Re: Secular folks should worry.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:45 am
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
I’m familiar with these folks at Berkeley. They have done much good for secularists and the scientifically minded that live in the world and want serve and do good. The actual nuts and bolts of the research seem to be hidden behind a paywall of some sort. Only the study results seem to be readily a available.
Were those in the study providing service and love to those that might be considered to be their enemy in one way or another? Jesus took it a step or two further than giving ‘comfortable’ service.
43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
By the way, lest there be any confusion. I am a science guy. I’ve always loved learning of the natural world and our place in it.
I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.
No. It doesn't.
your interpretation is incorrect. Of course both religious and non religious people can be good.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:45 amQuoted from a recent post:I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.
That is false.
In other words, religious people can, believe it or not, be good for the right reasons.
of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.But as I said in a recent post, we also may do things out of moral and ethical obligation.
of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.Even to those that we may not really feel bonded to on a personal level.
of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.We serve those that may be our enemies along with those that we really don’t have to think twice about serving.
of course. Even if not everyone believes in children of god asa concept, both religious and nonreligious people belive respect is due, as well as service.We are all children of God and deserve due respect and needed service when the occasion presents itself.
doesn't matter who taught it if its in your heart.Easier said than done in some instances. But that’s what Jesus taught.
doinkMG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:45 amQuoted from a recent post:I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.
That is false.
In other words, religious people can, believe it or not, be good for the right reasons.
But as I said in a recent post, we also may do things out of moral and ethical obligation. Even to those that we may not really feel bonded to on a personal level. We serve those that may be our enemies along with those that we really don’t have to think twice about serving.
We are all children of God and deserve due respect and needed service when the occasion presents itself. Easier said than done in some instances. But that’s what Jesus taught.
Regards,
MG
If you were a 'science guy,' you wouldn't write this: