Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Altruism: Christianity's Central Philosophy

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:18:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Definitions

Altruism " A philosophy that centers around the virtue of selflessness as what is morally good and selfishness as either immoral or amoral

Omnibenevolence " Moral perfection

Framework

P1. God is omnibenevolent [1] [2]
P2. God is love [3]
C1. Love is what is morally good (From premise one and two)
P3. Love is selflessness, or the desire for what is best for another individual [4]
P4. The opposite of what is good is evil
P5. The opposite of selflessness is selfishness
C2. Therefore what is morally good is what is selfless and what is immoral is selfish.
C3. Therefore altruism is a central philosophy to Christianity

Premise 1

God"s omnibenevolence is central to the teachings of Christianity. Omnibenevolence basically stems from two ideas of God; God is perfect and God is morally good. To possess such traits would therefore mean that God is morally perfect.

"As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him."[2]

This passage sums up God"s moral perfection. God is flawless, which would conclude that he is perfect. God"s way is perfect, which would in context mean that God is morally perfect.

Premise 2

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."[3]

Conclusion 1

By nature, God is both morally perfect and God is love. Since love, which is selflessness in the context of the Bible, is a moral concept and moral law set by God; love is therefore perfectly morally good. Unlike any other aspects of God"s nature such as his omnipotence and omniscience which are amoral traits, only God"s
omnibenevolence has a moral value. Love is directly tied to a moral value and the moral teachings of God; therefore God"s omnibenevolence is love.
God doesn"t possess perfect love, God is perfect love. It can therefore be concluded that since God is both morally perfect and God is love, that love is therefore morally perfect.

God"s omnibenevolence is not to be interchanged with any of his other traits. For example, my opponent cannot attempt to refute this by stating that "God is also omnipotent, but that does not mean omnipotence is morally perfect." This is an illogical statement because only God"s omnibenevolence holds moral value, while his other traits are essentially amoral, just as it is amoral that I have brown hair.

Premise 3

Central to the teachings of Jesus is love, used in the context of selflessness.
Jesus states that one of the greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus answers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that in order to inherit eternal life one must love their neighbor. He goes on to explain a story of a Samaritan who finds a beaten man on the street and takes care of him using his food and medical supplies, then taking him to an inn to be taken care of.

" On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered, ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself.""
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have."
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."[5]

In addition to this, the Bible teaches that God exists within all of us. Since God is love, any act of love is an act which brings God into our world. Scripture states, "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'" [6] This simply puts more importance on Jesus" teaching that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

Premise 4, 5, and Conclusion 2

This is in context of Biblical moral teaching:

Good----------------------------------------Amoral----------------------------------------Evil
Saving a Life Not Taking a Moral Action Taking a Life
Stealing Not Taking a Moral Action Giving
Selflessness Amoral Selfishness (Feeding yourself) Selfishness

It is important not to confuse amoral selfishness with immoral selfishness. Amoral selfishness are acts taken in order to satisfy one"s needs without overindulgence. Feeding yourself, buying clothes, or even buying yourself a nice chair aren"t immoral even though you could turn the amoral selfish act into an act of selflessness. For example, instead of buying clothes for yourself you could buy clothes for a homeless person. It is not immoral that you satisfy your own needs, but it would be morally good to instead buy clothes for someone else. Immoral selfishness however, would be like murdering someone in order to satisfy your desire to murder, or stealing because you desire someone else"s goods.

This holds up when backed by Christian theology. It has already been established that love is morally perfect and that love is selflessness. Since the opposite of selflessness is selfishness then selflessness is therefore morally good and selfishness is immoral (or amoral).

Conclusion 3

This conclusion holds true by the support of all other premises and conclusions.

[1] http://biblehub.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] http://biblehub.com...
Nolite Timere
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:14:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 9:05:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Bump. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I think Christianity is all about selfishness. It's about worshiping a God who would subject people to eternal torment, merely for disbelieving he exists, even though he refuses to provide objective evidence of his existence.

Anyone who would worship such a God simply to save their own skin while dismissing the billions of souls who they believe would be suffering indescribably, throughout eternity, is perhaps the worst measure of selfishness possible.

Christianity is also about ego. It's about being a very small part of an ecosystem on a small planet, in a small solar system, in one of several hundred billion galaxies, looking at it all and saying... "all of this was made for me". It's analogous to a bacterium in the pore of a bit of chicken skin in the back of your refrigerator deciding that the chicken, the shelf, the refrigerator, the kitchen and the house were all "created" just so that the bacterium and it's offspring could survive.

Christianity is about selfishness and conceit.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here goes...

P1. God is omnibenevolent [1] [2]
P2. God is love [3]
C1. Love is what is morally good (From premise one and two)

Non sequitur. A trivial reducio ad absurdum:
P1) The Moon is round
P2) The moon is shiny
C) What is shiny is round

P3. Love is selflessness, or the desire for what is best for another individual [4]
P4. The opposite of what is good is evil
P5. The opposite of selflessness is selfishness
C2. Therefore what is morally good is what is selfless and what is immoral is selfish.
C3. Therefore altruism is a central philosophy to Christianity

None of this connects?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 9:32:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
Here goes...

P1. God is omnibenevolent [1] [2]
P2. God is love [3]
C1. Love is what is morally good (From premise one and two)

Non sequitur. A trivial reducio ad absurdum:
P1) The Moon is round
P2) The moon is shiny
C) What is shiny is round

I'm not particularly familiar with formal logic. Could you please specifically apply this to the above?

Also I think it may make more sense if you read the arguments defending these premises.

P3. Love is selflessness, or the desire for what is best for another individual [4]
P4. The opposite of what is good is evil
P5. The opposite of selflessness is selfishness
C2. Therefore what is morally good is what is selfless and what is immoral is selfish.
C3. Therefore altruism is a central philosophy to Christianity

None of this connects?

The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.
Nolite Timere
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 12:00:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.

Your replies are based on ignorance and are simply wrong. You don't posses a true understanding of the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Christianity and instead your responses are based off of some kind of misconception of all three of those things.

It is literally impossible to characterize a Christian as selfish, because by definition Christians must embody the concept of love which is inherently selfless.
Nolite Timere
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 12:06:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.


Selfish and egotistical. You talking about Atheist?

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".


Can I pick one or two Atheist and use them to villainize all Atheist? Pol Pot much?

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.


I hate God whining. Subjective morals mean you can not make a claim about some god being tyrannical or monstrous for excising it's authority.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.

No I think the universe is for many species.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:37:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 12:00:48 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.

Your replies are based on ignorance and are simply wrong. You don't posses a true understanding of the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Christianity and instead your responses are based off of some kind of misconception of all three of those things.
Or... YOUR response is based on ignorance and YOU are simply wrong. And since the evidence is on my side, it would appear more probable that you are the one at fault. As has been shown to be typical with atheists/agnostics,, my understanding of Christianity, the Bible, their origins and histories are superior to that of most Christians. When a small lizard stands his ground on a rock, puffing up to appear larger than he is, and tries to bluff his way past a hungry bobcat... he ends up being lunch. I would advise you against making the same mistake. Proclaiming greater knowledge simply because you disagree with my assessment only makes you appear very foolish. You have no idea how much I do an don't know about your religion. You only know that you disagree with my assessment.

So to start, let's agree that we disagree and we'll let the outcome of intellectual discourse determine which one of us is correct. Not to point any fingers; but I've yet to see a Christian who offers an unbiased assessment of their own beliefs. The same can likely be said of all atheists.

It is literally impossible to characterize a Christian as selfish, because by definition Christians must embody the concept of love which is inherently selfless.
Shall we count the number of people who end up in prison over matters of love? Love is an emotion. It's an evolutionary adaptation which improves the likelihood of survival by motivating individuals to band together against a common foe, despite the obvious threat to one's personal welfare. And this can result in one throwing themselves into fatal peril to save a loved one, as easily as it can result in someone committing murder in defense of a loved one.

For God so loved the world... that he subjected his only begotten son to unspeakable torture, humiliation and death... and accomplished absolutely nothing.

Let's have a look at Mike. He serves as a decent example. Mike has an older brother who is known to friends as a very benevolent character. His older brother's name is "Paul". Mike is also friends with Alfred, and Alfred is a very successful politician, who is openly embraced by the Christians in his country. But Alfred has taken to treating segments of the population unfairly. He subjects them to persecution and worse. One might expect that since Paul and Mike are both known as very responsible and benevolent people, that they wouldn't speak well of Alfred, wouldn't associate with him, and would work to expose Alfred to the public as being rather "evil". But Mike doesn't do this. Mike is afraid of what Alfred might do to him if he speaks negatively of him. So he maintains his friendship, accepts his hospitality even when Alfred is hidden away in one of his lush resorts, and even tells everyone he knows that Alfred is a great guy.

Eventually Alfred's horrible deeds are exposed to enough people that he is openly opposed, defeated and removed from public office. Now Mike changes his story. He now claims that Alfred was a horrible man, and claims that he opposed his actions. Paul joins with Mike and now claims that he never approved of Alfred, despite providing him with a personal congratulatory message when Alfred escaped from an attempt to remove him from office.

Questions:
1. Are Mike's actions selfish, or selfless?

2. Are Paul's actions selfish or selfless?

Please answer these two questions and then I'll fill you in on the rest of the story.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/14/2014 12:00:48 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.

Your replies are based on ignorance and are simply wrong. You don't posses a true understanding of the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Christianity and instead your responses are based off of some kind of misconception of all three of those things.
Or... YOUR response is based on ignorance and YOU are simply wrong. And since the evidence is on my side, it would appear more probable that you are the one at fault. As has been shown to be typical with atheists/agnostics,, my understanding of Christianity, the Bible, their origins and histories are superior to that of most Christians. When a small lizard stands his ground on a rock, puffing up to appear larger than he is, and tries to bluff his way past a hungry bobcat... he ends up being lunch. I would advise you against making the same mistake. Proclaiming greater knowledge simply because you disagree with my assessment only makes you appear very foolish. You have no idea how much I do an don't know about your religion. You only know that you disagree with my assessment.

So to start, let's agree that we disagree and we'll let the outcome of intellectual discourse determine which one of us is correct. Not to point any fingers; but I've yet to see a Christian who offers an unbiased assessment of their own beliefs. The same can likely be said of all atheists.


It is literally impossible to characterize a Christian as selfish, because by definition Christians must embody the concept of love which is inherently selfless.
Shall we count the number of people who end up in prison over matters of love? Love is an emotion. It's an evolutionary adaptation which improves the likelihood of survival by motivating individuals to band together against a common foe, despite the obvious threat to one's personal welfare. And this can result in one throwing themselves into fatal peril to save a loved one, as easily as it can result in someone committing murder in defense of a loved one.


That sounds like a motivator of war.

For God so loved the world... that he subjected his only begotten son to unspeakable torture, humiliation and death... and accomplished absolutely nothing.


If Jesus was Savior, that would be absolutely nothing for you. not others. I help move my friends into a new apartment. Well that would be worthless to you would it not. But to my friends that know me, what I accomplish for them is valued.

Let's have a look at Mike. He serves as a decent example. Mike has an older brother who is known to friends as a very benevolent character. His older brother's name is "Paul". Mike is also friends with Alfred, and Alfred is a very successful politician, who is openly embraced by the Christians in his country. But Alfred has taken to treating segments of the population unfairly. He subjects them to persecution and worse. One might expect that since Paul and Mike are both known as very responsible and benevolent people, that they wouldn't speak well of Alfred, wouldn't associate with him, and would work to expose Alfred to the public as being rather "evil". But Mike doesn't do this. Mike is afraid of what Alfred might do to him if he speaks negatively of him. So he maintains his friendship, accepts his hospitality even when Alfred is hidden away in one of his lush resorts, and even tells everyone he knows that Alfred is a great guy.

Eventually Alfred's horrible deeds are exposed to enough people that he is openly opposed, defeated and removed from public office. Now Mike changes his story. He now claims that Alfred was a horrible man, and claims that he opposed his actions. Paul joins with Mike and now claims that he never approved of Alfred, despite providing him with a personal congratulatory message when Alfred escaped from an attempt to remove him from office.

Questions:
1. Are Mike's actions selfish, or selfless?

2. Are Paul's actions selfish or selfless?

Please answer these two questions and then I'll fill you in on the rest of the story.

Your Hitler is supported by a Catholic friend is cherry picking from history.

I knew this guy named Pol. Now he did not think there was any god or gods. Now a lot of people liked Pol and followed him. Especially because he was well educated. Went to school in France and learned electronics. A bunch of stuff his average countryman did not know.

Pol read a bunch of secular literature. And wanted to establish a secular government free from the "terror" of religion.

So he took over Cambodia and killed people with glasses, education, forced city dwellers to move to farms, and establish a total dictatorship. Like most people who are anti-theist and secular, Pol was a butcher of human life. He was an Atheist and established the dream government free from religion and religious people. Completely secular. Oh how I wish there was such an ideal country to send Beastt to. He would love it.

So is Pol Pot actions selfish or selfless?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:18:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Definitions

Altruism " A philosophy that centers around the virtue of selflessness as what is morally good and selfishness as either immoral or amoral

Omnibenevolence " Moral perfection

Framework

P1. God is omnibenevolent [1] [2]
P2. God is love [3]
C1. Love is what is morally good (From premise one and two)
P3. Love is selflessness, or the desire for what is best for another individual [4]
P4. The opposite of what is good is evil
P5. The opposite of selflessness is selfishness
C2. Therefore what is morally good is what is selfless and what is immoral is selfish.
C3. Therefore altruism is a central philosophy to Christianity

Premise 1

God"s omnibenevolence is central to the teachings of Christianity. Omnibenevolence basically stems from two ideas of God; God is perfect and God is morally good. To possess such traits would therefore mean that God is morally perfect.

"As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him."[2]

This passage sums up God"s moral perfection. God is flawless, which would conclude that he is perfect. God"s way is perfect, which would in context mean that God is morally perfect.

Premise 2

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."[3]

Conclusion 1

By nature, God is both morally perfect and God is love. Since love, which is selflessness in the context of the Bible, is a moral concept and moral law set by God; love is therefore perfectly morally good. Unlike any other aspects of God"s nature such as his omnipotence and omniscience which are amoral traits, only God"s
omnibenevolence has a moral value. Love is directly tied to a moral value and the moral teachings of God; therefore God"s omnibenevolence is love.
God doesn"t possess perfect love, God is perfect love. It can therefore be concluded that since God is both morally perfect and God is love, that love is therefore morally perfect.

God"s omnibenevolence is not to be interchanged with any of his other traits. For example, my opponent cannot attempt to refute this by stating that "God is also omnipotent, but that does not mean omnipotence is morally perfect." This is an illogical statement because only God"s omnibenevolence holds moral value, while his other traits are essentially amoral, just as it is amoral that I have brown hair.

Premise 3

Central to the teachings of Jesus is love, used in the context of selflessness.
Jesus states that one of the greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus answers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that in order to inherit eternal life one must love their neighbor. He goes on to explain a story of a Samaritan who finds a beaten man on the street and takes care of him using his food and medical supplies, then taking him to an inn to be taken care of.

" On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered, ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself.""
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have."
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."[5]

In addition to this, the Bible teaches that God exists within all of us. Since God is love, any act of love is an act which brings God into our world. Scripture states, "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'" [6] This simply puts more importance on Jesus" teaching that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

Premise 4, 5, and Conclusion 2

This is in context of Biblical moral teaching:

Good----------------------------------------Amoral----------------------------------------Evil
Saving a Life Not Taking a Moral Action Taking a Life
Stealing Not Taking a Moral Action Giving
Selflessness Amoral Selfishness (Feeding yourself) Selfishness

It is important not to confuse amoral selfishness with immoral selfishness. Amoral selfishness are acts taken in order to satisfy one"s needs without overindulgence. Feeding yourself, buying clothes, or even buying yourself a nice chair aren"t immoral even though you could turn the amoral selfish act into an act of selflessness. For example, instead of buying clothes for yourself you could buy clothes for a homeless person. It is not immoral that you satisfy your own needs, but it would be morally good to instead buy clothes for someone else. Immoral selfishness however, would be like murdering someone in order to satisfy your desire to murder, or stealing because you desire someone else"s goods.

This holds up when backed by Christian theology. It has already been established that love is morally perfect and that love is selflessness. Since the opposite of selflessness is selfishness then selflessness is therefore morally good and selfishness is immoral (or amoral).

Conclusion 3

This conclusion holds true by the support of all other premises and conclusions.

[1] http://biblehub.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] http://biblehub.com...

So, do you ignore the parts of the bible where God commands genocide and slaughtering of infants?

How about the part where homosexuals should be stoned to death publicly?

Or where he literally destroys the entire human race (including children) for the sins of their fathers, leaving alive only 1 family?

Or where he gives his first creations contradictory commandments and viciously punishes them when they inevitably fail, and then makes childbirth excruciatingly painful?

Or where he destroys a society's ability to communicate because they built a big tower?

Or where he murders the firstborns in Egypt, which would've included children and infants, for the stubbornness of the pharaoh?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:06:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:37:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/14/2014 12:00:48 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:57:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/13/2014 11:34:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The premises do not follow each other, rather they are statements that follow the conclusions.

One wonders; you ask for comments and when you receive them, you ignore them?

Be so kind as to show me where it is inaccurate to characterize Christianity as selfish and egotistical.

What would you think about a man who saw the behavior of a pure (figurative) "monster" like Hitler, but rather than opposing him, decided to befriend him in order to "play it safe" and save his own skin. And the whole time he's doing this, he's watching as millions of people are killed, simply for being who they are. This describes Cardinal Michael Falhauber who was a personal friend to Adolf Hitler, who visited Hitler in his private hide-aways and reported back to the German people that "Hitler was a man of God".

This also describes any Christian who believes in the Christian doctrines of Hell, and yet proclaims to love and worship God. According to the Bible, God has created billions of people - knowing beforehand that they would spend their eternities in continual and never-ending torment. And yet, you still find that you wish to worship and praise this monstrous tyrant. And you do it in the hope of saving your own skin and living an eternity in pure paradise while the vast majority of the human race is created, simply to linger in infinite pain and suffering, at the very hand of the one to whom you offer love and praise. That's not altruism, that's pure cowardice and selfishness.

And to believe an entire universe exists simply for a single species on one tiny speck of a planet in a distant corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, requires ego so inflated and out of control, that it defies clinical diagnosis.

Your replies are based on ignorance and are simply wrong. You don't posses a true understanding of the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Christianity and instead your responses are based off of some kind of misconception of all three of those things.

Or... YOUR response is based on ignorance and YOU are simply wrong.

I am a born and raised Christian. I have had a formal religious education for the past 10 years of my life. I have done my own personal research in Catholicism, Christianity, and theological philosophy including metaphysics and ethics. I am well within the grounds to state that your posts are based off ignorance.

And since the evidence is on my side, it would appear more probable that you are the one at fault. As has been shown to be typical with atheists/agnostics,, my understanding of Christianity, the Bible, their origins and histories are superior to that of most Christians. When a small lizard stands his ground on a rock, puffing up to appear larger than he is, and tries to bluff his way past a hungry bobcat... he ends up being lunch. I would advise you against making the same mistake. Proclaiming greater knowledge simply because you disagree with my assessment only makes you appear very foolish.

I'm not saying you are wrong because I disagree, I am saying that you are wrong literally because you are wrong. You are misrepresenting basic truths of Christianity.

It is literally impossible to characterize a Christian as selfish, because by definition Christians must embody the concept of love which is inherently selfless.
Shall we count the number of people who end up in prison over matters of love? Love is an emotion. It's an evolutionary adaptation which improves the likelihood of survival by motivating individuals to band together against a common foe, despite the obvious threat to one's personal welfare. And this can result in one throwing themselves into fatal peril to save a loved one, as easily as it can result in someone committing murder in defense of a loved one.

Yes, love like everything in the physical world can be scientifically explained. However, love like many other things is also metaphysical.

For God so loved the world... that he subjected his only begotten son to unspeakable torture, humiliation and death... and accomplished absolutely nothing.

This is the ignorance I speak of, and this is why I don't think you are even worth responding to.
Nolite Timere
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:24:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 2:50:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Like most people who are anti-theist and secular, Pol was a butcher of human life.

I won't ask you to support this spittle riddled rant.

I will though laugh at you.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
ROFL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin