Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix:

Huh? Being banished form the Garden, et. al., is not a fall from grace?!

Grace is a concept that is foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Sin, as God says to Cain, is something that can be resisted. The idea that we are powerless against sin because we have inherited sin or original sin through Adam and Eve in not found in the Genesis story.

Fooloso4 wrote:Felix:

Huh? Being banished form the Garden, et. al., is not a fall from grace?!

Grace is a concept that is foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Sin, as God says to Cain, is something that can be resisted. The idea that we are powerless against sin because we have inherited sin or original sin through Adam and Eve in not found in the Genesis story.

Has the species of Adam and Eve been determined yet? Australopithecus? Homo habilis? Neanderthal? Homo sapiens?

Certainly many indigenous people would see humans as having fallen from grace, falling out of touch with nature. Then again, many of those tribal societies engaged in some pretty awful atrocities by modern day standards, so morality is never clear cut. I personally find the idea of humans having "fallen from grace" completely at odds with everything we know. Our crime is being too successful. Everything else we do is predictable social behaviour, including the corruption, denial, manipulation, propaganda and other game playing. It's always been thus, including in indigenous societies at a smaller scale.

I didn't say anything about "original sin," but the Genesis story suggests that Adam and Eve lived in harmony with God and Nature until they partook of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and became self conscious (ashamed of their nakedness, fearful of death, etc.), and were then cursed to "work by the sweat of their brow" for their sustenance.

To me this suggests an evolutionary turn from an instinctive sort of awareness to that of analytical thought and it's subsequent mental/emotional turmoil. This would be a "fall from grace" from a more carefree intuitive state of consciousness (Genesis 3:14 - “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all wild animals!).

There are a few lines I find interesting. For example, God say to Adam and Eve, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Us? Those who think of themselves as being individuals separate from Nature?

Greta wrote: Most non believers figure that, since life is brief and fortunate, we should make the most of the time we have. That seems like a positive and reasonable approach to me.

Yep, make the most of the time we have - like Ted Bundy and any number of other career criminals. I read somewhere that the first line of the oath taken by "made" Sicilian Mafia members is, "There is no God". The idea behind such a statement is, there is no one on the other side to punish your actions here on earth, so do whatever you like. Doesn't sound very "positive and reasonable" to me. Atheism means there are no rules.

Dclements wrote: Maybe she meant resolution in the for of some kind of salvation.; if there is no 'God' or 'goodness' that we have to adhere to as religion says then it would be pointless to seek some resolution/salvation through something that is none existent. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure she (or perhaps he) seeks answers to big questions, which would provide more tools for atheist and non-atheist to work with.

If salvation is tool/means that we can never have (other than perhaps simulating it through technology) than clinging to it will just cause more grief and suffering; not that it is much more than a drop in the bucket of grief we already have to deal with.

I dunno, but outside of what she thinks about me, she sounds pretty confused -- she certainly doesn't know Buddhism.

Fooloso4 said:

If nothing is impossible for man, if he can do whatever he sets out to do and he were immortal he would be a god. But knowing how to do something does not give us any guidance with regard to whether it should be done. If men lacked wisdom they would be dangerous gods. It may be for this reason that God did not want men to be gods or god-like.

One possible outcome of immortality would be endless oppression or oppression lasting for thousands of years. Those in power could remain in power indefinitely. Death can bring relief from suffering, but without death a person could suffer endlessly or for thousands of years. Overpopulation is a problem that occurs to us but I do not know if it is one that would have occurred to the authors or listeners and readers until more modern times.

Would you agree if they ate of the tree of life first, (which the Lord did not forbid), being immortal would have a different picture from what you are describing here?

-- Updated December 19th, 2016, 5:06 am to add the following --

Dclements wrote:

Whitedragon wrote: That post is a bit presumptuous, because it indicates that the bloggers have not really suffered yet. We all can share stories of our suffering on here. Furthermore, if you had any children at all, you should know that sometimes, no matter how you parent them, they just do not adhere to their upbringing. Certainly, we cannot claim to be helpless apes, as you put it. Granted that there are some things out of our control, but if someone starts out good and then wantonly fall from that grace, we hardly can call them helpless. Perhaps the word we are looking for is stubborn.

Your argument is a hasty generalization and your cherry picking; if some people misbehave does their lack of 'morality' give a cause as to why we ALL had to from grace like the bible suggest. I may not know for sure but I think there is one or two percent of people at both ends of the spectrum who will either give a strange the shirt off their back (or their life to save them) or will hurt and/or take from others without remorse; the rest of us try to help others when we can but mostly we just look out for ourselves and those close to us. Also I'm pretty sure that most of the western and industrial world is rules by a hard work ethic that makes near impossible demands on its workers where they have to sacrifice for the 'common good' and get little in return other than a possibility of a 'normal' life. On top of that we all have to deal with the human condition which threatens to unravel each person as well as society as a whole.

Given all that we have to face, I'm more surprise that people don't behave WORSE than they do instead of really expect them to be more 'moral'. Also I think that people that are so critical of the 'moral' failures of some people in our society greatly underestimate what those people have been through. As the saying foes, it is easy to judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. As someone that grew up in the projects, there is nearly an endless number of people that silently do the best they can no matter how many times life gives them the short stick. If one or two people turn out 'bad', I think some (or most) of their sins are atone for by those of us who do the best we can; this is of course if you take 'humanity' as a whole.

Whitedragon wrote: We do what we can, but according to the Genesis myth, the Lord forewarned us about whatever it was we were supposed to avoid. It is a good response, Burning Ghost, but even today people warn us to stay away from things and often all that pushes us to ignore the warning is blatant defiance. Of course, there are circumstances that are out of our control, but if we hold true to the myth; there was some point where we had no reason at all to jeopardise our security and happiness. Again, there are still many examples of how we do the same things today. If a man or a woman were in a happy relationship as man and wife, they still would give all that up for an affair. Why do we do these things?

(For some reason this part of your post reminds me of the play Oedipus where Oedipus is interrogating the blind man as to whom and how the former king was killed and it is obvious in his speech that Oedipus knows this already because it was him that committed the crime.)

I hate to keep saying that it is all caused by the 'human condition', but more or less it is. If you realize (like some of us do) that our lives are finite and any 'happiness', 'security', 'health', 'wealth', etc is fleeting at best, you might understand why someone might risk it all if it is a given that everything they have can already be lost at the drop of a hat even if they don't do anything 'wrong'. While 'God' (or at least the church that tries to represent his will) and human societies may expect us all to obedient automatons no matter how many times that someone spits in our face, unquestioning/blind obedience and 'faith' is something that can not be expected from all of us.

Even just from a psychological perspective, let alone a moral one, expecting man to be less fallible then our nature makes is isn't something that can be reasonably expected. While it is plausible for one of Soren Kierkegaard's 'knights of faith' to transcend the moral limitations/fallibility of normal men such 'transcendence' doesn't come without it's own price; namely one replaces the importance of their own wants/needs with fanatical goals whatever they may be. But I don't think you would necessarily like any of these 'knights of faith' more than you would like typical slothful guy (complete with a wife beater T-****, easy-boy recliner, beer in one hand and remote in the other) but at least their are not as susceptible to some of hedonistic ways and vices. Perhaps future technologies like mind-machine interface could be used to hard-wire most of the human race to be mindless automatons that religion has expected us to be for the last two millennias. It would be ironic for science and technology to eventually be able to do what religious dogma has always attempted but been unable to accomplish.

Whitedragon wrote: No, Spiral Out, the Lord created us with a good nature. There was no law in paradise, because man naturally did what was good. In dream symbols, trees often present security; the tree of life represented the security of immortality, which people have been hammering on all this time. On the other hand, the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents placing your security in what belongs to someone else. That “tree” was not theirs to eat; it associated with the Lord’s property.

Knowledge of good and evil was not a bad tree, but it was not meant for us, because we could not handle it. Supposedly, a tree holding the knowledge of good and evil would give us a better insight, but instead it just confused us. The Lord created Adam and Eve naked, but when they ate from the tree, they felt ashamed. If he created them naked, nakedness must have been natural and good in the creator’s eyes. Looking at the myth again, it seems the tree of knowledge of good and evil confused them instead. They started saying that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. Very much what people are still doing now.

How could the Lord let them eat from a tree thereafter, which would make them immortal? That would mean; Adam and Eve would still be alive today, in pain and confused. Again, devil spelled backwards gives you, “lived.” He did not create Adam and Eve with a sinful nature, but that does not mean they could not change their hearts afterwards. They placed their security in the wrong thing, instead of choosing immortality, they chose to be thieves; and very much like the story of Sir Author Conan Doyle of “The Blue Carbuncle,” they ended up stealing something they could not use.

It is plausible that there might be some truth to that, but I believe it is more plausible for the Genesis myth (and the bible as a whole) to tell us nothing other than be obedient little sheep and to not bother authority by ever questioning it. If 'God' wanted automatons he could have made them, but he didn't. Also 'God' could of created us as we are and he could accepted us as we are warts and all (which is reasonable if he is 'God' after all), but according to Abrahamic religions he didn't. OR it could just be that the powers that be just want us to act like little automatons and use the concept of 'God' to help them do this; as a popular saying goes 'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful'.

The question I have would people trying to be more like automatons (or perhaps becoming something more like a genejack from Sid Meier's Alpha Centaur) than they already are really change anything for the better even if such people could behave better as you suggested? As far as I can tell, Islam is more successful at turning people into drones than western Christianity. If so does that make Islam a better religion or at least in the way you seem to be defining it?

-- Updated December 18th, 2016, 9:21 pm to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote:Fooloso4, what would have happened if the Lord granted humankind to eat from the tree of life after the fall? Can we speculate?

Maybe we would become God-like, maybe we wouldn't. It is hard to make a rational assessment of what might be from something that seems like nothing more than a fable from a child's story. I know that if we were able to just extend human life for a few extra decades that could be HUGE improvement to our quality of life, but to improve it by making us live hundreds of years would change things so dramatically that it is hard to say exactly what would happen. Perhaps we would have to go to school for 25-50 years before we could get a job, and we would have to work for 3-4 centuries before we could hope to retire; if retirement was even allowed at all at that point. Perhaps all of us would just have to work until we no longer were alive.

-- Updated December 18th, 2016, 9:30 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Stranger still. it was you who said, "I would like resolution to the big questions" but then resign yourself to a defeatist attitude.

How familiar are you with Buddhism? Or is that just another ancient superstition?

Maybe she meant resolution in the for of some kind of salvation.; if there is no 'God' or 'goodness' that we have to adhere to as religion says then it would be pointless to seek some resolution/salvation through something that is none existent. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure she (or perhaps he) seeks answers to big questions, which would provide more tools for atheist and non-atheist to work with.

If salvation is tool/means that we can never have (other than perhaps simulating it through technology) than clinging to it will just cause more grief and suffering; not that it is much more than a drop in the bucket of grief we already have to deal with.

We all have fallen from grace; the Word teaches us that we are born in sin. It also teaches us that we cannot achieve grace through good deeds alone. Christ took away the sin of the world, but we can only receive that if we believe in him. That does not mean we become perfect, but it means we no longer stand under the judgment of the Father if we believe. We should aim to live good lives, because we also read, faith that has no deeds is dead.

If we do not take out insurance, we cannot expect medical or legal aid. It is the same in a cursed world, someone has already paid the price for us, but if we do not accept that, it comes full circle to “what has the Lord actually done wrong.” Despite our disobedience at the start, he gave us Christ and the Law. He does not expect us after falling from grace to be perfect, just to try to do what is right and believe.

The church does not expect us to be automatons, just to try. In Star Trek, first contact there is a quote, “Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man.” If we were automatons, we would not be alive. If someone controls another, it is not the mind of the controlled that is working, but of the master. That is not a life.

One would say that if the Lord gave us a book, which tells us to do evil things, we had the right to ignore him, but there is not one evil thing the Lord asks us to do, all we have to do is believe in something that is trying to help us, yet we have issues. (Hence the topic of the thread)

Whitedragon,

I don't doubt that you may some interesting contributions to make, but they'll never be heard on a philosophy forum unless you can translate your insights out of the Christian dogma language you've memorized, which reads way too much like a generic Bible study class from central casting in Hollywood. Such language gives the impression, true or not, that you don't have valuable human experiences to share, but are instead simply chanting memorized phrases and concepts from your chosen ideology.

Given that you have chosen to participate here on a philosophy forum, and are even a mod, perhaps you might consider the following constructive challenge which might help you connect better with this audience.

How might you share your Christian experience in human terms that don't rely on a constant reference to well worn Christian ideological phrases? As example, what real world experiences of love have arisen from your Christian faith? Who did you help and how, and what did it feel like? What were the challenges involved in these acts of surrender? How do you pray? Why do you pray? What does that feel like? What Christian rituals and ceremonies do you find the most inspiring? Which ceremonies do you have trouble connecting with? What's it like to be a Christian on a daily basis? How does this impact your friendships, your family, your career?

If you want your time here to be well spent, perhaps lay back on chanting the standardized phrases which most of us have already heard a thousand times, perhaps even as Christians ourselves. Share something from your life experience that might be new to us.

Maybe this exercise might help. Imagine that you couldn't read and write. How would you be a Christian then? What if you weren't smart enough to master all the Bible information you've been typing here? If that was your situation, how would you share Christianity with us in person?

These aren't rules, just suggestions that can be improved and adapted to your own way of going about things.

Again, I'm not debating Christianity here, just the way you are trying to share it in this particular environment.

Good luck!

Felix:

I didn't say anything about "original sin,"

The Christian theology of grace, according to Paul, carries the notion of inherited sin, which later is modified by Augustine as original sin. So, although you didn’t say anything about original sin, inherited sin, which is more commonly known as original sin, is implied by the use of the term grace.

My point is that if we are to understand the story on its own terms we need to be careful not to introduce foreign concepts such as ‘grace’.

To me this suggests an evolutionary turn from an instinctive sort of awareness to that of analytical thought and it's subsequent mental/emotional turmoil. This would be a "fall from grace" from a more carefree intuitive state of consciousness.

It is not clear exactly what the term ‘knowledge’ (daath) means but it appears to be tied to the ability to make or produce - Adam knew Eve. I will not go into it here but there is an underlying theme of the tension between two kinds of life - those who have the knowledge to build cities and come to know how to make tools and instruments and weapons of brass and iron, and those who live a simple nomadic life. There is a strong preference for the nomadic life, which is closer to the life of the garden, but through the generations this option is no longer available for most of the people.

ashamed of their nakedness

In accord with what I have just said I agree with those commentators who suggest that it was not a matter of being ashamed but of an awareness of their vulnerability. To be naked is to be uncovered, unprotected. The term translated as ‘loincloth’ is used elsewhere to mean a protective garment worn in battle.

Whitedragon:

Would you agree if they ate of the tree of life first, (which the Lord did not forbid), being immortal would have a different picture from what you are describing here?

I don’t know. They would not have been banished from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life, but their lives would have been different than they were before gaining knowledge. Genesis, that is, having children is one big difference between before and after knowledge. It may be that they would no longer be suited for life in the garden or perhaps with their knowledge they would have transformed it and eventually destroyed it. I do not, however, see why gaining immortality first would change the outcomes I suggested in my last post.

Ormond wrote:Whitedragon,

I don't doubt that you may some interesting contributions to make, but they'll never be heard on a philosophy forum unless you can translate your insights out of the Christian dogma language you've memorized, which reads way too much like a generic Bible study class from central casting in Hollywood. Such language gives the impression, true or not, that you don't have valuable human experiences to share, but are instead simply chanting memorized phrases and concepts from your chosen ideology.

Given that you have chosen to participate here on a philosophy forum, and are even a mod, perhaps you might consider the following constructive challenge which might help you connect better with this audience.

How might you share your Christian experience in human terms that don't rely on a constant reference to well worn Christian ideological phrases? As example, what real world experiences of love have arisen from your Christian faith? Who did you help and how, and what did it feel like? What were the challenges involved in these acts of surrender? How do you pray? Why do you pray? What does that feel like? What Christian rituals and ceremonies do you find the most inspiring? Which ceremonies do you have trouble connecting with? What's it like to be a Christian on a daily basis? How does this impact your friendships, your family, your career?

If you want your time here to be well spent, perhaps lay back on chanting the standardized phrases which most of us have already heard a thousand times, perhaps even as Christians ourselves. Share something from your life experience that might be new to us.

Maybe this exercise might help. Imagine that you couldn't read and write. How would you be a Christian then? What if you weren't smart enough to master all the Bible information you've been typing here? If that was your situation, how would you share Christianity with us in person?

These aren't rules, just suggestions that can be improved and adapted to your own way of going about things.

Again, I'm not debating Christianity here, just the way you are trying to share it in this particular environment.

Good luck!

Thank you for your suggestion, we will take it under advisement.

Dark Matter wrote:

Dclements wrote: Maybe she meant resolution in the for of some kind of salvation.; if there is no 'God' or 'goodness' that we have to adhere to as religion says then it would be pointless to seek some resolution/salvation through something that is none existent. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure she (or perhaps he) seeks answers to big questions, which would provide more tools for atheist and non-atheist to work with.

If salvation is tool/means that we can never have (other than perhaps simulating it through technology) than clinging to it will just cause more grief and suffering; not that it is much more than a drop in the bucket of grief we already have to deal with.

I dunno, but outside of what she thinks about me, she sounds pretty confused -- she certainly doesn't know Buddhism.

Perhaps I don't understand Buddhism. However, it's clear that you don't understand Buddhism either, betrayed by your persistent lack of goodwill. Then again, I gave up Buddhism thirty years ago so some rust can be expected.

-- Updated 19 Dec 2016, 15:40 to add the following --

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: Most non believers figure that, since life is brief and fortunate, we should make the most of the time we have. That seems like a positive and reasonable approach to me.

Yep, make the most of the time we have - like Ted Bundy and any number of other career criminals. I read somewhere that the first line of the oath taken by "made" Sicilian Mafia members is, "There is no God". The idea behind such a statement is, there is no one on the other side to punish your actions here on earth, so do whatever you like. Doesn't sound very "positive and reasonable" to me. Atheism means there are no rules.

Anthony, it appears that you think what Ted Bundy did looks like a good time. If that's the case then I am glad you have a religion to keep you in check.

Fortunately, most other people have a developed internal morality. For instance, I try to limit eating meat because I feel sorry for animals sent to die. There is no rule or law that requires me to do this. Not one of my friends or family shares my view here and they persistently try to pressure or tempt me into eating meat on weekdays. I love the taste of meat but I refuse.

There is no threat of heaven or hell, purgatory or reincarnation that drives this morality. No code. Nothing. I have zero support and frequent roadblocks. So why do I do it? It's because I have internal morality, a moral compass and thus do not need biblical prohibitions to be a decent person.

I am curious, why would you want to commit murder if not for the scriptures? Who would you murder if not for your religion?

Anthony Edgar:

Atheism means there are no rules.

Every time I hear something like this I thank God man invented him. It really is quite disconcerting to hear theists talk about how they would behave without the fear of divine retribution. Atheism does not mean that there are no rules, it means that we and we alone are responsible for our actions and each other. The difference is that we recognize that those who claim moral authority in the name of God are using the name of God to establish and maintain their own human authority. The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

Fooloso4 wrote: It really is quite disconcerting to hear theists talk about how they would behave without the fear of divine retribution.

Except that's not what he said.

Atheism does not mean that there are no rules, it means that we and we alone are responsible for our actions and each other.

What's he's saying is similar to what would happen if there were no government, no higher authority above the individual. It's a valid point. So there are levels of rules, individual, political, spiritual. The spiritual level is the highest of course because a God would have infinitely more power than any individual or government.

Even if there is no God, we should recognize that the concept alone has done a great deal to civilize Western civilization, and the political rules all of us must obey arise in large part from Judaism and Christianity.

The difference is that we recognize that those who claim moral authority in the name of God are using the name of God to establish and maintain their own human authority.

This is very often true, agreed. But not always true. The highest Christian moral authorities never claim anything, they just walk the walk.

The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

Except that you forgot to name them. The fact is that people from all over the world have been trying to flood in to Western culture for centuries, and this is due at least in part to the moral foundation provided by Judeo-Christian philosophy. The people have voted, with their feet.

The thread will be more enlightening if everyone will drop the pointless religious vs. atheist posturing. What history shows is that believers and atheists alike can display both the highest and lowest moral behavior humanity is capable of. So even if everyone on Earth converted to one or the other, the beauty and the carnage would continue largely unchanged.

Fooloso4 wrote:The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

How many without religion of some kind?

Fooloso4 wrote:Felix:

Huh? Being banished form the Garden, et. al., is not a fall from grace?!

Grace is a concept that is foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Sin, as God says to Cain, is something that can be resisted. The idea that we are powerless against sin because we have inherited sin or original sin through Adam and Eve in not found in the Genesis story.

Can you explain why some actions are sinful or 'evil' and others 'good' ? As far as I can tell morality is merely a set of rules that people try to impose on each other in the hopes that they behave in the why they desire; however if these rules are not really objective then I'm unsure if behaving in such a way is really moral at all.

-- Updated December 19th, 2016, 9:21 pm to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote: We all have fallen from grace; the Word teaches us that we are born in sin. It also teaches us that we cannot achieve grace through good deeds alone. Christ took away the sin of the world, but we can only receive that if we believe in him. That does not mean we become perfect, but it means we no longer stand under the judgment of the Father if we believe. We should aim to live good lives, because we also read, faith that has no deeds is dead.

If we do not take out insurance, we cannot expect medical or legal aid. It is the same in a cursed world, someone has already paid the price for us, but if we do not accept that, it comes full circle to “what has the Lord actually done wrong.” Despite our disobedience at the start, he gave us Christ and the Law. He does not expect us after falling from grace to be perfect, just to try to do what is right and believe.

Even if I wanted to, I can not believe in God; baring the possibility of someone brainwashing me to a point where I am no longer the person I am today. I can only imagine the reasons for my disbelief are as alien to you as your reason for believing are alien to me. It might help if I mention that my own beliefs are sort of alone the lines of Buddhism or Jainism (who tend to be either atheistic or not really caring if God exist), however I really don't adhere to any single form of religious doctrine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think other atheist that come to the forum are far past the point of no return and are about as likely to be converted as a brick wall could be turned into a ham sandwich by talking to it.

Whitedragon wrote: The church does not expect us to be automatons, just to try. In Star Trek, first contact there is a quote, “Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man.” If we were automatons, we would not be alive. If someone controls another, it is not the mind of the controlled that is working, but of the master. That is not a life.

One would say that if the Lord gave us a book, which tells us to do evil things, we had the right to ignore him, but there is not one evil thing the Lord asks us to do, all we have to do is believe in something that is trying to help us, yet we have issues. (Hence the topic of the thread)

If all we had to do is try or 'just do it', I don't think the world would still be filled with so many problems. I think what you really trying to say is that each of us most 'try' to still be a moral agent and a sane person in a world filled with absurdism and madness because 'God' thinks we should believe in him and still behave ourselves. When making such a request you might as well ask someone to be a great man (or women) since only a great man/woman can maintain their sanity in a world filled with madness. Or perhaps if one lived on top of a mountain away from everyone else.

-- Updated December 19th, 2016, 9:27 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:

Fooloso4 wrote:The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

How many without religion of some kind?

What do you define as 'religion'? In comparative religions it is sometimes suggested that ANY system of beliefs could be thought of as some kind of religion, however that may be so inclusive that any kind of beliefs, more or less even including nihilism as a kind of religion just like any other religion. The problem with this is that it may be too inclusive for some (or many) people to be comfortable with it as it is too different from how religion is usually thought of.

-- Updated December 19th, 2016, 9:51 pm to add the following --

Ormond wrote:Whitedragon,

I don't doubt that you may some interesting contributions to make, but they'll never be heard on a philosophy forum unless you can translate your insights out of the Christian dogma language you've memorized, which reads way too much like a generic Bible study class from central casting in Hollywood. Such language gives the impression, true or not, that you don't have valuable human experiences to share, but are instead simply chanting memorized phrases and concepts from your chosen ideology.

...


Again, I'm not debating Christianity here, just the way you are trying to share it in this particular environment.

I more or less agree with your post Ormond.

I think people from to a forum like this to talk and debate philosophy and anyone trying to spew forth religious dogma will have their post dismissed as merely a non sequitur since that all religious dogma is anyways. Or at least when it isn't an ad hominem. Then only possible exception to this is we all can get a little 'preachy' when trying explain some of our ideas or concepts; but as long as we are careful those ideas don't have too many fallacies in them being a little preachy in that way is a kind of 'ok'.

Perhaps a simpler way to put it is that forums on philosophy should be about their positions and ideas and not a place where someone tries to drowned out such discussions with dogma.

Dark Matter:

How many without religion of some kind?

That depends on how you define religion. If God is excluded then my point stands. God is not a necessary condition for morality.

Dclements:

Can you explain why some actions are sinful or 'evil' and others 'good' ?

Do you mean with regard to the Genesis story, Christianity, or in my opinion? Personally, I do not generally use the terms sin and evil. In accord with the Genesis story, the distinction is known because man has gained knowledge of good and evil. There is some change in usage by the time Paul forms the Christian notion of sin, which he ties to the body and Adam’s transgression. To answer the question would require a book.

As far as I can tell morality is merely a set of rules that people try to impose on each other in the hopes that they behave in the why they desire

It may also be a set of rules that one imposes on one’s self. Or the development of the proper disposition and judgment one is guided by rather than a set of rules.

... however if these rules are not really objective then I'm unsure if behaving in such a way is really moral at all.

There is a large middle ground between moral absolutes and nihilism.