You are saying that our eternal souls were not created by God -- they ARE God? You realize that this is not at all doctrine for any major Christian faith?
All of us are God's people; and moral fortitude has been programed "well infused, not programed" into us already. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you can't do anything moral. I don't think Atheists, Agnostics, or even people in other theisms can't do moral things. The question is how they know what is morally right. I always think that if man ever did clone another human; we may see something entirely different. I think the new "clone" will be without this amazing ability. Basically act like a Lion, fish, hawk, deer or other animals on this planet, other than man. It seems like a contridiction, but not if you have faith that their is another part to us, other than just our physical being.
Depends on how you look at it. If God has said "I am the father, the son and the holy spirit"; then if we have the holy spirit in us, then God is in us. And if God is God; then part of us is God. When God, breathed the breath of life "And this is used metaphorically" IMO. He injected part of him into us.
Yep. As an aside, Jesus had to be conceived through the Holy Spirit's intervention. Ever since Adam & Eve sinned in the garden, man has since maintained/transferred a sin "seed" (or nature). Therefore, Jesus could not have been conceived from a man's seed as He had a complete sinless nature.
Sure. But our souls, the part of us that you believe will be either with God forever (note the "with") or separated in eternal agony (note the separated), cannot be God, for God is indivisible. That act of "breathing the breath of life" is an act of creation, implying that something new was formed. THIS is where we get back to the problem of agency and omniscience -- either God knew the longterm consequence of "breathing the breath of life", or he didn't.
I'm going further than saying "atheists can do good". I'm arguing that an atheist who quietly gives is actually MORE moral than a giver who fully believes in an eternal reward in the afterlife.
So, if we DO clone humans, and they turn out to be perfectly normal human beings, will you consider that evidence against the existence of souls? (Don't worry -- It's a rhetorical question -- I know that you already told me nothing can change your beliefs. )
The Scripture point out, though, that it's not about morality, in and of itself. Nobody.....nobody can be "moral enough" to get to heaven. It's not a check-off system of doing enough good things to get to see Jesus. He took care of our salvation on the cross. It's simply a matter of believing and embracing that. Once we've made that decision, the Holy Spirit then kicks-in to help us follow after Jesus. It's such a load off my shoulders knowing that, while I could never earn my way to heaven, through Jesus' work on the cross, I'm forgiven and have my ticket to the dance.
So there's really not much point in giving away all your possessions, is there? (Matthew 19:24) And the original question wasn't "can atheists get into heaven". Obviously, whoever is right, they cannot! The question was about morality.
except there are numerous examples of altruistic behavior among other higher animals. when a dolphin goes out of its way to swim under another injured dolphin trying to support it near the surface so it can breath, where does its 'moral fortitude' come from?
Yeah but I've gone further before saying all have sinned and are still sinners. A Christian doesn't immediately make them perfect or more moral. They just are connected with God more; therefor their conscience tries correcting them more. We as "free will" flesh; can still choose to be evil; even after being saved. I believe this and which is why I hate most organized religions.
Is that altruism per se, or is it beneficial to the species as a whole? Is it selfless, or is it instinctive to that species for the purpose of preservation?
I would definitely question my understanding of faith. And I can change my mind. I think I've proven that in this thread already.
This is another tangent, of course, but even if it is for the benefit of the species as a whole (which it almost surely is), the act fits perfectly into the definition of altruism.
That is instinct. And you can go even further and say how can a Rat actually be motherly to Mice? Those are instincts. And even Harris believes instincts and morals are two separate things.
Effectively, Jesus was pointing out that it's potentially very easy for rich folks to rely on their riches, rather than God. I've certainly seen that played out in my own life. I've also seen very wealthy folks end up very depressed when they realize that their riches can't solve their internal issues. Sorry about getting off track on the morality thing.
LOL! I just said it. I guess I should have read what you replied before I made a redundant statement.
I apologize for implying that you couldn't change your mind -- I was mostly teasing. Like I said before, I do appreciate your willingness to at least explore alternative viewpoints.
