"Christians judge all the time. Instead of judging Jesus as not existing, they judge the atheists for being non-believers. Their faith is one out of thousands. It's not special, but they treat it as if it's unique"

True, Christians do judge. Not sure you can judge Jesus exists or not as judgement is more about decisions than believing truth or untruth. Christianity is unique- Jesus was crucified, He also died and rose to Heaven, He was a Jew and never founded the Christianity movement and he understood existentialism extremely well.

↪Athena
I don't know about Christianity but for judgement we need sound moral criteria and that's exactly what's missing or is highly controversial at the moment. — TheMadFool

Yes, that is exactly what this thread about but some of you word things better than I do.

Criteria- a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. How is a principle or standard decided? There seems to be studying a holy book and not everyone interprets that the same, or using logic. Now using logic is a problem because most of us do not know the rules for logic. Higher order thinking skills must be learned and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking. The reasoning was, teaching children to think for themselves results in rebelling against the parents and lack of parental control. That is a rational concern. However, not having higher order thinking skills leads to depending on the leaders God gives us and that is a huge problem! So now what do we need to do?

Education for a technololgical society with unknown values, left no agreement on how we determine values and principles.

Do you know of Bible quotes that give evidence of the Christian requirement for judgment? What part of the Bible are ministers using when they warn their flock about the heathens and pagans? — Athena

The Old Testament is full of references to the extermination of heathens, like:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded," Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Don't walk like a Gentile (heathen):

Ephesians 4:17-19
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness."

To be fair I can't think of a single religion that doesn't cast non-believers as something less than positive or equal. Otherwise, there's no reason to be in the religion. Non-Christians are "lost sinners", non-Muslims are "infidels", most others are "non-believers".

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol.

The Old Testament is full of references to the extermination of heathens, like:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded," Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Don't walk like a Gentile (heathen):

Ephesians 4:17-19
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness." — Ciceronianus the White

Thank you so much. So what is up the Christians who argue as though those quotes are not part of the Bible and have nothing to do with the Christian leadership of the US today? I never argued religion because back in the day that was considered very bad manners. But then Bush lead us into a war and Billy Graham told us God wants us to send our sons and daughters into war. That was presented as our Christian "power and glory" and the response was many small nations deciding they must have nurclear weapons. Moral, using military might for economic reasons makes the world less safe and it is a serious economic burden.

I want to keep this focused on the difference between basic moral judgment, religious, or the more scientific method. Yes, the Bible can justify war and persecution of others by claiming this is the will of God, and good logic is a more honest and higher level of moral thinking. Democracy is aligned with science. Our liberty and the liberty of others depends on science, not religion. The pandemic is consuming lives and making life difficult around the world, and going to church or political rallies without masks and social distancing is being part of the problem. That behavior most certainly is not the better logic!

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol. — Outlander

Independent thinking should always keep us a little outside of the mob, and when we are not in agreement with what the mob is doing, it is our duty to say so.

The truth is essential to democracy because only when we do the right thing will we get good results. Not because a god is pleased with us and makes this so, but what happens is the consequence of our action. We need scientific thinking, not religion.

We need scientific thinking, not religion. — Athena

What a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.

There's no reason you can't have both.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today.

I think the U.S. is exceptional as many here have accepted a form of fundamental Christianity, are more inclined to not just express but even to boast of their religious affiliation than are believers in other nations, and have historically felt the nation's interests and goals are those of God. They've managed to induce politicians to at least pay lip service to that view, and very few politicians, who it seems are craven by nature, will oppose them in this.

The view that a nation or a people's destiny are sanctioned by God isn't a purely American one, and many other nations have thought much the same. Nations have claimed God is on their side for a long time. These days, though, I think the U.S. is more inclined to think it's favored and directed by God than others. God, as far as the U.S. generally is concerned, is the Christian God.

Christianity isn't the only source of morality, however, and what's called Judeo-Christian ethics and ideals are for the most part derived from pre-Christian thinkers in any case. So, one doesn't have to be a believer in Christianity to make reasonable judgments, moral and otherwise. It happens that reasoning existed long before Christianity. But if you adhere to a religion which purports to be the only true religion, and which claims to follow the requirements of the only true God, reasoning is necessarily limited to employment in the service of doctrine.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today. — Ciceronianus the White

Technically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please.

It's all meaningless
— Gregory
As I said, it's fantasy
— Gregory
Thank you. Here it's clear for all to see you that your thinking is nonsense and mean-spirited. That, or you do not know what the words mean. — tim wood

If I may take the liberty to rephrase it for the good Gregory, he considers it fiction that is meaningless to him.

The problem with Christianity is not believing there is a God, the reliance on this God. The simplicity of this thinking and believing that is the best we can do is a problem. It is like understanding basic math enough to pass a test but not well enough to do calculus. Democracy is progressive, a constant expanding of intelligence, and requires more advanced thinking than 2 plus 2 is 4. So the thinking of Christians, unless they become educated in higher-order thinking skills, is too simplistic for good moral judgment and political decisions in a modern world.

If people are basing decisions on what they feel, instead of information, there is a problem! If they think politics are about their own gain, rather than the well-being of the whole nation, and considering global warming, the health of the world, then there is a problem. If they are avoiding becoming well informed because they think science is the lies of Satan, we are in big trouble. As Marx said, it is a problem of consciousness. The politic ramificantions are huge.

Christianity says the explanation of the world is that three people were given all goodness by reality. I find it a ridiculous philosophical tradition. Achilles may have had virtue, which since it was gained, would be superior to the God's

I don't have enemies. I argue these matters with academic interest

Gregory, I think Praxis has it right. But what he and I think we understand is in any case not what you wrote, or even especially close. And that has nothing to do with being friends or enemies, but instead to do with what you wrote.

I don't know what your getting at. I refuted Christianity

You refuted nothing, because you do not even understand the words.

Yes I do. Aquinas is fun to read but he is a sophist. I am concerned about people hiding their guilt with the Jesus story if I know them. On this forum it is an academic pursuit

It is enough for me that you called something meaningless that is meaningful for a lot of people. Not, then, meaningless. With that, and compounding it by compounding meaningless with fantasy, whatever you say is suspect.

Well if you don't want to learn that is on you

Learn what? Do you have something to teach?

I respect you as an elder but I have a few javolins which I know take down Christian apologetics. In fact I have many. I see no reason I can't use them. That gained virtue is greater possessed virtue is the fundamental tenet of my philosophical beliefs

I've discussed why Christianity is an immoral system in detail on this forum. My words are only for those who are interested in Christian apologetics

I'm no one's elder nor anyone's apologist. And you're welcome to your javelins. But come to grips with what you're being told. You can feel and believe as you like. But those are not tickets to join the discussion - any discussion. If you're going to argue, there are minimal requirements of sense and preliminary understanding. On this topic, you're not making the grade either way. Do better!

Just something to think about.. Judgement of sin divorced from its original context means nothing. Sin has to do with not following some of the commandments in the Books of the Law (Torah). Anything outside of this is some reconstruction done by various Romanizing forces that took the little Jesus Movement and reworked it into the Greco-Roman world where ancestral laws of a specific tribe of people didn't matter.

A better context would be found in something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPq0N-_hPyY

Judgement of sin divorced from its original context means nothing. — schopenhauer1

One can be one's own original context. Of course that means in many cases reinventing the wheel. But it must be that was the original condition. Now it's codified - for better or worse.

But you're talking about judgment. And to be sure you're correct, in any legal sense. But the legal sense is derivative of a primordial sense of right and wrong. In that sense there is always a context.

One can be one's own original context. Of course that means in many cases reinventing the wheel. But it must be that was the original condition. Now it's codified - for better or worse.

But you're talking about judgment. And to be sure you're correct, in any legal sense. But the legal sense is derivative of a primordial sense of right and wrong. In that sense there is always a context. — tim wood

Certainly judgement on its own yes, but this thread was about Christianity and its relation to judgement.

Which requires some care in explication. The Bible, e.g., is akin to an astronomy or physics textbook written, re-written, edited, and written again, without ever taking out old material or reconciling the old with the new. Christianity, then, arguably just most of the NT. The OT being merely a precursor state.

Besides and just for the heck of it, what do you say Christianity exactly is, or what it means to be a Christian?

Besides and just for the heck of it, what do you say Christianity exactly is, or what it means to be a Christian? — tim wood

I think the Bible is a certain people's mythological-historical-saga story. The original Jesus Movement was one branch of this movement with emphasis on Son of Man vis a vis messiah (look at book of Enoch 1-3), a mix of mainly Essenism with Hillelite Pharisaic thought. After death, a cult of personality formed, but was still mainly about following Laws (vis a vis the interpretations of the founders of this movement). After death, it was mainly headed by Josh's (Jesus') brother Jacob (James). An interloper from Tarsus came and his own ideas. His name was Paul. Paul started a movement which combined Hellenistic Judaism (see writings of Philo for example) with his own ideas. Son of Man becomes a sacrificial god-man for sins. This idea is already popular amongst mystery cults around empire. It can be relatable to all kinds of peoples, not just one tribal identity and history. Its all about selling the heads of communities so they can convert their brethren. Then when powerful men like the Emperor take it on to help unify East and West under one idea (Constantine), make laws to stomp out any pagan remnants (Theodosius). So yeah, its an amalgam of Paul, Church Fathers (people after Paul), and infusion of all sorts of Greco-Roman thought at the time (including Neoplatonism), into a fundamental ideology (Nicene Creed and bunch of other councils after). Its highly divorced of its original context and replaces the whole notion of what is the template for that one is judged by in the first place.

In fact, I think the nebulousness of judgement is dangerous cause now its anyone's game. However, you can argue that the divisions of Judaisms at the time of Jesus already had the blueprint for comparing different judgements. Thus, the Essenes can cry "Wicked sinners!" To the the pharisees and saducees in Jerusalem who were following a lunar-solar calendar rather than just a solar calendar which they thought was the most accurate (and thus most accurate in holidays for the right time of year to follow the holidays). Essenes can say the Pharisees and Saducees in Jerusalem were impure for following laws one way and not another. However, at least they all agreed on the very laws that were the judgements.

My conclusion from your post is that we can say Jesus was an enlightened person, understanding theology and philosophy. The part about his virgin birth and the authority given to the apostles are most likely added to the historical record. If someone finds Jesus in their heart, that is different from saying the apostles had authority to write the Scriptures. I associate more with Socrates than Jesus, but they are both solely historical people