„Sa fiu iertat de ce anume? eu nu am facut niciodata nici un rau nimanui…”
unu la mana, parca a inviat?nu? deci sacrificiul n-are sens…daca nu si-a pierdut nemurirea nu vad nici un sacrificiu acolo
si 2 la mana- sa fiu iertata de ce anume? eu nu am facut niciodata nici un rau nimanui, ba din contra
crestinii vorbesc si repeta ca papagalii ce aud la biserica dar nu realizeaza ca spun niste chestii ilogice cat ei de mari …. Kitana
Ma bucur sa vad comentarii ca acestea. Din cate vad, multi dintre voi nu prea cititi Biblia sau poate nu o intelegeti, dar sunteti impotriva ei. Daca recunoasteti, inainte sa deschideti Biblia, aveti deja niste idei preconcepute cu privire la ea. E bine sa pui intrebari, si eu ii pun intrebari lui Dumnezeu cand citesc in Biblie si nu inteleg unele lucruri, Il rog sa ma faca sa inteleg. Citesc Biblia in fiecare zi si nu o fac ca pe o datorie sau ca pe un ritual ci pur si simplu o citesc sa inteleg si sa aflu voia lui Dumnezeu pentru mine.
Kitana, in comentariul de mai sus are doua probleme, in primul rand nu vede vreun sens in sacrificiul Domnului Isus iar in al doilea rand nu se considera pacatoasa. Ce frumos, majoritatea oamenilor care se gandesc putin la aceste lucruri au probleme in a le intelege, si va pot spune cu sinceritate ca ati gasit omul care a avut aceleasi probleme, eu sunt acela.
Aveam si eu aceleasi probleme, nu intelegeam de ce a trebuit Isus sa moara pentru noi, nu putea sa ne ierte pur si simplu asa cum ne mai iertam noi unii pe altii “din cand in cand”? Dar ma mai gandeam eu:“de ce sa ma ierte daca nu sunt pacatos”, nu ma consideram cel mai mare pacatos, erau altii mai rai decat mine.
Acum am sa raspund la intrebarile din comentariul de mai sus, dar o sa le luam invers pentru ca exact asta este ordinea pe care trebuie sa o urmam.
[1] Suntem pacatosi? Biblia spune ca da, si afirma cu indrazneala ca nu este nici macar unul care sa fie bun.
„după cum este scris: „Nu există nici un om drept, nici unul măcar! Nu există nici unul care să aibă pricepere! Nu există nici unul care să-L caute pe Dumnezeu! Toţi s-au rătăcit, cu toţii au devenit buni de nimic! Nu mai există nici unul care să facă binele, nici unul măcar! (Romani 3:10-12) NTR
Căci toţi au păcătuit şi sunt lipsiţi de slava lui Dumnezeu. (Romani 3:23) NTR
Dar se pare ca Biblia ne acuza si nu are nici o dovada, noi inca ne consideram cei mai buni oameni de pe pamant. Haideti sa vedem cum ne demonstreaza Biblia ca nu suntem asa de buni pe cat ne consideram noi.
Ştim însă că tot ce spune Legea, spune celor ce sunt sub Lege, pentru ca orice gură să fie astupată, şi toată lumea să fie găsită vinovată înaintea lui Dumnezeu. (Romani 3:19)
Ce spune Legea lui Dumnezeu? Sa nu minti! Ai mintit vreodata? Sau mai bine zis, de cate ori i-ai mintit pe cei de langa tine, de cate ori ai exagerat in povestirile tale, de cate ori ai luat note la scoala care nu erau meritul tau, de cate ori? Cei care mint sunt mincinosi! Ai furat vreodata un lucru cat de mic? Asta se chiama furt, iar cel care fura se numeste hot. De cate ori nu ii privesti cu superioritate pe cei care fura masini sau din casele oamenilor si nu te uiti la tine care te ocupi cu aceleasi lucruri, dar mai „micute”? Ai luat numele lui Dumnezeu in desert (adica in zadar sau nefolositor)? Ai pus numele lui Dumnezeu langa expresii prin care iti exprimai furia sau dezgustul? Aceasta se numeste blasfemie. Nu ai lua numele persoanei iubite in desert. Si totusi Dumnezeu ti-a dat viata, ti-a dat ocazia sa iubesti, sa te bucuri de viata si totusi ii folosesti numele in batjocura. Isus a spus in Matei 5:28 ca „oricine se uită la o femeie, ca s-o poftească, a şi preacurvit cu ea în inima lui.” Acest lucru il spune dupa ce afirma ceea ce scrie in Lege si anume „sa nu comiti adulter”. Numai Dumnezeu stie ce se petrece in mintea ta, ce faci in ascuns fara sa stie nimeni, numai El stie gandurile tale murdare.
Se pare ca noi oamenii nu suntem asa de buni precum credem si mai sus nu am enumerat decat 4 din cele 10 porunci din Lege.
As pune intrebarea: crezi ca esti vinovat? Daca da, si sigur esti, meriti ca pedeapsa, Iadul pentru eternitate. De ce? Afla aici (Iadul – o pedeapsa prea aspra?). Constiinta ta ti-o spune foarte clar, ea raspunde la Legea lui Dumnezeu. Ascult-o! Dumnezeu este drept si nu se va opri doar la pedepsirea criminalilor si a violatorilor ci va pedepsi pana la cele mai mici detalii.
Se poate sa fim iertati de Dumnezeu pur si simplu? Raspunsul este nu. Dreptatea lumii acesteia nu te poate ierta cand incalci legea, doar pentru ca ai ochi frumosi. Dreptatea cere ca sa fii pedepsit in conformitate cu ceea ce ai facut. Cu atat mai mult standardul dreptatii absolute a lui Dumnezeu.
[2] Acum avem terenul pregatit pentru a putea intelege de ce a fost nevoie ca Isus sa isi dea viata ca sa ne castige pe noi.
Însă Dumnezeu Şi-a dovedit dragostea faţă de noi prin faptul că, în timp ce noi eram păcătoşi, Cristos a murit pentru noi. (Romani 5:8)
Kitana spune ca Isus a inviat si sacrificiul nu are sens. Sacrificiul nu a constat in suferinta ce a avut-o Isus in trup, desi cand te gandesti ca Isus este Creatorul ce ne-a dat viata si totusi s-a lasat batjocorit de creaturi, acest lucru arata cat de mult ne-a iubit.
Crucea a insemnat ca blestemul ce era peste noi din cauza pacatelor noastre a trecut asupra lui Isus, El a fost facut blestem in locul nostru, a fost pedepsit ca pacatos. A luat pacatele noastre asupra lui de buna voie si s-a lasat pedepsit de Dumnezeu in locul nostru. Care pacate? Toate care le-ai facut in viata ta, trecute si viitoare. Iar daca te pocaiesti de ele inaintea lui Dumnezeu si crezi ce a facut Isus la cruce pentru tine, vei fi iertat si vei fi primit de Dumnezeu
Un articol mai detaliat despre aceste lucruri gasiti aici:
ateii nu exista 
Pai bine ma, daca un copil minte ca a luat o nota mare, poate se teme ca o incaseaza altfel de la parinti. Sau daca un sarac fura de la piata un mar, o fi chiar atat de insuportabil? daca un barbat intoarce capul dupa o femeie, asta-l face imediat curvar? Daca vrei sa spui asa, Dumnezeu l-o facut pe om imperfect, l-a lasat sa creeze relatii sau conflicte cu ceilalti oameni. Intr-o lume imperfecta nu poti supravietui, fara sa comiti macar o abatere. „Legea” aia de care zici, este de fapt condamnarea fiziologicului. Penibil.
Si nu mi-ai raspuns la provocarea de la „Ateii frustrati si sistemul nervos”.
Claudiu, cu regret iti spun, dar esti spalat pe creier rau de tot de religia asta crestina
si un Dumnezeu atat de iute la manie incat sa pedepseasca si numai un gand oarecare…zau ca n-am nevoie
Constiinta mea ma conduce in viata sa fac numai lucruri bune si sa nu fac rau nimanui, iar sa iei de buna mot-a mot o carte scrisa acum 2000 de ani de niste persoane care habar nu aveau de stiinta e …..ma rog , mi se pare absurd
oricum ma bucur ca nu m-ai injurat sau amenintat, cum fac alti crestini cand nu esti de acord cu ei
Numai bine
1. Kitana, nu sunt spalat pe creier, doar ca Isus Hristos a murit in locul meu si m-a facut un alt om.
2. Uite ce spune Biblia despre constiinta in Romani cap. 2: 14 Când neamurile [aici este vorba despre ceilalti oameni in afara de evrei] – care nu au Legea – fac în mod natural lucrurile Legii, prin aceasta, ele, care nu au Legea, îşi sunt singure lege. 15 Ele arată astfel că lucrarea Legii este scrisă în inimile lor. De asemenea, şi conştiinţa lor arată că acest lucru este adevărat, întrucât gândurile lor fie se acuză, fie se scuză între ele. 16 Acest lucru se va vedea în ziua în care, potrivit Evangheliei mele, Dumnezeu, prin Isus Cristos, va judeca lucrurile ascunse ale oamenilor.
3. Biblia este o carte veche intr-adevar, atestata ca lucrurile care sunt scrise in ea sunt cele intentionate de autori datorita multimii manuscriselor. Este scrisa de 40 de autori de diferite nationalitati si paturi sociale, in 3 limbi diferite, pe 3 continente diferite si vorbesc despre acelasi lucru fara sa se contrazica.
Vezi aici despre Biblie si stiinta https://ateilor.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/biblia-si-stiinta/
4. Nu o sa te injur niciodata Kitana, cei care te-au injurat si amenintat erau tot la fel cu „crestinii” ce au purtat cruciadele. Daca citesti Biblia singura, vei vedea ca adevaratii crestini sunt altfel.
Multa pace. Dumnezeu sa te binecuvinteze!
„Este scrisa de 40 de autori de diferite nationalitati si paturi sociale, in 3 limbi diferite, pe 3 continente diferite si vorbesc despre acelasi lucru fara sa se contrazica.”
Cum sa nu se contrazica?! Sunt sute de contraziceri in biblie.
Exemple:
– cand Cartea I a lui Samuel 17:23-50 spune ca David l-a omorat pe Goliat, iar Cartea a II-a a lui Samuel 21:19 spune ca de fapt l-a omorat unul Elhanan este o contradictie;
– cand in Samuel I 31:4-6 scrie ca Saul s-a sinucis, iar in Samuel II 1:1-16 scrie ca pe Saul l-a ucis un amalekit, este o contradictie;
– cand in Samuel II 24:1 scrie ca Dumnezeu l-a „starnit” pe David sa numere poporul evreu, iar in Cronici I 21:1 scrie ca de fapt Satana l-a pus sa faca numaratoarea asta, este o contradictie;
– atunci cand Moise si Aaron au transformat toate apele Egiptului in sange (Exod 7:20-21), iar magii egipteni au facut acelasi lucru (Exod 7:22) este o contradictie – din moment ce toate apele fusesera transformate in sange, magii nu mai aveau ce sa transforme, nu mai exista apa in Egipt, ci doar sange;
– care au fost ultimele cuvinte ale lui Isus, „tata, in minile tale imi incredintez duhul” (Luca 23:46) ori „s-a sfarsit” (Ioan 19:30)?
– Iuda chiar l-a sarutat pe Isus (Matei 26:48-50) sau nu s-a putut apropia de el (Ioan 18:3-12)?
– perdeaua din templu s-a rupt inaintea mortii lui Isus (Luca 23:45-16) sau dupa (Matei 27:50-51)?
– unde era Isus in ceasul al saselea din ziua crucificarii, pe cruce deja (Marcu 15:25) sau in curtea lui Pilat (Ioan 19:14)?
– ce a facut Iuda cu banii primiti de pe urma tradarii lui Isus, si-a cumparat un teren (Fapte 1:18) sau i-a aruncat in templu (Matei 27:5)?
– s-a rugat Isus pentru a preveni crucificarea (Matei 26:39), sau nu (Ioan 12:27)? Iar daca s-a rugat, a doua rugaciune a fost identica cu prima (Marcu 14:39) sau nu (Matei 26:42)?
– ce a spus centurionul cand Isus a murit, ca „omul acesta era nevinovat” (Luca 23-47) sau ca „omul acesta era fiul lui Dumnezeu” (Marcu 15:39)?
– centurionul asta venise personal sa-i ceara lui Isus sa-i vindece robul (Matei 8:5) sau i-a trimis pe altii (Luca 7:3-6)?
– cand a curatat templul de camatari si negustori, in ziua in care a intrat in Ierusalim (Matei 21:12) sau a doua zi (Marcu)?
– copacul blestemat de Isus s-a uscat pe loc (Matei 21:19) sau peste noapte (Marcu 2:20)?
Si ultima, ca sa ma opresc (deocamdata) aici:
Ioan 5:31 – Daca Eu marturisesc despre Mine insumi, marturia Mea nu este adevarata
Ioan 8:14 – Chiar daca Eu marturisesc despre Mine insumi, totusi marturia Mea este adevarata
– citeste si 1 Cronici 20:5
– in 2 Samuel cap. 1 nu se spune ca a fost Saul ucis de un amalecit ci se spune ca amalecitul a spus ca l-a omorat pe Saul, iar stim foarte bine ca Saul l-a rugat pe slujitorul lui sa-l omoare iar acestuia i-a fost frica, astfel Saul s-a sinucis. Multi credeau ca David il doreste mort pe Saul – amalecitul credea ca astfel va capata trecerea inaintea lui David
– fa paralela cu cartea Iov, Dumnezeu a permis lui Satan ca sa se atinga de Iov si de casa lui.
… poate o sa am timp sa le despic pe toate, le-am mai auzit de la unii dintre voi.
Si foarte multe dintre „contradictiile pe care le aduci sunt presupuneri de-ale tale cum ar fi cea cu smochinul blestemat undea ai gresit si referinta, este Marcu cap. 11.
Centurionul care l-a vazut pe Isus murind pe cruce se poate sa fi zis si una si alta etc.
Interesant este ca aceste presupuse greseli sunt lasate si au fost lasate scrise exact asa de-a lungul timpului. Daca crestinismul este o religie falsa de ce oare nu au corectat, macar sa lase pasajele sa fie mai clare. Biblia spune ca „propovaduirea Crucii este o nebunie pentru cei ce sunt pe calea pierzarii”.
Trebuie sa te pocaiesti abis, altfel nu il vei cunoaste pe Dumnezeu, pacatele tale stau inaintea lui Dumnezeu si „mandria este inaintea caderii” spune Biblia, umilinta este cel mai greu lucru pentru un ateu.
Kitana , oarecum ai dreptate ca crestinii sunt „spalati pe creier”, ceva ai intuit tu ca se intampla cu creierul[ nous in greaca] lor, sau gandirea lor.
Un exemplu clar e fariseul fanatic Saul din Tars: inainte ucidea sectari, si dupa ce se intalneste cu Isus pe drumul catre Emaus, i se schimba mintea, sau intelegerea.[metanoeo in greaca]
Ai dreptate ca cartea Noul Testament a fost scrisa in mare de oameni nescoliti. Nu uita insa ca Saul, a fost un erudit pe vremea lui, a studiat in scoala lui Gamaliei, si de foarte tanar facea parte din Sinedriu, forul suprem evreiesc. Si sa nu-l uiti si pe doctorul Luca, care a scris Evanghelia si Faptele Apostolilor.
Iti recomand o carte care iti demonstreaza fara Biblie ca adevarurile despre care vorbeste Claudiu sunt reale, cartea e scrisa de autorul care a scris Narnia; daca nu te descurci in engleza, cartea s-a tradus si la noi, la Humanitas, Crestinismul pur si simplu:
„Book I – Right And Wrong As A Clue To The Meaning Of The Universe
1. The Law Of Human Nature
Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely
unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to
the kind of things they say. They say things like this: „How’d you like it if anyone did the same to
you?”—”That’s my seat, I was there first”—”Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”— „Why
should you shove in first?”—”Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”—”Come on, you
promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children
as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes diem is not merely saying
that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard
of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies:
„To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not
really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some
special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that
things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which
lets him off keeping his promise.
It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or
decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they
have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human
sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there
would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right
and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless
there was some agreement about the rules of football.
Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when
we talk of the „laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of
chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong „the Law of Nature,” they
really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law
of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this
great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a
man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.
We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of
law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation
and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling
than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey
any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things;
but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables
or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.
This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and
did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual
here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear
for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was
obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about
the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a
real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had
had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could
no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is
unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never
amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral
teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will
really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for
this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our
present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think
of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of
double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him.
You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as
regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your
fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or
four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real
Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his
promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining „It’s not fair” before you can
say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case
by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter,
and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what
is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and
shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken
about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and
opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next
point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions
among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going
to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do
not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this
year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of
behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were
so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the
money—the one you have almost forgotten—came when you were very hard up. And what you
promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done—well, you never would have promised if you
had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or
husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it—and
who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same.
That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells
me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The
question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof
of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in
decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?
The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so— that we
cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.
For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations.
It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good
temper down to ourselves. These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings,
all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really
get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they
break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we
live in.
2 – Some Objections
If they are the foundation, I had better stop to make that foundation firm before I go on. Some of the
letters I have had show-that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of
Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behaviour is.
For example, some people wrote to me saying, „Isn’t what you call the Moral Law simply our herd
instinct and hasn’t it been developed just like all our other instincts?” Now I do not deny that we may
have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be
prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you
feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort
of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a
desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.
Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger.
You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a
desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in
addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to
help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that
decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the
sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is
itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts
are merely the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are
in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger
of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually
seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much
more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the
same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean,
we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our
pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting
from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you,
„Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,” cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you
which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Here is a third way of seeing it If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point
to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call „good,” always in agreement with the
rule of right behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not
sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a
mistake to think that some of our impulses— say mother love or patriotism—are good, and others, like
sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or
the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love
or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual
impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct.
There are also occasions on which a mother’s love for her own children or a man’s love for his own
country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people’s children or
countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a
piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the „right” notes and the „wrong” ones. Every single note
is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts:
it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing
the instincts.
By the way, this point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to
take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs.
There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You
might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find
yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials „for the sake of humanity,” and become in
the end a cruel and treacherous man.
Other people wrote to me saying, „Isn’t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention,
something that is put into us by education?” I think there is a misunderstanding here. The people who
ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and
teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all
learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not
know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention,
something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had
liked?
I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and
books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might
have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the
rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to
which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.
There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in
the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and
those of another, the differences are not really very great—not nearly so great as most people
imagine—and you can recognise the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions,
like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason
is this.
When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think
that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes
been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means
not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any
other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality
to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We
do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we
would call Reformers or Pioneers—people who understood morality better than their neighbours did.
Very well then.
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring
them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.
But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact,
comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right,
independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than
others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must
be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.
The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real
place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said „New York” each
meant merely „The town I am imagining in my own head,” how could one of us have truer ideas than
the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of
Decent Behaviour meant simply „whatever each nation happens to approve,” there would be no sense
in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in
saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.
I conclude then, that though the differences between people’s ideas of Decent Behaviour often make
you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think
about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people
who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality
and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, „Three hundred years ago
people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or
Right Conduct?” But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are
such things.
If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the
devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their
neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved
the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the
difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in
witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You
would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were
no mice in the house.
3. The Reality Of The Law
I now go back to what I said at the end of the first chapter, that there were two odd things about the
human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behaviour they ought to practise,
what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not
in fact do so. Now some of you may wonder why I called this odd. It may seem to you the most natural
thing in the world. In particular, you may have thought I was rather hard on the human race. After all,
you may say, what I call breaking the Law of Right and Wrong or of Nature, only means that people
are not perfect. And why on earth should I expect them to be? That would be a good answer if what I
was trying to do was to fix the exact amount of blame which is due to us for not behaving as we expect
others to behave. But that is not my job at all. I am not concerned at present with blame; I am trying to
find out truth. And from that point of view the very idea of something being imperfect, of its not being
what it ought to be, has certain consequences.
If you take a thing like a stone or a tree, it is what it is and there seems no sense in saying it ought to
have been otherwise. Of course you may say a stone is „the wrong shape” if you want to use it for a
rockery, or that a tree is a bad tree because it does not give you as much shade as you expected. But all
you mean is that the stone or tree does not happen to be convenient for some purpose of your own.
You are not, except as a joke, blaming them for that. You really know, that, given the weather and the
soil, the tree could not have been any different. What we, from our point of view, call a „bad” tree is
obeying the laws of its nature just as much as a „good” one.
Now have you noticed what follows? It follows that what we usually call the laws of nature—the way
weather works on a tree for example—may not really be laws in the strict sense, but only in a manner
of speaking. When you say that falling stones always obey the law of gravitation, is not this much the
same as saying that the law only means „what stones always do”? You do not really think that when a
stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it is under orders to fall to the ground. You only mean that,
in fact, it does fall. In other words, you cannot be sure that there is anything over and above the facts
themselves, any law about what ought to happen, as distinct from what does happen.
The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean „what Nature, in fact, does.” But if
you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it is a different matter. That law
certainly does not mean „what human beings, in fact, do”; for as I said before, many of them do not
obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do
if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not.
In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the
actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they
ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and
molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. (*) But
men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought
to behave differently.
–-
[*] I do not think it is the whole story, as you will see later. I mean that, as far ax the argument has
gone up to date, it may be.
–-
Now this is really so peculiar that one is tempted to try to explain it away. For instance, we might try
to make out that when you say a man ought not to act as he does, you only mean the same as when you
say that a stone is the wrong shape; namely, that what he is doing happens to be inconvenient to you.
But that is simply untrue. A man occupying the corner seat in the train because he got there first, and a
man who slipped into it while my back was turned and removed my bag, are both equally
inconvenient. But I blame the second man and do not blame the first.
I am not angry—except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses—with a man who trips me
up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first
has hurt me and the second has not. Sometimes the behaviour which I call bad is not inconvenient to
me at all, but the very opposite.
In war, each side may find a traitor on the other side very useful. But though they use him and pay him
they regard him as human vermin. So you cannot say that what we call decent behaviour in others is
simply the behaviour that happens to be useful to us. And as for decent behaviour in ourselves, I
suppose it is pretty obvious that it does not mean the behaviour that pays. It means things like being
content with thirty shillings when you might have got three pounds, doing school work honestly when
it would be easy to cheat, leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her, staying in
dangerous places when you could go somewhere safer, keeping promises you would rather not keep,
and telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool.
Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a
particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently there is
no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real
safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that
they try to behave decently.
Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes,
and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the
world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point If
we ask: „Why ought I to be unselfish?” and you reply „Because it is good for society,” we may then
ask, „Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?” and
then you will have to say, „Because you ought to be unselfish”—which simply brings us back to where
we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was
the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying „in order to score goals,” for trying to
score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that
football was football—which is true, but not worth saying.
In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, „in order
to benefit society,” for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for „society” after all
only means „other people”), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying
is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at
the statement, „Men ought to be unselfish.”
And that is where I do stop. Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are unselfish,
nor that they like being unselfish, but that they ought to be. The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature,
is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be,
simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot
get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if
we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own
convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find
inconvenient, and may even be the opposite.
Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must
somehow or other be a real thing— a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is
not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if
we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is
something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a
real law, which none of as made, but which we find pressing on us.
4. What Lies Behind The Law
Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones and trees and things of that sort, what
we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is
governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way. The socalled
laws may not be anything real—anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe.
But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and
Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this case,
besides the actual facts, you have something else—a real law which we did not invent and which we
know we ought to obey.
I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in. Ever since men were able to
think, they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very
roughly, two views have been held. First, there is what is called the materialist view.
People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed,
nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of
fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand
something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the
chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some
of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures
developed into things like us. The other view is the religious view. (*) According to it, what is behind
the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know.
–-
[*] See Note at the end of this chapter.
–-
That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it
made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce
creatures like itself—I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not think that one of
these views was held a long time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there
have been thinking men both views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the
right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things
behave.
Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like,
„I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw soand-
so,” or, „I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did soand-
so.” Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the
more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science—
and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether
there is anything behind the things science observes—something of a different kind—this is not a
scientific question. If there is „Something Behind,” then either it will have to remain altogether
unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.
The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of
them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the
journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from
textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever
became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the
questions, „Why is there a universe?” „Why does it go on as it does?” „Has it any meaning?” would
remain just as they were?
Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole
universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is
Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men.
In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we
know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget
even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone
studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and
consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would
never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would
only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there
were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying
them from outside, could never hope to discover it.
The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens
to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that
power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere
observation of the facts can find it.
There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case.
And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power
outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe— no more
than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only
way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a
command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.
Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?
In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the
other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not. Suppose someone asked me,
when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house,
why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, „Because whenever he leaves a similar little
packet for me I find it does contain a letter.” And if he then objected, „But you’ve never seen all these
letters which you think the other people are getting,” I should say, „Of course not, and I shouldn’t
expect to, because they’re not addressed to me.
I’m explaining the packets I’m not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open.” It is the same
about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open
that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that
somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way. I do not, of course, think that if I could
get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other
people in the street get the same letters as I do.
I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity—that whereas the
sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature, He compels the stone to
obey the laws of its stony nature. But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of
letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.
Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of
Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears
in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do
wrong.
I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know—because after
all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving
instructions. But, of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person. In the next chapter
we shall see if we can find out anything more about it. But one word of warning. There has been a
great deal of soft soap talked about God for the last hundred years. That is not what I am offering. You
can cut all that out.
Note —In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on the air, I mentioned only the
Materialist view and the Religious view. But to be complete I ought to mention the In between view
called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions
of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. People who
hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet „evolved” from the lowest
forms to Man were not due to chance but to the „striving” or „purposiveness” of a Life-Force.
When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or
not. If they do, then „a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection” is really a God,
and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that
something without a mind „strives” or has „purposes”? This seems to me fatal to their view. One
reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the
emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe
is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling
on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something
rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never
interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force
is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of
religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world
has yet seen?
5. We Have Cause To Be Uneasy
I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the
material universe was actually getting at us. And I expect when I reached that point some of you felt a
certain annoyance. You may even have thought that I had played a trick on you—that I had been
carefully wrapping up to look like philosophy what turns out to be one more „religious jaw.” You may
have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything new to say; but if it
turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clock back. If
anyone is feeling that way I should like to say three things to him.
First, as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back,
and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from
that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where
you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any
nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right
road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen
this when doing arithmetic.
When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the
faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a
mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has
been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going
back is the quickest way on.
Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a „religious jaw.” We have not yet got as far as the
God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have
only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law.
We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out
about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that what we find out on our
own steam is something that gives us a shock. We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One
is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude
that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless
and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of
evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than
the other, because it is inside information.
You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find
out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built. Now,
from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested
in right conduct —in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness. In that
sense we should agree with the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is
„good.” But do not let us go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking
that God is „good” in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent
about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to
care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not
soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you mean by a „good” God is a God who can forgive.
You are going too quickly. Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal
God—only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else.
But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no tense in asking
it to make allowances for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication table
to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the wrong answer. And it is no use
either saying that if there is a God of that sort—an impersonal absolute goodness—then you do not
like Him and are not going to bother about Him.
For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human
greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let
you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and
unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if
there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.
That is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our
efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness
every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.
We cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme
terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally,
and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute
goodness would be fun. They need to think again.
They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great
danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way. Now my third
point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind
of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense
until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing.
Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I
know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that
they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power
behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after
all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you
will listen, to. the doctor.
When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the
Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both
hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at
the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which
you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man
from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult
people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the
facts—to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying
facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true.
Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort.
But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all
trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and
everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you
may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth— only
soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the
prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.”
Claudiu:
„Suntem pacatosi? Biblia spune ca da”
Ei si? De ce ar interesa pe un ateu daca biblia spune ca este pacatos? Pe tine te intereseaza in vreun fel daca esti pacatos conform Coranului, Vedelor, Legendelor Olimpului? Daca esti „pacatos” conform legislatiei din Patagonia ori conform legendelor triburilor Zulu? Inainte de a aduce in discutia cu un ateu ca argument biblia, trebuie sa porti o alta discutie prin care sa demonstrezi ca intr-adevar biblia este un argument valabil. Asa ca argumentul „suntem asa pentru ca asa scrie in biblie/coran/upanishade” nu este un argument pe care sa il putem retine in discutie
Dar hai sa trecem mai departe…
„Ce spune Legea lui Dumnezeu? Sa nu minti! Ai mintit vreodata?”
Evident ca oricine a spus macar o data in viata lui un lucru neadevarat, cu intentie sau nu. Ei si? Care este problema? In functie de conjunctura, a spune adevarul ar fi un lucru gresit uneori.
Este gresit sa ii spui unui bolnav in faza terminala ca se va face bine?\
Ar fi gresit cineva care, in vremea WW2, ar minti autoritatile spunand ca nu stie unde sunt niste evrei, desi ii ascunde in podul casei?
In plus, chiar Pavel spune ca uneori minciuna este un lucru bun, de exemplu cand incerci sa convertesti pe cineva:
Romani 3:7 – Căci dacă adevărul lui Dumnezeu, prin minciuna mea, a prisosit spre slava Lui, pentru ce dar mai sunt şi eu judecat ca păcătos?
Fa diferenta intre minciuna spusa cu intentia de a face un rau cuiva si minciuna inofensiva.
„Ai furat vreodata un lucru cat de mic?”
Nu
„Ai luat numele lui Dumnezeu in desert (adica in zadar sau nefolositor)? Ai pus numele lui Dumnezeu langa expresii prin care iti exprimai furia sau dezgustul? Aceasta se numeste blasfemie”
Da – dar nu numai numele lui, ci si pe al altor zeitati la fel de reale, incepand cu Allah si terminand cu Zeus. 🙂
Care este problema?
„Isus a spus in Matei 5:28 ca „oricine se uită la o femeie, ca s-o poftească, a şi preacurvit cu ea în inima lui.” Acest lucru il spune dupa ce afirma ceea ce scrie in Lege si anume „sa nu comiti adulter”.”
Ei na. 🙂
Asta este un fel de Mind Control incercat de religie. A te uita dupa o femeie este la fel de natural ca respiratul, nu poti sa impiedici acest lucru si nici nu exista vreun motiv pentru a o face. Orice barbat sanatos, caruia ii functioneza hormonii corect, face acest lucru. Este o stupizenie sa consideri ca este ceva gresit. Nu doar ca nu faci niciun rau nimanui prin asta, dar chiar are efecte benefice asupra sanatatii. 🙂
„Crucea a insemnat ca blestemul ce era peste noi din cauza pacatelor noastre a trecut asupra lui Isus, El a fost facut blestem in locul nostru, a fost pedepsit ca pacatos. A luat pacatele noastre asupra lui de buna voie si s-a lasat pedepsit de Dumnezeu in locul nostru”
Adica Dumnezeu l-a pedepsit pe Dumnezeu?
Dumnezeu s-a pedepsit el insusi pentru ca altfel nu poate ierta pe cei care au incalcat niste legi imposibil de respectat pe care tot el le-a dat?
„Daca citesti Biblia singura, vei vedea ca adevaratii crestini sunt altfel.”
am citit suficient incat sa-mi dau seama de faptul ca Stephen KIng , Dean Koontz, Serge Brussolo si altii ca ei sunt mici copii
Te rog sa-mi explici ce intelegi prin „adevarati crestini”, uite de pilda, eu , atee, ma comport mult mai bine dpdv moral si social decat toti crestinii pe care ii cunosc , pentru ca asa ma indeamna propria constiinta si nicidecum o scriere antica si am un citat preferat , din Nicolae Iorga „fa-ti datoria oricand-intotdeauna va fi cineva care sa te vada- tu insuti”
Citeste aici: https://ateilor.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/zece-semne-ale-unui-crestin-adevarat/
Dar toate aceste caracteristici arata ceea ce s-a intamplat deja in om: nasterea din nou Ioan cap. 3.
„cand te gandesti ca Isus este Creatorul ce ne-a dat viata si totusi s-a lasat batjocorit de creaturi, acest lucru arata cat de mult ne-a iubit.”
stai putin, parca Dumnezeu ziceti voi ca ne-a creat si Isus e fiul lui facut cu o muritoare , respectiv Miryam(Maria), deci e semi-zeu
Si daca YHWE si Isus sunt una, atunci ce naiba de sens are sa te sacrifici pe tine insuti ca sa mantuiesti niste pacate inclusiv viitoare(? ) pe care tu le-ai declarat pacate (legile) , atat timp cat esti atoate stiutor? si ce legatura are iubirea?
Ori m-am imbatat eu cu ceai ori religia asta n-are nici un sens
Pe bune chiar e lipsita de orice logica
Kitana, asta arata cat de putin citesti Biblia unde se spune ca maria a ramas insarcinata de la Duhul Sfant.
„Kitana, asta arata cat de putin citesti Biblia unde se spune ca maria a ramas insarcinata de la Duhul Sfant.”
si cati cromozomi avea IIsus?
Nu stiu 🙂
Si ce daca a fost insarcinata de la Duhul Sfant – logica dicteaza ca a avut loc in acea fecundare un spermatozoid divin si un ovul uman .. nu ? – ei bine => semi zeu – e cat se poate de logic – Kitana a avut dreptate cand a zis ce a zis ! – e dupa povestea mitica a lui Hercules … e destul de asemanatoare .. ;)).
De ce sa presupun cand nu scrie asta. Duhul Sfant nu este „carne”. Cum a creat Dumnezeu omul, a putut face si acest lucru.
Nu e prea modest din partea ta Kitana sa afirmi ca crestinismul e lipsit de logica, de sens, doar ca tu nu intelegi o doctrina, sau esenta lui. E ca si cum nenea Gheorghe ar zice ca i o prostie si un nonsens fizica cuantica , fiindca el n-o pricepe. O intrebare de bun simt iti spun: Domnul Andrei Plesu, Claive Staiples Lewis, sa nu mai vorbesc de alti filozofi influenti, au fost prostiti? au fost incantati de non-sensul crestinismului? de lipsa lui de logica?
@horvathliviu – te rog lasa apelul la autoritate ca e chiar plicticos .. s-a discutat despre acesta de multa vreme, e suficient sa dai o geana peste celelalate topicuri – la fel si cum ca Einstein ba a fost crestin ba nu a fost – e absolut irelevant .. – si ce zici tu : ” E ca si cum nenea Gheorghe ar zice ca i o prostie si un nonsens fizica cuantica , fiindca el n-o pricepe. ” < – e o abureala uriasa si asta pt ca crestinismul nu e cine stie ce complicaciune – tot voi va mandriti cu acea carte ca o poate intelege chiar si un copil, si acu vi si o compari cu fizica cuantica … – lasa vrajelile deoparte pt ca sti bine ca nu e o mare branza cu aceasta carte si voi nu aveti ceva inteligenta superioara fata de noi incat sa nu o putem intelge – si nu uita, ca marea majoritate dintre aetii care viziteaza acest blog – au fost religiosi, printre care si eu – si stim ff bine cu ce se mananca biblia.
Si da, o persoana poate sa fie lipsita de inteligenta intr-un anumit domeniu si sa exceleze in alte 100 – tocmai de aceea apelul la autoritate e stupid.
check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY
Si trebuie sa pricepeti ca o persoana, chiar daca nu e religioasa, poa sa intaleaga aceasta religie si sa nu o accepte si chiar sa zica, ca e ilogica si fara sens … nu inteleg care e problema .. ? – la fel cum voua daca nu va place o masina, sau un anumit trend vestimentar sa spuneti ca sunt ilogice si fara sens .. get over it !
@horvathliviu
Da.
In primul rând nu e vorba de religie ci de Creștinism!
Matei 1:18
Iar nașterea lui Isus Hristos a fost asa: Maria, mama Lui, era logodită cu Iosif; și înainte ca să locuiască ei împreună, ea s-a aflat însărcinată de la Duhul Sfânt.
Matei 1:20
Dar pe când se gândea el la aceste lucruri, i s-a arătat în vis un înger al Domnului, şi i-a zis: „Iosife, fiul lui David, nu te teme să iei la tine pe Maria, nevasta ta, căci ce s-a zămislit în ea, este de la Duhul Sfânt.
Ps:
Matei 12:31
De aceea vă spun: Orice păcat şi orice hulă vor fi iertate oamenilor; dar hula împotriva Duhului Sfânt nu le va fi iertată.
Asa ca aveți grija ce vorbiți!!!
Matei 22:29
Drept răspuns, Isus le-a zis: „Vă rătăciţi! Pentru că nu cunoaşteţi nici Scripturile, nici puterea lui Dumnezeu.
Marcu 12:24
Drept răspuns, Isus le-a zis: „Oare nu vă rătăciţi voi, din pricină că nu pricepeţi nici Scripturile, nici puterea lui Dumnezeu?
„Nu e prea modest din partea ta Kitana sa afirmi ca crestinismul e lipsit de logica, de sens, doar ca tu nu intelegi o doctrina, sau esenta lui. E ca si cum nenea Gheorghe ar zice ca i o prostie si un nonsens fizica cuantica , fiindca el n-o pricepe.”
Comparatia e total nepotrivita, eu chiar am citit biblia si chiar am inteles ideea crestina , asta nu inseamna ca sunt de acord cu ea sau ca nu e absurda
„Exista un zeu care sunt trei dar e totusi unul singur ( dar sunt trei !), care-a facut Universul si acum moare de grija detaliilor modului in care traiesc niste primate de pe-o farama de praf dintr-un colt al acestui Univers, si de dragul lor s-a coborat pe planeta lor, a regulat o primata de s-a nascut el insusi, ca sa se sacrifice lui insusi, ca sa poata ierta primatelor faptul ca o femeie-coasta s-a lasat pacalita de un sarpe vorbitor sa infulece un mar cu vreo 4000 ani inainte. A, dupa sacrificiul ala, a inviat ca si cum nu s-ar fi intamplat nimic, si acum, din dragostea aia atat de mare, oricine nu ii mananca carnea si nu-l iubeste, va ajunge torturat intru vesnicie. Ramen !”
Nu suna ridicol?
Domnu’ „Eminescu”,
„e o abureala uriasa si asta pt ca crestinismul nu e cine stie ce complicaciune – tot voi va mandriti cu acea carte ca o poate intelege chiar si un copil, si acu vi si o compari cu fizica cuantica … ”
Crestinismul inseamna Hristos, zicea un teolog. Poa’ sa-l priceapa omul simplu, insa nu uita ca de 2000 de ani exista, si s-a scris tomuri de teologie, de la limbi clasice, la mistica, istoria crestinismului, etc. Daca ar fi atat de lispsit de „complicaciune”, de ce isi mai bat oamenii capul cu el? Si in universitati de ce se invata atata despre Crestinism si Hristos?
Oricum, mi-a parut bine sa discutam, si imi pare rau ca vorbim in contradictoriu. Dar nu prea are rost sa invartim in jurul subiectului ca prejudecatiile noastre sufoca dialogul.
Numai bine.
@horvathliviu
” Dar nu prea are rost sa invartim in jurul subiectului ca prejudecatiile noastre sufoca dialogul. ” – pai nu tocmai asta face un dialog interesant … ? prin faptul ca sunt 2 minti care au pareri diferite si intr-o polemica isi expun parerile pro si contra .. ?!?!
” Crestinismul inseamna Hristos, zicea un teolog. Poa’ sa-l priceapa omul simplu, insa nu uita ca de 2000 de ani exista, si s-a scris tomuri de teologie, de la limbi clasice, la mistica, istoria crestinismului, etc. Daca ar fi atat de lispsit de “complicaciune”, de ce isi mai bat oamenii capul cu el? Si in universitati de ce se invata atata despre Crestinism si Hristos? ”
– si ce daca .. ?, la fel pot sa spun despre islamism, budism, hinduism … intelegi ? – ce e ciudat, e faptul ca ignori constient toate celelalte religii si ti-o impui pe ata, de parca ar fi singura in lume – news flash … sunt peste 10.000 mii de religii world wide ! – incearca sa le spui acelor miliarde de oameni ca religia lor e apa chioara si ca tu deti ” adevarul ” – inca ceva, faci sa ma repet, desi sa m-ai discutat acest aspect – faptul ca tu esti crestin, se datoreaza unui accident genetic si asta pt ca te-ai nascut intr-o tara cu o religie predominant … ?!?! – daca ai zis ” cresinta ” – ai castigat … ei bine, ai fi putut sa te nasti foarte bine intr-o tara cu o religie predominant islamica, si daca „vietile” noastre s-ar fi intalnit, ai incerca sa ne convigi ca exista Allah si ca vom avea parte de 72 de virgine in rai [ misogism ] – daca te-ai fi nascut intr-o tara cu o religie predominant hindusa – ai incerca sa ma convingi ca sunt milioane de zei [ si asta e adevarat dupa ideologia lor ] – si ca vaca e un animal sacru si daca ii culegi balegarul proaspat eliminat – ai parte de noroc …
– cu alte cuvinte fi constient, incearca sa gandesti critic si nu uita de scepticism .. si astfel, poate … doar poate – ai sa vezi lumea cum e ea cu adevarat – nu zic ca detin vreun adevar absolut – ar fi stupid din partea mea … insa in ceea ce cred vreau sa fie adevarat, si acest statu, adica – de adevarat – il ia un obiect sau o chestie, atuncea cand e sustinut de dovezi clare, nu pareri personale, nu experiente personale sau credinta oarba … aaaa da, sau dupa o carte antica.
Numai bine.
Ti-am zis Eminescu sa ne oprim cu vorbareala. Ai dreptate , si Kitana are dreptate, tot ce vorbim noi crestinii este o nebunie, si asta e , dupa cum si Scriptura zice, la Epistola catre Corinteni.
Numai bine, si mi-a parut bine.
1Corinteni 1:18 Fiindcă propovăduirea crucii este o nebunie pentru cei ce sînt pe calea pierzării: dar pentru noi, cari sîntem pe calea mîntuirii, este puterea lui Dumnezeu.
@Claudiu
Parca ateii erau nebuni – „a zis cel nebun in inima sa: nu este Dumnezeu” (chiar tu mi-ai sevit acum ceva multa vreme citatul asta). Acum si crestinii, si ateii sunt nebuni: oamenii sunt nebuni. Pas de mai intelege ceva… 😀
@horvathliviu :)) esti pe bune hilar, era o chestiune de timp sa aduci in discutie Epistola catre Corinteni …. sunteti atat de previzibili … cum simtiti atacati, fugiti repede la biblie ca sa va demonstreze ca ea e adevarata argument circular => argument ilogic … bravo voua ce sa spun, amagiti-va in continuare ca dupa ce muriti veti trai vesnic impreuna cu ingerasi cu harpa si sa va slaviti d-zeu-ul non stop – o vesnicie :)) …
„Crestinismul inseamna Hristos, zicea un teolog.”
Cristos era evreu
Saul din Tars(pavel) a inventat crestinismul, daca chiar vorbim dpdv istoric
„Fiindcă propovăduirea crucii este o nebunie pentru cei ce sînt pe calea pierzării: dar pentru noi, cari sîntem pe calea mîntuirii, este puterea lui Dumnezeu.”
nu inteleg de ce crestinii adora un instrument de tortura si sunt adeptii canibalismului-sangele si carnea lui Iisus(painea ai cu vin care nu stiu exact cum se numeste)
mie mi se pare ceva barbar
Harpa si ingerasii e biblia citita din Tom si Jerry eminescule. Eu am alta Scriptura.
Kitana iti inteleg argumentele, de aceea am spus ca nu are rost sa venim cu argumente. E Ok, hai sa ramanem aici, te poti documenta daca vrei, si o sa afli raspunsul. E mai cinstit sa ne oprim si nu sa terminam cu injurii. Daca te-am jignit cu ceva te rog sa ma ierti. Numai bine
@horvathliviu
„Harpa si ingerasii e biblia citita din Tom si Jerry eminescule. Eu am alta Scriptura.”
– chiar crezi ca era necesar sa aduci asta in disctuie .. ? :)), da, tu ai o alta scriptura unde desenele cum tom si jerry nu se deosebesc de ea si asta pt ca in scriptura de care vb tu, apar serpi si magari vorbitori … aaa da si mai apar mitul potopului, unde fiecare animal e atras in barcuta lui noe ca printr-un fel de transa … 😛 ….
p.s. – ai bunult simti sa imi pronunti intregul nick, la fel cum o fac si eu – e o chestie minora de respect, nu cred ca cer prea multe …
„Suntem pacatosi? Biblia spune ca da, si afirma cu indrazneala ca nu este nici macar unul care sa fie bun.”
Fals. Uite ca si-n biblie mai zice de cate unii cum ca….
„Geneza 6:9. Iată viaţa lui Noe: Noe era om drept şi neprihănit între oamenii timpului său şi mergea pe calea Domnului.
Iov 1:1. Era odata în tinutul Uz un om pe care îl chema Iov si acest om era fara prihana si drept; se temea de Dumnezeu si se ferea de ce este rau.
Psalmi 14:2. Cel ce umbla fara prihana si face dreptate, cel ce are adevarul în inima sa.
Luca 1:5. Era în zilele lui Irod, regele Iudeii, un preot cu numele Zaharia din ceata preoteasca a lui Abia, iar femeia lui era din fiicele lui Aaron si se numea Elisabeta.
Luca 1:6. Si erau amândoi drepti înaintea lui Dumnezeu, umblând fara prihana în toate poruncile si rânduielile Domnului. ”
A, si doi la mana… multumesc. Confirmi inca o data cat de daunator e crestinismul. Iti inculca ideea ca totul e fara valoare, ca tu si semenii tai sunt doar niste pacatosi nedrepti… cum mai puteti spune dupa aia ca „ce valoare poate gasi un ateu in viata ?” ? cand uite cine sunt cei ce nu sunt capabili sa aprecieze la justa valoare viata asta ? uite cine considera ca e mai „frumos” sa manjeasca si mai mult o lume partial Ok ca sa… ca sa ce ?
1 Ioan 1:10
Dacă zicem că n-am păcătuit, Îl facem mincinos, și Cuvântul Lui nu este în noi!
BaRaKa a aratat – negru pe alb – ca Biblia te contrazice. Sau crezi ca Biblia minte?
Hope clouds observation.
* Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
Biblia nu minte, uni orbecaesc prin intuneric…
Te laud, Tată, Doamne al cerului şi al pământului, pentru că ai ascuns aceste lucruri de cei înțelepți şi pricepuți, și le-ai descoperit copiilor tai! Amin!
Biblia nu minte, dar se contrazice. In speta, BaRaKa te-a contrazis CU CITATE pe tine cand ai afirmat, CU CITATE, anumite chestii. Acuma poate afirmatia ta, specific, este falsa (si citatele respective nu se refera la ce vorbeai tu acolo)… in cazul asta interpretarea ta este defectuoasa…
Epistola 1 a lui Ioan 3:9 spune
Oricine este nascut din Dumnezeu, nu pacatuieste, pentru ca samanta Lui ramane in el; si nu poate pacatui, fiindca este nascut din Dumnezeu
Deci, cum e? Ori suntem toti pacatosi, ori unii nu sunt pentru ca au „samanta” lui Isus in ei? 🙂
Este păcat care duce la moarte….cred ca pe astea le sti…
Si orice nelegiuire este păcat dar, este un păcat, care nu duce la moarte.
Ai înțeles?
Adica lucruri care ar trebui sa le faci, si nu le faci…si lucruri care nu trebuie sa le faci, si le faci!
E greu de inteles?
Nu exista atei..
Iacov 2:19
Tu crezi că Dumnezeu este unul, şi bine faci; dar şi dracii cred… şi se înfioară!
@Newlife
Nu exista nici o corelare intre versetul de mai sus si afirmatia ” nu exista atei ” …
În Romani 1:18 spune: “Mânia lui Dumnezeu se descopere din cer împotriva oricărei necinstiri a lui Dumnezeu şi împotriva oricărei nelegiuiri a oamenilor, care înăduşă adevărul în nelegiuirea lor.” Același adevăr ne spune şi Galateni 6:7 “ Nu vă înșelați: Dumnezeu nu se lasă să fie batjocorit. Ce seamănă omul, aceea va şi secera.”Nu cred că vrei ca Dumnezeu să te pedepsească doar pentru faptul că nu-ţi poți stăpâni gura. Binecuvântează pe Dumnezeu şi El te va binecuvânta pe tine.
Matei 12:36
Vă spun că, în ziua judecații, oamenii vor da socoteală de orice cuvânt nefolositor, pe care-l vor fi rostit.
@Newlife
Care e scopul tau final .. ? – ai idee ca vi cu ceva „nou „, ceva ce nimeni nu a mai vazut sau auzit … ? si prin asta te astepti sa schimbi ceva pe aicea .. ? – e absolut inutila intentia ta si asta pt ca, daca erai istet ai fi dat o geana peste topicurile vechi si ai fi observat ca cele spuse de tine sau discutat … si te-ai fi scutit de o interventie absolut degeaba …
Asa, si? Ceva asemanator scrie si in Coran… De ce ar trebui sa iau de buna biblia, iar coranul, ori alte carti sfinte asemanatoare, nu? De ce ar trebui sa o cred pe biblie si nu altele?
De ce Biblia?
E foarte simplu, pentru ca e singura carte care are efect, pe când celelalte sunt moarte…
Încearcă și o sa vezi!
Numai bine!
4u
La ce efect te referi … pt ca lasi loc de interpretare … ?!, chiar si o carte care are ca subiect o aventura, un roman politist, de dragoste, toate acestea au un efect …. si .. ?!
@4u
De fapt coranul este singura carte care are efect, restul fiind moarte. Milioane de musulmani l-au incercat si au vazut! Tu de ce nu o faci?
eminescinescu@abis
Ati primit voi Duhul Sfant cand ati crezut?
Asta e ca sa nu o mai lungim atat…
Ce inseamna „duh sfant”?
Eu nu am crezut niciodata nici in Dumnezeu, nici in Allah, nici in Zamolxe, nici in Krishna, nici in Thor, nici in alt zeu.
Ioan 8:44
Voi aveți de tată pe diavolul; și vreți să împliniți poftele tatălui vostru. El de la început a fost ucigaș; și nu stă în adevăr, pentru că în el nu este adevăr. Ori de câte ori spune o minciună, vorbește din ale lui, căci este mincinos și tatăl minciunii!!!
Isaia 55:6
Cautați pe Domnul câtă vreme se poate găsi, chemați-L, câtă vreme este aproape!
Ioel 2:13
Sfâşiaţi-vă inimile nu hainele, şi întoarceţi-vă la Domnul, Dumnezeul vostru. Căci El este milostiv şi plin de îndurare, îndelung răbdător şi bogat în bunătate, şi-I pare rău de relele pe care le trimite.
Zaharia 1:4
Nu fiţi ca părinţii voştri, cărora le vorbeau proorocii de mai înainte, zicând: Aşa vorbeşte Domnul oştirilor: Întoarceţi-vă de la căile voastre cele rele, de la faptele voastre cele rele! Dar n-au ascultat şi n-au lut aminte la Mine, zice Domnul.”
Faptele apostolilor 3:19
Pocăiţi-vă dar, şi întoarceţi-vă la Dumnezeu, pentru ca să vi se şteargă păcatele, ca să vină de la Domnul vremurile de înviorare!
Newlife, am citit si eu biblia si daca vrei pot si eu sa-ti dau citate… N-am inteles din citatele alea care este raspunsul la intrebarea pe care ti-am pus-o.
Duhul Sfant este cea de-a treia persoana a Dumnezeirii :
– Dumnezeu Tatal
– Dumnezeu Fiul
– Duhul Sfant
In marea opera divina de salvare umana , Biblia prezinta actiunea biblica a acestor trei forme de exercitare a conducerii divine.
Duhul Sfant desfasoara o lucrare divin- informationala a fiintelor rationale.
Singura cale de coordonare a unor fiinte libere in vederea restabilirii unei ordini libere se poate face, nu prin forte fizice ci prin forta ideii, prin intermediul ideilor.
@Petro
Cu tot respectul, dar nu intelegi intrebarea, nu cine este duhul sfant .. ci ce este ? din ce e compus, cum arata, concret ce e, de unde sti ca exista …. ?!?!?!
Petro:
„Duhul Sfant este cea de-a treia persoana a Dumnezeirii”
Asta-o definitie de Wikipedia. 🙂
Nu asta am intrebat.
Dar, ma rog, sa continuam: ce este aceea Dumnezeire?
@eminescinescu
Pai cum de unde? Din Biblie. Intrebarea este de ce acorda valoare de adevar infailibil Bibliei…
@Newlife
Pai vi si ne intrebi ” Ati primit voi Duhul Sfant cand ati crezut? ” – dupa care ne arunci niste versete de parca i-ai raspunde cu acestea lui @abis si anume : ” Ce este duh sfant ? ”
Lasa versetele din biblie, mai ales alea de sus ca nu au nici o relevanta, raspunde la intrebare : ” Ce este duhul sfant ” – si fi foarte atent, nu ce face si cum se manifesta … ci CE ESTE ?!?!
p.s. Nu incerca sa raspunzi in felul urmator :
” Aaaa, deci voi nici macar nu stiti ce e duhul sfant si vreti sa va credem ca ati fost crestini … ?, nu ati fost niciodata, nici macar nu stiti ce inseamna sa fi crestin dar`mite sa stiti ce inseamna sa primesti duhul sfant ”
– te rog frumos sa nu ai aceasta initiatva pt ca nu asta te-am intrebat, te rog incearca sa raspunzi strict la intreabrea : ” Ce este duhul sfant ? ” – dupa raspunul tau putem elabora discutia … so ?
cum nu stiti? Duhul Sfant este o entitate invizibila care lasa fecioarele insarcinate (eu asa stiu din Biblie)
Kitana, nu trebuie sa fii ironica. Ceea ce ai spus este gresit. Ai mentionat „fecioarele”. Si daca stii asa, te asigur ca nu din Biblie.
Claudiu, daca definitia data de Kitana nu e buna, ne ajuti cu o alta?
Eminescinescu,
teologia, vorbirea despre Dumnezeu e mai ceva ca fizica cuantica.
Faceti-va temele de abecedar si apoi hai sa stam de vorba. Ce nu pricepeti ca nu pricepeti?
Pai daca nu intelegeti cele fundamentale ale crestinismului(Duhul Sfant) si nu vreti sa le credeti, lasati-o balta, ca e mai cinstit decat sa stati pe subiect si sa batjocoriti.
Dumnezeu nu se lasa batjocorit. Nu vorbim despre fosile, istorie ,ci despre o Persoana vie, care ne stie viata, si de care ne e dependenta viata ,ca vrem ca nu vrem. Respect, si daca nu va rabdati de a badjocori, v-as indemna sa mergeti si sa badjocoriti pe alte bloguri: mizeria, mustele, tantarii, mancarea stricata, gunoiul de pe strazi, etc, vedeti voi
@horvathliviu
Tu ai citit macar comentariul meu .. ?, unde apare vreo ofensa la adresa duhului sfant .. ? e o ofensa pt ca intrebam ce anume E ?, te rog nu fi atat de puieril sau sa faci pe naivul si repede sa vi cu acuzatii nefondate, daca vrei sa raspunzi la intrebare, fa-o, nu ne lua cu lecti de conduita si cum si ce anume trebuie si nu trebuie discutat … avem tot dreptul sa ne expunem punctul de vedere, cel putin pana ce @Claudiu ne tolereaza, insa daca el ne cenzureaza [ si a facut-o de multe ori ], nu respecta libertatea de exprimare ….
” eminescinescu
11/02/2011 8:13 pm
p.s. Nu incerca sa raspunzi in felul urmator :
” Aaaa, deci voi nici macar nu stiti ce e duhul sfant si vreti sa va credem ca ati fost crestini … ?, nu ati fost niciodata, nici macar nu stiti ce inseamna sa fi crestin dar`mite sa stiti ce inseamna sa primesti duhul sfant ”
– te rog frumos sa nu ai aceasta initiatva pt ca nu asta te-am intrebat, te rog incearca sa raspunzi strict la intreabrea : ” Ce este duhul sfant ? ” – dupa raspunul tau putem elabora discutia … so ? ”
– ai citit asta ?, defapt nici nu stiu de ce te m-ai intreb, pt ca mi-ai raspuns exact cum am mentionat eu mai sus ca mi-ati fi raspuns … tipic nu ?, ei bine ai parte de cainta [putin sarcasm inofensiv] , daca iti repari greseala printr-un raspuns pertinent si strict la subiect !
Numai bine.
p.s. – imi cer scuze in cazul in care nu ai vazut mesajul de mai sus si te rog sa nu iei in considerare acest mesaj, acest fapt fiind cauzat de modul de acceptare a mesajelor de catre @Claudiu, insa daca l-ai vazut si totusi te-ai decis sa trimiti acel comment, nu ai nici o scuza…
Numai bine.
@horvathliviu
fantastic :)) you made my day :
„teologia, vorbirea despre Dumnezeu e mai ceva ca fizica cuantica.
Faceti-va temele de abecedar si apoi hai sa stam de vorba. Ce nu pricepeti ca nu pricepeti?
Pai daca nu intelegeti cele fundamentale ale crestinismului(Duhul Sfant) si nu vreti sa le credeti, lasati-o balta, ca e mai cinstit decat sa stati pe subiect si sa batjocoriti.”
Ei bine afla ca stiinta(inclusiv fizica cuantica) e mai ceva decat teologia,vorbirea despre Dumnezeu.
Faceti-va temele de abecedar si apoi mai stam de vorba.Ce nu pricepeti ca nu pricepeti?
Pai daca nu intelegeti cele fundamentale ale Stiintei si nu vreti sa le intelegeti, lasati-o balta, ca e mai cinstit decat sa stati pe subiect si sa va faceti de ras.
Si cat despre ce vrea si ce nu vrea,ce permite si ce nu permite Dumnezeu,cred ca ar fi mai onest sa spui „eu cred ca Dumnezeu….” , asta in afara situatiei in care ai vreun telefon rosu ce duce nu la Washington,ci acasa la Dumnezeu.
Vladule , si teologii si oamenii de stiinta incep de la presupozitii. Nu poti dovedi ca universul a inceput la Bing Bang si ca duce la Bang Big. Si mai inainte de aceasta teorie a genezei universului au fost altele. S-a dat cu presupusul, si se porneste de la presupozitii. Deci toti plecam de la credinta ca…si din cate am citit , marii oameni de stiinta au crezut in Dumnezeu, Copernic si altii.
Nu. In stiinta pleci de la o supozitie si o demonstrezi. Daca nu reusesti, schimbi supozitia. Dupa ce ai cateva astfel de supozitii demonstrate, poti crea un model (o teorie). Asa ca nu are nimic de-a face cu credinta.
Da, multi oameni mari de stiinta au crezut in Dumnezeu. Dar te rog arata o SINGURA teorie stiintifica formulata de respectivii care il implica pe Dumnezeu. Una singura.
Dumnezeu a creat baza lor de lucru. Mie mi se pare ca Il implica foarte mult pe Dumnezeu :D. Noi nu putem decat sa observam si sa folosim in „creatiile” noastre ceea ce exista deja, ceea ce a fost creat de Dumnezeu de la inceput.
@Claudiu
Citesti, dar nu intelegi. Presupozitiile alea trebuie dovedite. Daca vrei, e asa: „Noi presupunem X. Daca X, atunci Y. Din observatiile/experimentele noastre resulta Y. Deci X este adevarat”. Daca Y nu este observat/experimentat atunci X cade. Daca procesul prin care Y are loc in cazul ca X este adevarat este invalid, atunci X cade (mai bine zis dovada respectiva ca X este adevarat cade; X poate fi retestat prin alta metoda, daca exista).
Stiinta porneste de la o singura presupozitie (amendament) – ca natura nu face misto de noi. Asta este o supozitie care se presupune la nivel fundamental, pentru ca nu se poate nici dovedi nici infirma, iar respingerea ei nu are nici un scop utilitar/functional. Este si ca ipoteza solipsismului (Matrix, daca vrei) – pentru ca nu se poate testa sub nici o forma, a o presupune adevarat nu aduce nici un folos cunoasterii lumii, ba mai mult este un obstacol pentru aceasa. Prezenta unui dumnezeu activ (nu ma refer aici la cel crestin in particular) este testabila prin efectele ei si prin presupusele relatari din cartile sfinte (Biblie, Coran, etc). Asa ca daca Biblia-infailibila-cuvantul-lui-Dumnezeu spune ceva contrar realitatii (ca Pamantul are 6k-10k ani), aceasta priopune o ipoteza testabila si care poate fi respinsa de realitate. Deci Dumnezeul propus de acea Biblie (sau de interpretarea ei – vezi YEC si OEC) este invalidat ca ipoteza stiintifca. Asa ca ori iti schimbi proprietatile zeului tau, ori il treci la teologie pura, fara nici o pretentie stiintifica.
P.S. Asta implica ca Dumnezeu nu se tine de farse – conform primului meu amendament, de la inceputul acestui comentariu. Daca se tine, ipoteza nu mai este testabila stiintific – dar in acelasi timp Biblia se inseala iar credinta este inutila (Dumnezeu poate sa va faca o farsa iar cei mai aprigi credinciosi sa se parpaleasca lejer la barbecue in Iad dupa moarte iar ateii sa bea bere in Rai). Asa ca aceasta ipoteza este dezavuata atat de stiinta cat si religie (desi unii detinatori de disonante cognitive propun aceasta ipoteza atunci cand vor sa justifice „aparenta” varsta antica a fosilelor prin faptul ca Dumnezeu le-a creat „pre-imbatranite” – bineinteles ignorand caracterul inselatoral lui Dumnezue cand vine de mantuire proprie). Si chiar si mie personal, ideea unui dumnezeu pus pe farse mi se pare complet dezagreabila…
@horvathliviu
Ai inteles perfect ce iti spuneam si imi place la nebunie rezumatul tau despre procesul stiintific. (now where is that sarcasm font I was about to use?!)
Cat despre apelul la „Copernic si altii”,nici macar nu mai e apel la autoritate,l-ai transformat in „cineva zice ceva,asa ca asa e”.
Quick tip(in caz ca nu ai inteles de ce): Nu poti face apel la autoritatea unui individ in cadrul stiintei,daca in acelasi timp denigrezi stiinta !
Mkay ? Nu poti sa zici ca cea mai mare vrajitoare din lume,despre care stim ca minte,spune ca Ceausescu a fost omorat de extraterestrii,asa ca,luand in considerare autoritatea pe care aceasta o reprezinta in domeniul vrajitoriei,clar Ceausescu a fost omorat de extraterestrii. Okidok ?
@kitana,abis,eminescinescu,robotu de serviciu,vladc
Romani 2:21
tu deci, care înveți pe alții, pe tine însuti nu te înveți?
Ioan 9:39
Apoi Isus a zis: „Eu am venit în lumea aceasta pentru judecată: ca cei ce nu văd, să vadă, și cei ce văd, să ajungă orbi.”
Ioan 9:40
Unii din Fariseii care erau lângă el, când au auzit aceste vorbe, I-au zis: „Doar n-om fi și noi orbi!”
Ioan 9:41
„Dacă ați fi orbi”, le-a răspuns Isus, „n-aţi avea păcat; dar acum ziceți: ,Vedem.’ Tocmai de aceea, păcatul vostru rămâne.”
Efeseni 4:18
având mintea întunecată, fiind străini de viata lui Dumnezeu, din pricina neștiinței în care se află în urma împietririi inimii lor.
Efeseni 5:14
De aceea zice: „Deşteaptă-te tu, care dormi, scoală-te din morți, și Hristos te va lumina.”
Maleahi 1:9
Şi acum, vă rog, rugaţi-vă lui Dumnezeu să aibă milă de noi! Vă va primi El cu bunăvoința, când mâinile voastre fac astfel de lucruri? zice Domnul oștirilor.
@Claudiu
Apreciez foarte mult ceea ce faci…faci chiar mai mult decât e nevoie!
Domnul sa-ti dea în continuare minte și ințelepciune pentru a duce mai departe vestea cea buna!
Har și Pace! 🙂
Multumesc, fii binecuvantat!
@Newlife
Esti mortal :)) .. cu noi vb in versete, insa cu @Claudiu folosesti ” cuvinte ” … :)).
@Newlife
p.s. – oare cand ai degand se ne raspunzi la intrebari .. ? – pt ca tinzi sa te repeti cu acele versete, si cum am mai spus-o, faci acest lucru absolut degeaba, so ? ai de gand sa ne raspunzi clar si concret, sau continui cu versete … ? – ca sa stim daca mai are sens sa mai discutam cu tine ? sau daca e sa mai discut cu tine, pt ca nu vb in numele fiecaruia !
Cu noi pune „robotul”
🙂
M-a chemat cineva?
:))
@Newlife
prin faptul ca dai intr-una citate si nu esti in stare sa sustii o argumentatie, demonstrezi clar ceea ce va sa zica un „bun crestin”- „noi citim [Biblia], nu gandim!”
@Kitana
Este o tactica de intimidare. O ruda mai palida a „Gish gallop” (daca stii la ce ma refer). Practic el/ea te ingroapa intr-o serie de citate care au sau nu legatura cu subiectul, ca sa dea impresia de cunoastere esoterica, ascunsa, misterioasa. Biblia e ca un om – daca o chinui spune orice ™. Si apoi spun e- „dar vai, eui ti-am raspuns, dar esti prea ignorant/a ca sa intelegi ce ti-am spus”. Este o tehnica de evitare clasica.
P.S. Pe Planet Atheism, in rubricile de azi a aparut un articol referitor la cum interpreteaza evreii Tora astfel incat invatamintele morale ale acesteia sa se incadreze in normele morale moderne (si-au dat seama ca legile din Vechiul Testament sunt mult prea salbatice si sangeroase – chiar divine fiind). Si pun o gramada de conditii restrictive asupra „impricinatului” astfel ca este o minune ca acesta sa fie chiar condamnat. De exemplu daca ai un copil nerespectuos, poti sa il omori, dar numai daca fura bani din casa, te injura, se imbata (in alt loc decat acasa), ambi parinti sunt de acord, trebuie sa fie de sex masculin, sa nu fie nici copil nici adolescent (este o „fereastra” anume in ce priveste varsta, pe baza formularilor originale ale Torah). In plus, trebuie sa fie avertizat cu privire la comportamentul sau (si consecintele sale) de cel putin 2 martori independenti si trebuie sa o fi facut cu intentie sa incalce legea (nu ca ii place sa se imbete sau nu mai stiu eu ce). Totul bineinteles justificat la sange cu interpretarea Torei si cu citate din greu. Justificat, cum s-ar spune. Mie mi se pare foarte amuzante aceste contorsionari ale credintei…
eminescinescu@ NU am de gând sa-ți(va) răspund la nici o întrebare! răspunsul îl ai mai jos!
abis@ nu e nimeni mai bun decât celalalt(inclusiv eu)
kitana@eu nu trebuie sa demonstrez nimic, ci voi!!!
Creștini autentici pot fi oricând ca voi ,voi ca ei… mai vedem…
Robotu’ de serviciu@nu vreau sa intimidez pe nimeni,bucuria,pacea,fericirea adevărata ce mi-a dato Dumnezeu, sa dea Domnul sa o aveți și voi!!! Amin!
Matei 3:2
El zicea: „Pocăiţi-vă, căci Împărăția cerurilor este aproape.”
Mat 4.17; Mat 10.7;
Marcu 1:15
El zicea: „S-a împlinit vremea, şi Împărăția lui Dumnezeu este aproape. Pocăiţi-vă, şi credeți în Evanghelie.”
Faptele apostolilor 2:38
„Pocăiţi-vă”, le-a zis Petru, „şi fiecare din voi să fie botezat în Numele lui Isus Hristos, spre iertarea păcatelor voastre; apoi veți primi darul Sfântului Duh. Amin!
Si ca asta conversația mea cu voi sa terminat!
„conversația mea cu voi sa terminat”
Nici n-a inceput; asta nu e conversatie, este monolog. 🙂
As face pariu insa ca mai apari tu pe aici – si evident tot cu citate, ca in afara de copy-paste n-am vazut la tine o idee originala, pana acum…
@Newline
– Citatele din Biblie nu sunt argumente. Daca vrei sa le convertesti la argumente, precizeaza DE CE crezi ca ar fi argumente (adica cum se aplica cazului in speta). Tu faci doar o insiruire de versete care nu au legatura cu subiectul (sau au o legatura ezoterica, numai de tine stiuta). Asta e egal cu zero. Comunicatia este inutila cand nu ai cu cine comunica (nu ai partener de dialog). Cum a spus si abis, tu faci monolog aici…
– Noi nu credem afirmatiile tale. Prin urmare TU trebuie sa le sustii. Si mi se pare normal: daca afirmi ceva, trebuie sa sustii acel lucru. Bineinteles, daca ai vedea ce inseamna „burden of proof”, „proving a negative”, „Russel’s teapot” ai avea o privire mai clara asupra subiectului.
– Nu intimidezi pe nimeni. Noi doar ridicam o spranceana (a la Spock) si spunem „Ce vrea sa zica asta?…”. Este amuzant, dar plictisitor dupa un timp. Si iti reamintesc – dialogul presupune comunicare. Transfer de informatii. NU monolog. Un casetofon ar face un monolog mai bun ca un om. Dar cu un casetofon nu poti discuta, nu?
robotule
faci o greseala cand nici macar nu vrei sa investighezi daca biblia este adevarata.succesiunea imperiilor babilonian,medo-persan,roman,grec(nu stiu daca le-am pus in ordine,sau daca sunt complete…conteaza mai putin)sunt sustinute de istorie.adica in istorie se dovedeste ceea ce scrie in biblie.si daca biblia a fost scrisa inainte de intamplarea acestor lucruri cum te ridici tu acum sa spui ca nu e adevarata?
Ce te face sa crezi ca nu am investigat, sa ca nu vreau sa o fac, daca Biblia este adevarata? Te anunt ca am facut-o.
Unele chestii sunt sustinute de istorie si apar ca atare in Biblie. Dar unele chestii sustinute de istorie apar si in Legendele Olimpului. Te las pe tine sa duci la concluzia extrema acest rationament.
Daca ceva continute jumatati de adevar nu inaseamna ca este un lucru adevarat. Vezi ca exista multe chestii atestate istoric care spun ca Biblia se inseala (caz in speta – vezi cetatea Ierihonului). Asta inseamna ca Biblia e 100% falsa? Asa ar trebui, dupa logica ta…
Asat cu „intamplarea” lucrurilor este de obicei
a) neadevarata (biblia nu a fost scrisa inainte);
b) vaga (chestiile respective se potriveste cu 1000 de alte lucruri, dar tu selectezi ce iti convine tie).
Eu pot spune ca nu e adevarta pentru ca nu e suficient de riguros demonstrata sau e neconvingatoare/neplauzibila. Este privilegiul meu. Tu in schimb trebuie sa inaintezi cu demonstratiile ca Biblia e 100% adevarata, ca Dumnezeu exista, etc. „Burden of proof”, nu uita…
Crestinii cred intr-un Dumnezeu care a creat universul si oamenii, cred ca viata umana (materiala) este continuata de una spirituala fara limite spatiale si temporale, cred ca Biblia (cu toate „contradictiile” ei) este un ghid necesar pentru a putea trece linistit in viata cealalta si multe alte lucruri absurde. Toate nu sunt decat baliverne, praf in ochi, povesti de adormit copiii, lucruri inventate de niste oameni pentru a prosti alti oameni, deci inexistente. Totusi eu cel putin nu m-as ambala sa demostrez cuiva care crede in Dumnezeu ca Acesta nu exista daca sunt „sigur” ca El si toate lucrurile adiacente Lui nu ar exista……. E logic, e pierdere de timp 🙂 . Doar daca…………. exista totusi o posibilitate ca El sa existe. Am citit multe comentarii si am remarcat aroganta cu care unii se manifesta. Ei cred ca stiu totul, ca au atins un nivel de cunoastere ce sa mai zic extraordinar. Totusi eu sunt SIGUR ca nici unul nu stie mai mult de 1% din totalul cunostintelor din aceasta lume. Ar trebui totusi sa-si puna intrebarea : „Oare in restul celor 99% din cunostinte nu ar putea totusi sa existe si cunostinta despre un Dumnezeu real?”
Celor care sunt „siguri” ca nu exista Dumnezeu le recomand documentarul „Expelled.No.Intelligence.Allowed” ca sa-si dea seama ca traiesc o dictatura bine pusa la cale, cu anumite scopuri, gen exterminari masive de oameni, etc….
PS:
Pascal:
Exista doua variante ambele valabile si adevarate:
1. Exista Dumnezeu si rasplata dupa moarte:
A. daca eu cred aceasta voi fi rasplatit si voi trai o eternitate 🙂
B. daca nu cred nu vreau sa spun ce se intampla (exista si aici mai multe variante)
2. Nu exista Dumnezeu si totul este aici si pentru aici, adica mancam, ne acuplam, dormim, etc. dupa care paf! devenim materie descompusa buna pentru ingrasamant la radacina unui copac
A. daca este adevarat si prima varianta e falsa eu nu pierd nimic
B. daca nu este adevarat si prima varianta este corecta pierd TOTUL 🙂
La vremea lui Blaise Pascal (cu toate defectele lui) a fost cel mai mare matematician dar ciudat…….. a fost si crestin? hmmmmm cred ca da 🙂
Au revoir mes amis!
Rationamentul asta (Pariul lui Pascal) il poate formula la fel de bine si un musulman sau orice alt credincios.
Exista doua variante ambele valabile si adevarate:
1. Exista Allah/Visnu/Manitu/Zoroastru si rasplata dupa moarte:
A. daca eu cred aceasta voi fi rasplatit si voi trai o eternitate 🙂
B. daca nu cred nu vreau sa spun ce se intampla (exista si aici mai multe variante)
2. Nu exista Allah/Visnu/Manitu/Zoroastru si totul este aici si pentru aici, adica mancam, ne acuplam, dormim, etc. dupa care paf! devenim materie descompusa buna pentru ingrasamant la radacina unui copac
A. daca este adevarat si prima varianta e falsa eu nu pierd nimic
B. daca nu este adevarat si prima varianta este corecta pierd TOTUL
Asadar, rational ar fi sa credem in toti zeii posibili?