Do you need the bible to be a good person?

Do you need the bible to be a good person?


Absolutely no. You can use the bible to be a good person but it is important to understand the fact that there is a sense of right and wrong which is somewhat real to almost every person, except for the medically insane. This is also what C.S Lewis also talks about in the opening chapters of his classic book “Mere Christianity”, the moral law, as he called it. And one can be a good person without the bible.

Of late I have heard a lot of atheist complaining about christians that since the atheist lack a christian faith that automatically means they are without morals or people with no sense of morals. This is very wrong of us to do. This should not be done.

I have seen a lot of atheist-theist wars and now most of them just seem silly to me, an theist venting out or an atheist venting out are just that, folks who need to vent and on one needs to take it seriously as a moral crusader on both sides to just prove the point because frankly, loud mouthed bashing seldom hits home and rarely makes an impact, if at all.

There is a flaw in the argument when we say he is an atheist therefore his moral compass is bound to be screwed. He may not have a book to show you where he gets his morals from, and to be honest most atheists don’t feel the need to have a book at all, but that does not mean that he can’t be moral person. When in the dark ages and the days of the early church, when the church for almost a thousand years had forbidden the average believer like you and me to not read the bible or own one, does that mean all of those people were moral-lacking people who survived, prayed, believed and died for their faith, despite never even reading a bible? Not at all.

This fundamental error in judgement is a gross mistake of ours and when we need to stop making it. While a lot of atheists may lack a source of objective morals, unlike christians who think they have the objective basis, it is still not a fine point we need to hammer down just to feel that we have an upper hand in the argument.

Respect your neighbor because that is still a step behind than love your neighbour which we should be aiming at, even if that neighbor turns out to be an atheist or a hindu or a muslim or a mormon or a gay person that should not stop us from accepting the fact that they are too God’s children, and it is by your love they will see your morals and your faith.

You can be theologically correct while being empty in the spirit, devoid of the fruit of love which in a believer should be foremost and abundant. There is a fine line between good apologetics and bigotry. There is a fine line between defending your faith and insulting others.

Even Paul said that the law of God is written on the heart of men, even when they lack a written law. This is what the bible says at Romans 2:13-16. Is it that hard to accept it then?

Chill out folks, build bridges, not burn them. People can be of differing faiths and be very nice and good, having good morals. Lets be accepting rather than rejecting. Better, respectful communication leads to a healthier discussion. If you aim to interact, do it the right way.

Advertisements
How atheism became a religion in all but name

How atheism became a religion in all but name


How atheism became a religion in all but name | Frank Furedi | spiked.

Read the full article by clicking the link above.

How atheism became a religion in all but name | Frank Furedi | spiked

excerpt:

Today, in contrast, atheism takes itself very seriously indeed. With their zealous denunciation of religion, the so-called New Atheists often resemble medieval moral crusaders. They argue that the influence of religion should be fought wherever it rears its ugly head. Although they demand that religion should be countered by rational arguments, their own claims often verge on the irrational and hysterical. Of course, there has always been an honourable atheist tradition of irreverence and irreligious contempt for dogma. But today’s New Atheism often expresses itself through a doctrinaire language of its own. In a simplistic manner it equates religion with fanaticism and fundamentalism. What is striking about its denunciation of fundamentalism is that it is frequently made in the dogmatic, polemical style of those it claims to oppose. The black-and-white world of theological dogma is reproduced in the zealous polemic of the atheist moraliser…

…The New Atheism is very selective about who it targets. So although it claims to challenge irrationalism and anti-scientific prejudice, it tends to confine its anger to the dogma of the three Abrahamic religions. So it rightly criticises creationism and ‘intelligent design’, yet it rarely challenges the mystifications of deep environmentalist thinking, such as Gaia theory, or the numerous varieties of Eastern mysticism that are so fashionable in Hollywood. Since the New Atheism is culturally wedded to the contemporary therapeutic imagination, it is not surprising that it has adopted a double standard towards spiritualism.

Historically, atheism has sometimes co-existed with opportunism towards religious and spiritual belief. The French philosopher Voltaire hated religious fanaticism but nevertheless believed that religion was useful for pacifying the masses. In a similar vein, in the nineteenth century, the French social theorists Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte believed that social stability required them to invent a new religion. Invariably, such attempts to construct a secular religion are really about trying to endow human experience with meaning.

It was inevitable that sooner or later the New Atheist crusade would mutate into a quasi-religion. Alain de Botton’s recently published Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion is an attempt to absorb into atheism the current therapeutic and spiritual fads that influence Western elite culture. De Botton has proposed building temples for atheists through the UK. ‘It’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals’, he says. Unlike the New Atheists, De Botton does not adopt an aggressive approach towards religion, which means his attitude does at least contrast to that of Dawkins or Harris.

Article: Francis Spufford Says Athiests Put Religion to All the Wrong Tests

Article: Francis Spufford Says Athiests Put Religion to All the Wrong Tests


Francis Spufford Says Athiests Put Religion to All the Wrong Tests

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/13/the-heart-of-the-matter.html

A very nice approach to the conflict between atheists and theists. What do you think? Please share.

Article: ‘Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted’: Facebook Page Slams Religion, Calls the Bible ‘Horse Manure’ and Sparks Major Free-Speech Controversy

Article: ‘Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted’: Facebook Page Slams Religion, Calls the Bible ‘Horse Manure’ and Sparks Major Free-Speech Controversy


‘Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted’: Facebook Page Slams Religion, Calls the Bible ‘Horse Manure’ and Sparks Major Free-Speech Controversy

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/virgin-mary-shouldve-aborted-facebook-page-calls-the-bible-outdated-traditional-horse-manure-and-sparks-major-free-speech-controversy/

This is sad and troubling. and yet it gives a very good view of the authors and their convictions. I am actually not worried about what they say,  my concern is that people believe this to be an effective way to communicate,  which is simply insulting others. Perhaps these people had no one to talk to about their issues and i think they finally found a way to express it. I think they need to be heard with a sympathetic ear.

This is not free speech, this is a misguided way which seed hate and hurts.