Had a patients father ask me what religion I practice...

You just got done saying that you don't need God to help you be a "good" person. Now you are telling me there is no such thing as "good" because its all relative?

If so, your argument is nonsensical.

 

Look up the word "subjective." That might help since you seem to be making up your own definitions to words.

 

no sense not taking the focus off of you.
Do we have little pee-pee syndrome ?

 

Let's start over shall we?

By your OWN standards, have you done "bad" things to people in the past?

 

I think what's bothering you is I'm right so you have to resort to personal insults. Obviously I'm not the one with the millimeter peter......

 

Are you a priest or something? Or are you religious people just bothered that someone doesn't cater to religion?

 

Original Post.

Satan loves that.

 

You must be really insecure to believe in something like that.

 

you seem to be very concerned that folks think you are right.
Perhaps you need a cookie.

 

I said this? I think you've been sipping too much of the Sunday mass wine....

Perhaps you should get a blowjob from your local priest? You seem to be in dire need of one...

 

that sounds nice, but I'm rather fond of you.

 

No, I'm trying to determine what you think is being a "good person". This is what you said you were at the beginning of the thread. It was your reason for ignoring religion altogether.

Of course, if you would now like to recant your previous statement or simply ignore it you are free to do so.

 

Why do you care what my version of a good person is? Like I said before, it's SUBJECTIVE. Besides, my version more than I care to type.

 

Why did you care what your patient's father's version of what a good person was ?

 

I wanted to clarify a couple things in this debate. On the one hand, the OP makes the statement it is possible
to be a morally "good" person without the need for a religious or theistic belief. In other words
morality can exist on it's own merits, outside the confines of a religious context. The answer
to that is of course, yes a person can establish a moral code independent of a divine moral authority i.e.
God (God as defined in a religious context). A good example can be found in various military credos, for
example ROTC...

We will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those among us who do.

The moral authority in this example being your fellow cadre of cadets...

So it's established that morality can thrive independent of this divine moral authority. No argument,
at least from me. My other point is that being a "good" person is not the sole requirement for
everlasting life (as established in Christian theological doctrine); faith is another integral part
of Christian dogma. In fact by faith alone, Sola fide = Latin for by faith alone, a Christian can receive
everlasting life with God...at least according to some Christian theologians like Martin Luther.
Of course some theologians may argue that it is by both faith and deeds that a person earns their way
to heaven. In either case faith is certainly integral to Christian doctrine.

Long story, short...
Morality and the theological sense of morality or in some ways two different things.

The author of the OP may indeed be a good person, but in a theological sense it's somewhat
meaningless unless God is at the core of this moral authority.

I hope I have not confused the issue, thanks.

 

Uh, I didn't. Do you always make up imagionary comments in other people's threads?

 

Nice post. It's a nice breath of fresh air apart from the other crap that has been posted in this thread.

 

I agree 100%. Being a good person is the least requirment to get eternal life. God cares more that you worship him, than that you are a good person. A person can be the most rightious person who ever lived, living completely without sin, and god would not allow them into heaven unless they worshipped him. It's one of the biggest contridiction within both Christianity and Islam. God's love is far from unconditional. He is fairly egotistic and hipocritical in that he demands worship in exchange for his eternal "unconditional" love.

 

I thought the whole point of Jesus sacrifice was in fulfilling the law thus making us accountable for ourselves to God.

No longer could we be scums but follow the letter of the law, now we are required to live a Christ-like life (ie. be good people) and have a personal relationship with God through his son, Jesus Christ.

 

This has nothing to do with Jesus. I am merely pointing out the fact that God does not care how good or rightious a person is unless they worship him.

A person can live exactly how GOd says they should, but will not get into heaven unless they worship him. God's love is supposed to be eternal and unconditional. But, that is a pretty huge condition if you ask me... You would think that being good people without the need of reward would be enough, but it's not.

 

Yea, the God of the Old Testament is a pretty scary guy.
Pretty much a war God who appears to do some arbitrary things.

What was that whole Abraham murdering Isaac thing about anyway?

 

It was about God wanting to know that people will worship him even when he destroys their lives...

Look at Job......GOd made a bet with Satan that Job would worship him even if God murdered his entire family and ruined his life. God was right....that only proves that God is a jackass that doesn't care one bit about his creations, unless they worship him/.

 

I'm not so much into organized religion, but I'm not sure I don't believe in a benevolent creative force - I guess I'm agnostic for the most part.

What I'm saying is this is Gods actions and persona as defined by the Priests and Kings of ancient Israel.

 

According to other humans he may be a "good" person, but according to the bible he is not. Read Romans chapter 3 for the depravity of man.

 

You should have said "none of your business" and then you should have asked him why he came to the US. Or, why he is in the US.