hard that is. Power on that level, where you feel untouchable, is intoxicating.

Unless you are already in a position to consider yourself above the law, do you not think that fear of punishment already plays a major role in your restraint?

But there have been situations where I knew for certain I could have gotten away with something, and it was only my religion and morality that stopped me from doing it.

I'd bet it was mostly the latter, not the former.

If there's no God, we're all just making morality up as we go along, and that can change like the wind.

You don't think that the lessons of morality taught by your religion haven't changed with the winds of time?

Seriously? On what authority do you have it that the interpretations YOU choose follow are the "correct" ones?

And again, you don't think that those interpretations have changed over time to reflect the morality of the day?

And we're just making it all up as we go along.

Which would you prefer?

And making it up as we go along seems to be exactly what were doing.

Is there a text with laws in it? Do you follow them without fail?

because he got pissed off?

That's frightening.

that is following instructions and acting amorally.

My morality came from religion

If there's no God, we're all just making morality up as we go along, and that can change like the wind.

But faith is holding you back.
I'm an atheist. Nothing is holding me back except my lack of desire to do evil.

It's a totally subjective concept without God.

My concept of good and evil is based on the health and well being of humanity and the environment.

It's still as ill-defined as "evil".

That which keeps things stable and moving forward is good. That which destroys, harms, or hinders is evil. I don't see where God enters the picture.

On what constitutes moving forward, or harming and hindering. And there's no way to prove one person is more right than the next. That's where God comes in. Without God, there's just no way to untangle this mess, and we'll be killing each other over it for the rest of eternity.

In theory at least.

The difference of opinion is due to the difference of religion and to religious doctrine. Eliminate God from the picture and general consensus over what is good and evil becomes easy.

Good and evil are totally subjective without God.

in that we should treat others as we want to be treated. Note, this "Golden Rule" predates Christianity, Judaism, and has cropped up independent of religion in multiple cultures around the world. Its pretty basic, but basically, don't harm other people, or through neglect allow them to come to harm. We even have an instinct for this, empathy, which manifests itself in altruism, being a social species the most sociable of us were more likely to survive to reproduce, its "survival of the nicest." Combine this with recent cultural developments and it probably explains why we are living in one of the least violent times in human history. Also happens to be one of the least religious times as well.

God or no god, nothing changes that fact.

if you throw god into the pot?

Everything else is just someone's opinion.

Of morality being defined and specified by "god". And then tell us who gave your "god" the authority to define it.

What gives you or anyone else the authority to define it? If you dispose of God, all that's left is a free for all. So while religion may be imperfect, it's critical that we preserve it.

your rather ridiculous statement with even a single example.

But i give you credit for responding so quickly every time. We need people like that here since, well..you know.

May the FSM bless you. Ramen, Zamen!

Second, due to the first assumption, I would prefer to be treated equally with everyone else, and with kindness, not violence or selfishness.

Here, I'll give a specific example from my own life, and this happened very recently, just in the past week. So, took my fiancee to the doctor, on our way back home, tire blew out, pulled into a gas station to change to my spare tire. The only jack I had came with the car, the screw type, very difficult to use, pain in the ass, in fact. Started setting up, when a guy comes up and offers me to use his jack, which is much better, to jack up the car. I had the nuts loose, ready to jack the car up. We used his jack, which reduced the time to change my tire from easily 20 minutes to just a little over 5 minutes. I said thank you, he took his jack back, and we went our separate ways.

He didn't have to help, we weren't even helpless, or in danger, just inconvenienced, and my jack sucks, so what was his motivation for helping me? Is it to avoid hell or to please his god(assuming he's religious at all), or is it possible that he has been in my situation, empathized with it, and reacted accordingly, based on reciprocity?

Either back it up or admit you can't. That's what intelligent, honest, rational people do in a discussion. Trying lamely to make this about me is not an answer, so don't waste your time or mine on further such attempts.

If I get to the point of making claims about my ethical beliefs, feel free to question me about them. So far, I haven't.

Nevermore.

or to put it in a more modern context, otherwise the whole opposition to LGBT equality would evaporate. Religion is indeed a torrent of bad moral edicts. The ones that arent irrational or vile or idiotic are just common sense and would exist without any imaginary divine authorities.

time to put down the bible and start reading about this well covered topic.

Are you "almost above the law"?

And I would never have been caught for it.

Excuse me if I don't buy your argument at all.

This I truly don't understand, I don't go around, day to day, thinking about stealing or murdering, or even punching people, only to stop myself when I think about what whether God would approve. Even when I was a Christian, I didn't think that. The idea of harming people is repugnant, at most entertained in truly stressful situations, but never acted upon.

That's the only thing that stops them. It's surprising how quickly the character of previously normal people changes when you give them a bit of power.

If threat of punishment is the only thing keeping them from committing crime, then that threat has utility, but for the vast majority of people, such threats are unnecessary for them to be rational, moral actors in society.

That can restrain the sociopaths.

and observe, what might be more of a deterrence is social pressure and the criminal justice system.

After all, even a sociopath can use critical thinking skills, and considering the lack of evidence for the claims of every religion on the planet, I would much rather we relied on the threat of real jail-time to restrain such people than that of hell.

You're not even trying anymore.

And like most mental disabilities are more likely to be the victim of a crime than commit one.

Even if they behaved in the stereotypical manner why would they care anything about a god?

There's also the fact that the religious far outnumber atheists in prison. Plus crime syndicates tend to be religious, mafia, cartels and so on.

along with ethnicity, race or locality(neighborhood gangs), to distinguish themselves from others.

These attributes may or may not be gained through religion. More likely they
are gained through life experiences.