How is it that some atheists are good people?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep.


Is that what really happened, though? The teachings of Muhammad aren't consistent with a Christian worldview.


This assumes that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, though. Of course He knew.


I'm not going to attempt to answer for Mohammed.

I believe in God though it is not in the conventional sense. I was born jewish and I cannot stop being jewish as it is an ethnicity and not just a religion. I am actually a kabbalist but that's a different story.

Religion can divide, religion can promote intolerance, religion is the root of much killing. Having said that, I have met many truly good people of all faiths, those who would not kill in the name of God, for God is pure love.

Good people in my opinion are connected to love, compassion, values, integrity, that is what my conception of God is, people connecting together in love and unity. Organised religion often gives power and wealth to few who rule over the masses, that is not a good thing. I can't imagine that God would care if you pray in a field or a massive cathedral or mosque or synagogue. It is your intention for good that counts.

I don't think that being religious or not believing in God is an indication of a person's goodness.

Last edited by Teach51 on 22 Nov 2019, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What I like about you and Kraftie is I don’t see either of you as attacking anything.

According to the Islamic religion, Muhammad compiled the Koran (Quran) through what was dictated to him by God (Allah), through the archangel Gabriel, over a period of 23 years.

Jesus is a major prophet, according to Islam---but not the Son of God.

The three Abrahamic religions share so much---perhaps this knowledge is why they are at each other's throats constantly-----it's almost like they're siblings squabblng amongst each other.

I am a Jew because my mother is a Jew. Though I don't practice.

I actually consider Jesus to be a reform jew, he was after all born jewish and had progressive ideas. I like what he said about the dietary restrictions of Kashrut, not eating pork and shellfish, separating meat and milk. He said that he cared more what came out of peoples mouths than what they put in them. Sorry, don't know where in the New Testament. I read it because I'm jewish and I wanted to know Jesus's point of view. That struck me as very smart indeed.

Last edited by Teach51 on 22 Nov 2019, 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jesus was a Jew. Even most Christians acknowledge that he was a Jew.

He was angry at the corruption of the Rabbinical higher-ups in his native land. And how the rabbis in Judea, a province of Rome, were corrupt, and were oppressing the common people. He didn't set out to "found a new religion," per se.

Nothing much changes Kraftie. There is nothing new under the sun as King Solomon wrote.

We Christians do need to understand more from the Jewish perspective to understand ourselves in terms of identity. The most important point of Christianity is reconciliation with God, not what food to eat.

Your religion originated from a concern for how a chosen family should demonstrate holiness before the world. Your laws and traditions establish you as a special people. Judaism doesn’t teach that righteousness is the exclusive realm of the Jews. You have a little over 600 written laws to consider. I believe us goyim only have, like...seven, I think? And that doesn’t even account for the Talmudic “hedge laws.” I really don’t think you’ll find a more solid, thoughtful, logical religion than Judaism.

One disappointment I have with many Christians is the disregard for the Old Testament and the traditions. Admittedly I’m not well versed in the ancient sages (but I do like Maimonides), but I love reading our Old Testament. The work of Jesus was always about salvation, but later work by the apostles was to bring that to the entire world. The beauty of it is that you don’t have to become a Jew to understand it

Rabbinical Judaism wasn't around during the time of Jesus, it emerged from Pharisaic Judaism following the destruction of the temple. As far as I know, Gamaliel the Elder was the first person referred to as a rabbi in the current understanding of the word. The term appears in the gospels, but with a somewhat less specific definition.

As far as I know, the primary power structure during the era associated with Christ would have been the Sadducees and the temple priesthood.

You might have insight I don't have though, so feel free to correct me or add to this if I'm wrong or have a correct but shallow understanding.

Another factor is that Christians and Muslims both believe their faith supersedes earlier ones and that they've received 'the final revelation'. Obviously Christians can't tolerate Islam since they believe they received the 'correct and final version', so to have a new faith come along and claim that, they must be part of The Adversary's plan to corrupt the faith. Considering Islam is far less tolerant of Babism and Baha'i than of Christianity, Samaritanism or Judaism, it would seem they have the same attitude, that older faiths are misguided and corrupted versions of the 'correct faith' but that new faiths are an attack on the 'correct faith'.

Monotheists are so quaint when they bicker.

The Sanhedrin (assembly) in Jesus’ time was composed of 71 rabbis. It was a judicial body.

I did come across that, and concede I'm not up to the task of researching if that's the exact word used at the time and with the same exact meaning as now or if it's a case of just using the most suitable contemporary term even if it's not the exact one used at the time.

An unrelated but analogous example would be using 'prince' instead of 'aetheling'.

I'm definitely not an expert on either the history or linguistics even if I've read about it.

There were people ordained by the Sanhedrin who bore the title “ribbi.” They were “sages.” They had judicial power.

Of course, the rabbi of today is very much like a priest or minister in Christianity.

A “rebbe” in the Hasidic Sect is the great leader of the sect—one who is seen as possessing great spiritual and temporal power, and who has “access” to God.

He is more like a ruler than purely a “sage.”

I don't have time to read all of this thread but my question is: what do you consider a good person to be?

There are plenty of Catholic priests who have an extremely unhealthy interest in little boys.

There are stories of how nuns enjoyed beating the sh*t out of young women.

Are they good just because they are "Christian"?

Ugh...

I think there must be a distinction between someone who actually follows Jesus’ teachings and those who identify as Christian to suit some other purpose. I’m not gonna lie and pretend I’m not out for money and control. I just don’t believe the words of Christ are any means to that end. And given how certain churches have twisted the words of Christ for that exact reason, it’s no surprise that various sectors of humanity have reached a boiling point in relation to The Church. Besides, you get wealth and authority in the Old Testament, not the Gospels. I believe in being mindful of nominal Christians.

Jesus pointed out that there is no such thing as a “good person,” that all humanity is on the same level. I love the sarcasm when Jesus formulated the golden rule: “If you, who are evil...”. Evil compared to whom? The hypocrites He railed against in Matthew 6? If there is such a thing as a moral compass, it must derive from objective reality. “Good” is that which gives and supports life; “evil” is that which destroys it. The gatekeeper of good and evil is the rational mind, one of the central lessons in the Garden of Eden experience without which survival in this world serves no purpose.

If someone behaves like those naughty nuns you mentioned, are they worthy of the name of Christ?

If objective reality is the basis of morality, obeying God is expected of “good” people whether they claim Christ or not. An atheist “borrows” morality from Christ, even if he doesn’t believe. Temporal goodness serves the purpose of success in this world. Only perfection serves the purpose of the next world. While Christians should be concerned with goodness, they know that achievement HERE is not the final word of existence.

Can atheists be good people? Of course they can. I just happen to believe that the temporal world isn’t the most important one.

Not to be rude to AngelRho, but what is your motivation in conversing with him?
Psychological curiosity here from me.

He has a closed mind in regards to his faith.
(I guess it could be said the same about me).
I am assuming you have met people like this before and know there is nothing you can say to change their mind.
I doubt you are trying to seriously convince him of the errors of his ways.

Are you having a bit of fun or simply refining/improving your philosophical position?
Awaiting your answer with "baited" [sic] breath. <worm hanging out of side of mouth>