Hi Unveiled Artist. Good afternoon. I hope you are well. I understand that some people don't like the ritual and traditional aspect of religion. However, if we believe in an Almighty the next logical step is to consider they are instructions as to how we should live our life.
Why would that be the next logical step? Can you show your maths?
I don't see it as even a reasonable step. Why would a god concern himself with how we live our lives? This seems like a uniquely Abrahamic thing.
What day we should rest on, if any. What days are special to Him, according to the calendar, whether we should go by the lunar calendar or solar calendar. What we should eat and what we shouldn't etc. All these things are perfectly normal considerations once we have established that there is a Creator. But you see this from my perspective too, which I'm grateful for, when you say:
He sounds quite the obsessive. Why would he be so?
Why would these things be 'perfectly normal'? If that were the case wouldn't a similar obsessiveness be found in all religions' celestials?
"Another way to see it is in order to fulfill a goal, you need more than motivation, intent, and emotion but the actual action, repetition (if so be), and some form of structure. So, yes. I agree. If someone really believes in god, they would have some form of religious practice or law according to scripture."
Goal? Who's goal? God's? Man's? Must be man's -- as
the above list of attributes seems awfully .... human.
So what goals are we talking about?
You said "Anyone can be moral without god. Morality isn't a religious concept."
Romans 2:14 and if you especially read it in context, explains that indeed gentiles or unbelievers can indeed be keeping at least some of the laws in the Bible, and they don't have to necessarily have been brought up near or with the Bible. They understand some of those laws because they have come to realise that this way of life is correct. You can see with common sense that the Laws are good.
Why would the biblical laws apply universally? Aren't the
Mitzvot applicable primarily to the ancient, warlike tribes of the Middle East? What use would they be to a Trobriand islander or the San?
Question: Why do you keep citing the Bible? What about the moral precepts of Confucius or Hammurabi?
That's why atheists can and do do good things. It's why non-religious people can also do good things. They might realise that the Law is good although they might not accept the Bible. I'm hesistant to say people can be moral without Yahweh. The fullness of morality is contained in the Bible.
Quite a tall claim. The 613 Mitzvot and the very different Christian precepts are not universally useful. Many, in fact, seem counter-productive. Many would clash with current ideas of fairness, kindness and human rights.
I can speak for myself. If it wasn't for the Bible, I wouldn't be a good person. I would probably be in the world, doing my own thing, as 2 Timothy 3 describes "lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Yahweh". I know that the Bible has affected me morally.
yes, some people are born morally challenged, even sociopathic, but why force your disciplines on those who don't need them? Would you do that with your meds?
Without adhering to the fullness of the scriptures, we aren't being moral though. Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Do we just have a loose code of morality by saying if something doesn't harm another it's ok to do? It's Yahweh and His Laws aren't just good, they're excellent. Even the holy days give us otherwise unteachable lessons so that we can improve our spiritual characters. It's true the Bible is not for everyone. That's why there is a Gehenna Fire. But each one of us is capable of following the way of life recorded in the Bible. Yahweh created us. He knows that we are able to attain to a spiritual and religious life.
Do you need a deontologic rule book to keep you in line? Do you still need an authoritarian,
Strong-Father figure to keep you under control?
It's perfectly possible for people to analyze the likely results of their actions, and to tailor their actions to consequences. Blindly following an ancient set of rules, under threat of punishment, is infantile.
"lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Yahweh".
Money is a rare -- and new -- cultural feature.
Boastfulness?
De rigeur in some cultures, practically unknown in others.
Unholy? What would that mean?
Fierce? A required feature in some cultures, and admired even among "Christian" cultures.
Parents? What do biological have to do with raising children? Hardly universal; not even necessarily Abrahamic.
Lovers of good?! What the heck is "good?" What's good varies widely -- culturaly, geographically and historically.
Traitors? Isn't treason decided by the victors? Weren't the US founding fathers egregious traitors to the man?
How about Gandi or the Scholls? Didn't Jesus
hate patriotism -- and "countries?" What about Galations. 3:28, to cite your own life-script?
Sybarites? More the norm than the exception, wouldn't you say?