Don’t take this the wrong way.
Christianity is way better than all other religions.
Seriously.
The New Testament was written several months before the internet existed.
And miraculously addresses the internet’s questions. Here’s a quote from someone who doesn’t believe God exists:
A popular claim among religious theists is that atheists have no basis for morality — that religion and gods are needed for moral values. Usually, they mean their religion and god, but sometimes they seem willing to accept any religion and any god. The truth is that neither religions nor gods are necessary for morality, ethics, or values. They can exist in a godless, secular context just fine, as demonstrated by all the godless atheists who lead moral lives every day.
Godless people are offended by the suggestion that they don’t have a basis for their morality. Morality matters enough to them that they’ll exert energy writing articles about how they DO have morality and they DO behave ethically and stop SAYING I DON’T HAVE MORALS JUST BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD!!!
Fundamentalist Christians assert that only people of faith do good things.
(Specifically, only Fundamentalist Christians like themselves, do good things.)
Sometimes this upsets people.
(Specifically, people who ARE NOT Fundamentalist Christians.)
Heathen people don’t like being labeled “bad” because they don’t believe in God.
Go figure.
Non-religious people write stuff like this:
“Can there be a godless morality? Can we assert a superiority for a godless morality over traditional, theistic, and religious morality? Yes, I think that this is possible. Unfortunately, few people even acknowledge the existence of godless moral values, much less their significance.”
Austin Cline
Well, then!
I want to be among those few who says with absolute sincerity:
“Moral values exist within godless people.”
Let’s wait and see if I get struck by lightning…
…nope. I’m okay.
Godless people can do good things.
This shouldn’t shock Christians.
It’s in the Bible.
“When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.”
– Romans 2:14
Kabooooooom!
This is just one reason why Christianity is the world’s greatest religion.
Christianity gives credit for good deeds EVEN TO NON-CHRISTIANS!
In fact, heathens HAVE to do good sometimes.
Because the law is written on their hearts.
If that sounds “too religious” for you, then call it a conscience.
So, Christians, please…
…stop talking like we’re the only people who have morals.
We’re not.
Atheists can do good things too. They just can’t explain why they’re good.
You don’t need Christianity in order to do “good”.
You need Christianity to explain WHY you do “good”.
226 Responses
Good post for non-Christians .
Love this post! Well said, man…
I love the Jefferson quote that JZ shared!
I’m going to repost it with a picture, so people might actually see it.
Now, if anyone wants to play a fun game, pretend to be Thomas Jefferson, back from the dead. Then ask the Atheists to explain to you exactly which scientific discoveries have led to things like freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote…or which scientific discoveries tell us that abortion and gay marriage are moral.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Jefferson-peale.jpg
Nice Straw Man. You’re almost as proficient at creating cartoons as your father, and he’s a veritable Master.
Do you see the word “scientific” discoveries anywhere there in Jefferson’s thought?
Or do you see words like “opinions,” “truths,” “manners,” “mind,” “circumstances,” “times,” “laws,” and “constitutions”?
Use whatever words you like.
Go ahead and describe for Jefferson why you’re pro-choice, for example.
It’s just opinion, right?
No, let’s stick with the words Jefferson actually used, rather than creating a deceptive Branyan Cartoon.
How does that sound?
I’m asking what YOU think, JZ. I don’t know why you shared Jefferson’s quote, unless you wanted to make some point that you agreed or disagreed with him.
So, which is it?
Tell me which of his concepts/ideas/words you agree with and which you disagreed with?
I do agree with it, and so does your father
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
And so do I…
LOL.
Please, tell me this is another instance of you sharing a source without realizing you’re making a case for the wrong side again. HAHAHAHA!
My humble apologies.
I must have missed that bit where Jefferson mentions Christianity and the Middle Eastern god, Yhwh.
So, in other words, YES–this is another instance where you have decided ahead of time that anything which doesn’t mention Jesus or Christianity or Yahweh specifically is some kind of strike AGAINST Jesus or Christianity or Yahweh.
HAHAHA!
You Fundies crack me up. If I could draw your mind, it would look like this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/b9/02/5ab9029f5e368ce9e2842cd1731d6bf5.jpg
I think I’ll just let Jefferson’s words speak for themselves… One day, you might even understand them:
You’re dropping out, huh?
I wasn’t done talking about Jefferson!
You know, he talked about the progress of the mind long before Darwin proposed the nice god-substitute we call “Natural Selection.” (You know, that mysterious force which has all the power and apparent goals that a mind would have, so that Atheists must go out of their way to specify that it’s mindless.)
Anyway, Jefferson noticed that human morality tended to make progress. Since you’re so well-versed in what motivated America’s Founding Fathers, I wonder what you think Jefferson imagined that society was progressing towards?
Told you!
Jefferson doesn’t say Yahweh!
I’m psychic!
I LOVE it….
Every time the Atheists quote some bit of Truth, it’s a good day.
It’s written on their hearts!
I already knew that.
But did you hear me? I’M PSYCHIC!
Yeah, if I were wearing JZ’s “Christian” hat, I’d burn you for witchcraft…
Rule of logic, if a premise of a statement is false, then the entire statement is true.
“If A, then B.” is only false when A is true and B is false.
So really, if theism is based on a false premise, all theistic statements are logically true in their entirety. So if all theists have a false premise, then theists cannot lie.
It is only the people with truthful premises that have to watch out that they do not make faulty conclusions. People with a false premise can say that they never lie. People that have a truthful premise and a truthful conclusion can also say they never lie.
I actually looked up how to enable the “like” button–just so I could publicly appreciate Tildeb’s comment: “I am sorry that the commentary devolves so quickly into something petty and churlish… I would like nothing better than to have productive discussions. But at the very least, criticisms need to be seen…even if poorly treated by the bloggers who invite it.”
How could you not “like” such sacrifice, when done for the sake of Truth?! I’m happy to go out of my way to do so. And, now that there is a like button, I would encourage anyone else who is inspired by this hero to say so!
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/bad-people-can-do-good/comment-page-1/#comment-7762
He is indeed an inspiration.
Such valor!
…and humility…
…can’t forget humility.
Oh, for a medal to pin upon his breast!!
Nay.
What use is a medal to a lover of knowledge?
Our Dear Leader only asks that you never question him.
That’s all!
When it comes to singing the praises of an intelligent and courageous Atheist, we usually can count on Carmen for the right words:
(From this thread: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/im-not-broken-im-sinful/comment-page-1/#comment-1968 )
Hear, hear!
Knowledge!
Reality!
Artistry!
Hip Hip Hooray for all three!
“From whom does religion steal goodness?”
Are you serious?
You’ve answered this already, remember
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
Wither doth the wind blow…
Are you upset too, JZ? I gave you guys credit for doing good things.
Deep inside another pantomime already, I see, John.
Did I say anything about being “upset”?
Right.
Carry on then.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
Right.
I am steeped in a culture that includes Christian ethics. Religion plays an important role in the evolution of societal norms.
Glad you haven’t forgotten that.
What are Christian “ethics”, John Branyan?
Can you give me an example.
And can you show me where the idea to end slavery in your country came from your religion.
Uh-Oh, Dad. You said “Christian ethic” when you should have said “Theistic ethic.”
As soon as you say “Christian” then we have to go down that long rabbit trail of figuring out whether Christianity has ever said anything original, or if we should thank Siddhartha or Hammurabi for the ultimate emancipation of the slaves.
Our Atheists are triggered by the word “Christian.”
He’s got nothing but ‘enlightened self interest’. Siddhartha, Hammurabi and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are better codes of ethics than his.
I answered his slavery question.
Want to bet whether or not he accepts it?
Tell him Christianity does the best job of bringing all the “memes” together.
Maybe if you use one of his words, a light bulb will come on.
The Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
That is the essence of what the Bible teaches in Galatians:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians:
“In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!”
And 1 Corinthians:
“For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
The abolitionists made their case against slavery from the Bible. They reasoned that slavery stood in opposition to the Biblical teaching that all men are equal in the eyes of God.
Sorry, John. Firstly, your country was founded on slavery, and I’m afraid to say, the concept of basic human rights can be formally traced back to Cyrus the Great (539 B.C.E). From Babylon, the meme spread quickly to India, Greece, and eventually Rome where the concept of “natural law” arose. From this platform, the meme evolved directly into documents asserting the individual rights of man, including the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Constitution of the United States (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the United States Bill of Rights (1791).
Care to try again?
What is “Christian ethics”?
Sorry, Windbag.
You asked for justification for ending slavery from my religion. I gave it to you.
I’ve asked you before to list abolitionists who were not theists (specifically, Christian). You didn’t supply a single name. That’s because those people don’t exist.
Christian ethics are what you atheists keep complaining about when you think I’m being dishonest and manipulative. Naturalism offers no basis for criticizing my behavior. You need to borrow from Christianity to even talk about morality.
Shall I repeat… The basic concept of human rights (equality of citizens) is not Christian. Would you like me to re-post the evolution of that particular meme?
And could you point me to that part in Christianity that has three-fifth compromise?
“You need to borrow from Christianity to even talk about morality.”
LOL! As Tildeb would say. Good. Grief.
So, let me get this straight… In your mind, and your wonderful grasp of history, not only were the ancient Greeks Christian, but the Maurya Dynasty (India) and the Qin Dynasty (China) were also Christian… five-hundred years before Christianity.
I see.
So too was Cyrus the Great, I guess. And Confucius. And The Buddah. And…
Yes John Branyan, no one had morals before Christianity.
No one.
You’re right.
I never said there were no morals prior to Christianity. That is part of the cartoon religion you keep trying to make me defend.
You asked about slavery in America. Sorry the answer wasn’t to your liking.
John Branyan says
John Branyan then says
So terribly confused.
Those are two different statements.
Morality is part of mankind being in God’s image. Morals have been part of the human condition since humans began.
I do not believe the Bible is the first instance of moral thought.
And yet you said:
So, John Branyan, I can’t talk about “morality” from the perspective of Buddhism’s five precepts (to abstain from harming living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication)? I can’t talk about “morality” from the perspective of Hinduism’s Dharma (the “right way”)? I can’t talk about “morality” from the perspective of Ancient Egyptians’ Maat (which, incidentally, the bible steals from)? I can’t talk about “morality” from the perspective of Confucianism’s focus on benevolence, humaneness, righteousness (justice), knowledge, integrity, loyalty, piety? And, of course, I can’t talk about “morality” from the perspective of the Jain ethical code of nonviolence (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), taking only that which is freely given; i.e. not stealing (asteya), non-possessiveness (aparigraha), chastity (brahmacharya)?
Okay, got it.
You have to borrow from Christianity to explain WHY any of those moral statements are more than just pretty platitudes and cultural “memes.”
Oy.
Still not getting it?
Correct.
You are an atheist. You cannot talk about morality from the perspective of your worldview. You need to borrow morality from some other religion. I assumed you were borrowing from Christianity because that’s where you find the strongest moral codes.
Oh, now you’re spreading your wings to “other”religions.
But not the thoughts of Confucius, obviously… Or Cyrus the Great, Or…
Okay, got it. Thanks.
Certainly other religions can describe truth.
You are stuck having to explain everything in terms of naturalism. There are no morals in nature. Hence you borrow from religion.
Got it?
LOL!
No, I’m stuck with explaining things as to how I would like to be treated, and then projecting that outwardly. It’s pretty simple. You know, the Golden Rule… That lovey idea that (formally) dates back to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE) “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.” It also emerged in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE), as well as in the Mahabharata (8th Century BCE) “The knowing person is minded to treat all beings as himself,” in Homer’s Odyssey (6th century BCE), “I will be as careful for you as I will be for myself in the same need,” 6th century BCE Taoism, “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,” in 5th century BCE Confucianism, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself,” in 4th century BCE Mohism, “For one would do for others as one would do for oneself,” and was articulated by the Greek, Pittacus (640–568 BCE), who said: “Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.”
Not a Christian idea, is it, John?
Just like those radical ideas of justice and equality had by the Maurya Dynasty, the Qin Dynasty, by Cyrus the Great, by Buddha, and by almost every imaginative person who ever dreamed up a religion…
Oh yes, John Branyan, they’re all made up. That’s why your god, Yhwh, is not a source for some “objective” moral truth. If it were, John, he wouldn’t change his mind, would he?
And so we return to the truth:
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
If they are “all made up” then you’re right back to talking morality from naturalism. And that’s a non-starter.
You need to get a bigger worldview.
Atheism just doesn’t have the juice to talk about this stuff.
“If they are “all made up” then you’re right back to talking morality from naturalism. And that’s a non-starter.”
Is that so?
Evidently, you don’t believe this.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
I don’t see you saying, “I got my ideas… from Christianity.”
Do you?
That’s where this whole thing started!
You’re done.
Whooooooosh.
The sound of you falling down that hole you dug.
Good night.
JB states that without religion, “…you’re right back to talking morality from naturalism. And that’s a non-starter.”
No. You’re finally starting in the right place. It’s called ‘biology’… the same ‘non-starter’ place real medicine begins, where we can finally leave behind the Oogity Boogity! of malicious demons and evil spirits affecting health and move into the knowledge-based evidence… a place you really should come visit.
There is no morality in Biology.
The study of emergent properties is probably better informed if one first understands what they have emerged from. Just sayin’…
Studying morality by first denying its biological basis or stating categorically that this is a non-starter is like studying aerodynamics by first denying its atmospheric basis and claiming its a non-starter. It’s so obviously stupid a denial that doing so is actually quite mind boggling.
Study of emergent properties is what I call ‘religion’. Just sayin’…
In lieu of rebuttal, please proceed to tell me how stupid I am.
Oh, and those in the south, they used the bible to justify slavery.
I guess that argument’s a wash, huh?
You guess wrong.
Slavery advocates could use the Bible, Tom Sawyer, The Magna Carta or Shakespeare to justify slavery…that doesn’t make them right.
Right, so the bible is wrong.
Is the idea that all men are created equal wrong?
Did I say it was?
You said the Bible was wrong.
It says men are equal in the eyes of God.
If you agree, then it’s not wrong.
Understand?
Equal, huh? So you’re saying your god, Yhwh, changed his mind about that arrangement between the OT and the NT?
I see.
Got it, thanks.
Evolved societal norms, JZ.
You don’t have a problem with that.
Nor do you…
It’s all you have.
Right.
Except my societal norms include religion so I have a much richer worldwide than you.
Oh, I see.
Got it. Thanks.
You’re absolutely correct, JZ: Good. Grief. Isn’t it telling that I as a a Canadian have to educate JB as an American what Jefferson meant by ‘All men are created equal?”
Not that he’ll learn a damn thing from me but, hey… it’s the least I can do for anyone like-minded.
Because the Declaration is a long list of complaints common to the Thirteen against the Crown, this part refers SPECIFICALLY to the imported British primogeniture law (where only the eldest male inherits). This practice was – as Jefferson wrote at length before and after the Declaration was published – a central feature promoting war between brothers. He wanted to draw upon the Thirteen to support the rejection of this practice, so he explained why equality between brothers and complete rejection of these laws was necessary to aid in creating a united and single people from thirteen very different colonies. The reference has nothing to do with equality rights shared by all as it is often erroneously portrayed today.
You’d think an American like JB and his home schooling daughter would learn their own damn history first, but no. Now look at the absurdity of trying to square the secular foundation of the US with the circular desires of theists trying to rewrite history to fit their desire for a ‘Christian’ nation. This absurdity – fueled by irrational faith-based beliefs – is responsible for the deplorable condition of so many people like JB being so poorly informed about American history.
So all men aren’t equal? Is that your point Tildeb?
Notice how Jefferson required a religious link to his “secular” notion. You are still agreeing with me.
No, endowed by the Creator was local parlance for ‘at birth’.
That’s a truly bizarre way to interpret that.
Not if you’ve studied Jefferson.
Oh, right, you haven’t.
Again, ignorance is actually NOT a virtue, JB. You can do something about that… but you won’t. You don’t care to alter one iota of your high opinion of your fact-denying opinions if you think it’s pious.
Apparently, you have not only studied Jefferson, you’ve read his mind!
You are the perfect Dear Leader. Accept everything you say without question or be labeled an imbecile.
…of course, that’s just my fact-denying opinion.
Your little tantrums are quite boring. Grow up.
There you go!
Succinct. Condescending. And completely irrelevant to the discussion!
Tildeb, I’ve always wondered (and often asked), what would a Christian Nation actually look like?
For example, would there be freedom of speech and a free media in a Christian nation? What would a Christian nation’s education and legal systems look like? Would clerics sit on the Supreme Court, and if so, which Christian denomination/s would they come from? What would a Christian nation’s foriegn policy look like? Would a Christian nation have a standing army, and if so, would it be expeditionary in nature and cause? What would a Christian nation’s social policies look like? What would a Christian nation’s science policies look like?
And yes, the typical middle-America evangelical is desperate to re-write their history. They know not who their fouding fathers even were.
To quote Jefferson, as written on his monument wall:
John and Amanda would be wise to print those words in large, bold letters and, as it is displayed in his own monument, place it on their wall so they can see it and read it every day…. and hopefully, come to understand something about their own country and the ideals upon which it was founded.
The Brazilian and the Canadian lecturing me about American political philosophy.
The Atheist telling me what I “ought” to do. Fabulous!
You are oblivious to the hypocrisy within your worldview. Imagine if I had written your comment. You would rightly dismiss it as religious fervor.
You and Tildeb are just as religious as I am. You’ve just embraced a bad dogma.
I’m Australian, and does it bother you, John, to read what is actually written on Jefferson’s monument wall?
Does those fine words disrupt and confound your pantomime?
Do those words ruin your cartoon version of American history?
It appears these fine words do, in fact, disturb you.
But don’t be upset, John Branyan. You yourself have already acknowledged the truth of Jefferson’s words. You yourself have conceded it is the “the progress of the human mind” that betters the human condition over time, not your particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh:
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
I’m not upset in the slightest.
Just confused and confounded then, huh?
No.
I’m thinking clearly.
Ah
Bad People CAN Do Good
Maybe even you, JB?
Yes. Even people as bad as me.
You’ve never done anything bad so you probably can’t understand what we’re talking about today.
Probably done lots of badness. No sin, though.
So you’re a bad person too. Just like me.
The difference between us is that I have a working definition of ‘bad’ and you just have your usual tripe.
As opposed to your rock-solid, evidence based faith in YHWH, right?
Your getting good at this humour thing . You actually made me laugh.
It would truly be funny if you weren’t being serious.
Although, you did catch me unawares with this one. I must put down my coffee in future otherwise I shall be spraying my Laptop screen.
Yeah! Now you understand why my calendar is so full!
Does your fundamentalist Christian audience realise you are mocking them?
Probably not.
You are a Fundamentalist yourself and you are oblivious to it.
You think so? Fundamentalist what?
Fundamentalist Arkenatan-ian.
Whatever you say is 100% right all the time.
Not at all. I try never to presume and unless I am simply having a bit of sport I base my views on evidence.
However, I will say it would be a fairly safe bet I know a dam site more than you about your own religion.
YES!
That’s EXACTLY what Fundamentalists say!
You base your views on verifiable evidence? Really? Show me.
Evidence that you’re a Fundamentalist?
Exhibit A:
“However, I will say it would be a fairly safe bet I know a dam site more than you about your own religion.”
And why would you believe that because I know more about your religion than you do this makes me a fundamentalist?
Fundamentalists (as I already explained) are 100% right all the time. Presuming you know more about what I believe than I do is classic fundamentalist thinking.
As I have explained I never presume I am 100% right all the time. Never.
We can test whether I know more about your religion than you do very easily.
Care to try?
Would you you likw to
The verifiable evidence was, of course, in reference to your faith/religious beliefs.
For this you have exactly zero.
Wrong again.
Really? Then demonstrate it and I will apologize unreservedly.
I’ve demonstrated it every time we have exchanged comments.
You never apologize because you are a fundamentalist and immune to new ways of thinking.
The request was for you to demonstrate with evidence the veracity of your religion/faith.
Under these circumstances it is probably better if you actually outline what:
a) your beliefs are
and
b) what you base these on.
Are you prepared to do this?
Perhaps this will help understanding JB: the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement!
*Smile*
Quite!
Oh, and I’m not a bad person at all.
Yes you are.
You said so.
Like all atheists, you can’t explain what badness is. That’s why you need Christianity.
No, I said I had done ‘badness’, so stop telling lies.( I realise that is difficult for a Christian but please try , JB okay?)
I can explain what ”badness” is and have done on numerous occasions, and many people, far more qualified than me, have done so also.
You think you get your morality from a man-made Canaanite deity, called YHWH.
That strikes me as the dribblings of a person with serious issues.
You can’t explain what badness is. You don’t even know that badness and sin are the same thing!
As I said, naturalism doesn’t have a mechanism for determining good and bad. If you want to talk about morality, you need to reference a religion. I recommend Christianity.
You can’t explain what badness is. You don’t even know that badness and sin are the same thing!
There you go, ignorant to the last, JB
Sin is a religious concept to do with your god, Yahweh.
I am not religious and you have yet to produce any verifiable evidence of your god.
And if we are to go ny the bible.
Shit! That is one of the most disgusting rags ever to see a printing press.
Actually, Christianity is one of the least moral religions on the planet.
Look at some of the examples of its deity and what has been done in its name by a great many of its adherents.
Nothing much above filth. n some instances it actually makes my flesh crawl.
No. I’m not ignorant. You are. I’m trying to help you be less so.
Sin is not a ‘religious concept’. It is the word the Bible uses to describe the ‘real concept’ of ‘badness’. When you admit that you have perpetrated ‘badness’, you are admitting you have sinned.
You continue to assert that the Bible is a ‘disgusting rag’ and Christianty is ‘one of the least moral religions on the planet’. But you still have no basis for leveling those accusations outside of your own opinions.
The best you can do is say Christianity is bad because YOU don’t like it.
No. I’m not ignorant. You are. I’m trying to help you be less so.
And you think you will achieve this by worshiping a millennia old Canaanite deity called Yahweh?
Oooookay!
Sin is not a ‘religious concept’. It is the word the Bible uses to describe the ‘real concept’ of ‘badness’. When you admit that you have perpetrated ‘badness’, you are admitting you have sinned.
Tut tut, Johnny. You are a silly …and very ignorant boy.
.Let’s do a quick Googly for you ….
Sin
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
“a sin in the eyes of God”
Are you getting it yet, John?
As I mentoned in the previous comment I base my view of Christianity upon what it stands for, what it claims and what has been doe it its name. There are other things but these are the main points.
Based solely on these your religion reads like a litany of pure filth.
Seriously, where would you like to start, JB?
Start by saying, “your religion reads like a litany of pure filth based on my personal opinion.”
I’ll have no rebuttal for that.
1.You are a Christian.
2. Your god is the man made Canaanite deity, Yahweh.
‘Nuff said.
True, no one can explain how morality can be independent of some god to people like you… people who already categorize any answer – no matter how well informed by compelling evidence independent of faith-based belief – to be insufficient to alter your anti-atheist a priori conclusion and award it to god (while understanding how this is so is accessible only by accepting your particular brand of theology).
Religious morality is identical in every way to immorality.
“No one can explain how morality can be independent of some god to people like you…”
You must also mean “people like” Atheist John Steinrucken: “Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!”
And Atheist Michael Ruse: “In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.”
Most importantly, you must try to explain your silly claim to “people like” Atheist Richard Taylor: “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”
What you mean when you say you can’t explain your concept of morality to “people like” JB is that you can’t explain your concept of morality to ANYONE who thinks–including other Atheists.
So I’m correct.
Religion hasn’t stolen anything from anybody.
I’m not even going to bother asking you to explain “Religious morality is identical in every way to immorality.” You don’t have a clue what immorality is so we’ve got another example of ‘Angry Tildeb Spewing Nonsense’.
This post is all about how atheists can behave morally. One of your big complaints is the incessant ‘vilification’ of heathens that we Christians endlessly perpetrate. I gave you credit for ‘doing good things’.
And still you’re arguing with me!
What’s your problem, dude?
My problem is that you attempt to assign my morality to your god. You attempt to steal from me that which is mine, dude. I’m my own moral agent responsible for my own moral behaviour, thank you very much. Morally, I’m all grown up, you see. I’m willing to be responsible for me and not pretend something else takes that responsibility on my behalf.
I’m not a moral infant like you, irresponsibly trying to pass ownership of my morality somewhere other than where it resides, unwilling to submit my morality like you to the judgement of some divine Dear Leader who will tell me what is right and wrong and who will soothe my moral concerns with the obscenity known as divine command theory. Unlike you, I will not allow others to turn me into a willing moral automaton just following orders.
I have a problem with people like you who attempt out of ignorance and stupidity and selfish adolescent idiocy to put your god in charge of my morality and I have a problem when you try to turn me into a moral dependent and then stupifyingly wonder how I might possibly take offence to that thievery.
Your naivety for your effrontery is unbelievable.
“You attempt to steal from me that which is mine, dude. I’m my own moral agent responsible for my own moral behaviour, thank you very much.”
Got it.
Am I also my own moral agent?
Yes, but you give it away to the Dear Leader like the adolescent does trying to fit in with the group. You need to grow up, JB… morally speaking… and take on the responsibility for its exercise like an adult
Then you are doing EXACTLY what you criticize me for doing. You have no right to say that I need to grow up or change my behavior in any way.
So….
Humans building on foundations laid by others is called “evolution.” It’s progress and a GOOD thing when you do it with scientific disciplines.
But, when humans build on moral and religious concepts, this is called “Thievery.” They’ve “stolen” those concepts from those who have gone before.
Interesting.
He’s toast.
Again.
But he’s going to keep blathering anyway…
If you actually were educated, you’d know that the act of using someone else’s words and claiming them for your own is called plagerism. This is bad BECAUSE it’s dishonest. It’s a misrepresentation. The same is true for your religion: using stuff from everywhere and everyone else that you think is good and then presenting it as if were original to your god. This is bad BECAUSE it’s dishonest.
In order to build upon what has come before, we learn to properly attribute and give credit to our source material by recognizing it as such. But that’s not what you guys do. You pretend stuff originates from your god and wave away all the evidence that demonstrates its actual source. Look at the list I gave you. There is no shred of evidence that any of the Church founders give proper attribution to any of this stuff; instead, it’s presented as if it comes from God’s lips to your ears. It’s so dishonest that it leads people to actually presume that their morality comes from some god. I know! It’s almost unbelievable because it’s so overwhelmingly stupid.
You are forcing your morality on me after affirming that I have my own moral agency. You are a hypocrite!
…Hello…?
Am I also my own moral agent?
No.
I’m not prepared to outline the entirety of my beliefs.
If it were possible to do that, I would only need one blog post.
Specifically, this post is about morality and I’ve done a superb job of demonstrating the veracity of these claims.
Let me help you out …
Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised savior of humanity who rose from the dead after being crucified.?
Do you admit that your criticism of Christianity is just your opinion?
No. It is based on evidence.
What evidence, outside your opinion, supports your claims about Christianity being immoral?
The bible, the inquisition, the Catholic Church, the Conquistadors in conjunction with the Jesuit priests etc etc ad nauseum.
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of mankind?
So, say it, Ark. “In my opinion, Christianity is immoral.”
WTF. Are you suggesting the Inquisition was moral ?
Well, are you?
Are you suggesting the Inquisition was immoral? That’s just your opinion, right?
You believe torture is moral, JB?
Or are you just being a Christian?
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the saviour of humankind?
I believe torture is a sin.
You don’t believe sin exists.
Any objection you raise regarding torture will be just like your other objections…merely your opinion.
I asked if you believe torture is moral, not if it is a sin.
So, once again, do you consider the torture ( and we can include the witch burning etc as well) as performed by the Christian church in support of your god, Yahweh,to be moral?
Sin is immoral by defintion.
Sorry, didn’t realize you were so far behind.
What is your personal opinion regarding torture?
Excellent! So we can take a leap of faith (sic) and state you consider the Inquisition ( as supported and directed by the church) was immoral.
Good start.Thanks.
Next.
Do you consider what the church did in support of the god you worship, Yahweh, during the colonization of the Americas to be immoral?
Oh, and do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of Humankind?
You think you’re building some kind of case here. You are not.
Your morality is merely a matter of personal opinion. There’s no reason to give your opinions more weight than the opinions of the Conquistadors.
Who are you that anyone should care what you think?
I feel fairly confident that most normal people ( you may fall into this category) would consider the acts of the Inquisition and the Conquistadors to be, in the main, immoral.
This of course is simply based on evidence.
However, if you are defending their actions then please lay out your case…
And in terms of morality, would you consider the actions of the character, Jesus of Nazareth moral or immoral?
For someone who believes in evolution, you do a terrible job of adapting. Did you forget that you’re not talking to a fellow fundamentalist?
Who are you that anyone should care what you think?
I just answered that question in the previous comment.
So, Jesus of Nazareth?
You worship Yahweh, but believe Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of humankind, yes or no?
You think “I feel fairly confident that most normal people ( you may fall into this category) would consider the acts of the Inquisition and the Conquistadors to be, in the main, immoral.” answers that question?
It doesn’t.
Your morality is derived solely from your personal opinions. Who are you that anyone should care what you say is good or bad?
Yes, it answers it very well, actually. That you will not condemn the actions suggests you realise how untenable the premise of your post is.
“Yes, it answers it very well, actually. That you will not condemn the actions suggests you realise how untenable the premise of your post is.”
This too, is your opinion.
Why should I care about it?
You don´t have to.
The topic of the post which is ” your opinion” – is that non-Christians (bad people) can do good as their morality is derived from the Christian religion.
I am demonstrating that the morality as proposed by the doctrines of your religion and its exponents is highly immoral.
Based on the couple of examples I have listed the case has been aptly shown to be true.
So if it is my ”opinion” as you insist then all one can say is you side with Yahweh and Jesus and the bible and the Christian religion, which is most definitely immoral from root to tip.
“I am demonstrating that the morality as proposed by the doctrines of your religion and its exponents is highly immoral.”
And why should anyone care what you are demonstrating?
Because your religion has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity and people such as you continue to champion it as the bastion of truth, when in fact it is merely lies.
Are you not interested in truth?
Why do you practice a religion that is
immoral, JB?
Of course I’m interested in truth!
I don’t practice an immoral religion.
I don’t think your opinion matters.
So you consider the actions of Yahweh, the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, the Catholic Church,the christian doctrine in general to be moral?
We’re not actually having a conversation.
You just want to rant about the horrors of Christianity. So I’ll leave you to it. Go ahead and restate your opinions about everything remotely connected to religion and I’ll give it the appropriate amount of weight considering the source.
And when you get caught with our pants down and all your silly little analogies about how wonderful your religion is for imparting morality to us poor heathens you resort to whining.
You are a disgrace to apologetics.
Rather stick to stand up, JB and stop pretending you are a Christian.
Disappointing.
I expected more groundless assertions about the atrocities of Christianity. This was simple ad hominem directed at me personally. Novice level trolling.
On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a “3”.
Nah, I was just showing you how you pathetic post was nothing but bovine excrement, JB.
Most normal people wouldn’t want your christian morality if they were frakking giving away, and certainly not based on your example.
Most normal people understand that Christian morality is the only kind there is.
You spent the day proving that you have no alternative to offer.
Most normal people are NOT christian and considering your ”faith” is hemorrhaging the faithful, from the pulpit to the pews they too realise how vile the version of morality you are pushing truly is.
The alternative is simply not to be a Christian.
Ask ANY deconvert.
You truly don’t have a prayer, John. Not a prayer.
Like I suggested – stick to stand up, you make a lousy christian.
Just click “like,” Dad.
If you don’t jump to step #7 of Ark’s Merry-God-Round, he’ll just stay stuck on Step #4 forever.
Just click “like” and end the insanity!
Your opinion.
Evidence….
No evidence.
Merely your groundless viewpoint.
Are we talking about evidence of how lousy a Christian you are or evidence for how immoral your religion is?
I am in the middle of a movie and I´m afraid your nonsensical dribblings are becoming distracting.
If you want to reply then do me a favour,start a new thread at the bottom of the post and see if you can make a coherent point, JB okay?
But please, stop trying to fob us off how superior your vile religion is at being the glowing exemplar of moral superiority.
It won’t wash any more, okay?
Thanks.
You have offered no evidence for anything.
Go watch your movie.
Then go regale your fellow atheists with your tales of victory!
The Inquisition is not evidence of your christian morality?
Okay , John you stick with you religion.
You deserve each other – somewhat warped, immoral and not very funny at all.
No.
The Inquisition is not referenced anywhere in Christian doctrine.
Watch your movie.
You are out of your league here.
And lies too?
Doing a grand job for your moral position, John. Grand job.
I’ve told no lies.
You’re doing a grand job of reciting incoherence. Grand job!
Your entire christian worldview is based on a lie.
What else do you need?
I disagree with your opinion.
Of course you do. Indoctrination does that to you.
I disagree that I am indoctrinated.
Of course you do.
Earlier Ark finally concluded that you are funny. But now he needs to decide whether you’re really a Christian or just “pretending.”
He can’t make up his mind about which tiny box to shove you in. 🙂
I was having quite an interesting conversation with the organ grinder, what makes the monkey think she has anything more worthwhile to add?
So sorry, Your Honor.
I’ll think twice before speaking my mind without your permission next time.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6e/ff/12/6eff12fb3222b2a097bef408280eaa90.jpg
You haven’t spoken your own mind since you believed you were ”saved” and got indoctrinated.
Meh, whatever. You’re just mad that I was indoctrinated differently than you.
Mad? No, not really , Amanda.Would be nice if you were able to understand, as much for your kids sake as for your own. But I’m unlikely to be able to do anything about that.
I can only wish you stay well, and if your god helps then so be it.
He is the Dishonorable Judge Ark!
(For reference, here again is Ark’s Merry-God-Round.)
1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh.
4. Ark tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
You have shortened this list…
Yeah, I cut off the steps which applied more to other people. (Everyone else tries to get him on track and eventually gives up.)
Pragmatic. How very typical of you.
http://theawesomedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/funny-animals-sticking-tongues-14.jpg
Ark is struggling with a concept. Maybe you can help him out.
Can you give me a reason why anyone should care about Ark’s opinions about morality?
Yes.
We should care what Ark thinks because his doctor has been working very diligently to balance his chemicals. So we can be reasonably sure that Ark’s thoughts are the CORRECT kinds of thoughts, because the professionals say so.
If we’d just seek professional help for some medication of our own, we would be able to understand.
So, do you believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth s the savior of mankind?
@Mrs.Mc
As you are wont not to do often
I only hit “see all comments” for the entertainment value and have NOT been disappointed! 🙂 JB, not only are you hilarious, but also you have the ability to bring out the hilarity in your “responders” – even though I don’t imagine that was their intent. 😉
John,
I am about to begin reading a book I got from Amazon just because of some of the discussions in this blog. It is called “Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism” by Douglas R. McLachlan. If you are interested, I will share anything I glean from it that I think would be shareworthy (patent pending) and of interest outside of my own head. As a “self-identified fundamentalist” in the blog (just finally getting around to listening to your last podcast), I feel the burden of reclaiming the word and concept of fundamentalism from those who have sullied it by falsely claiming it and messing it up for the rest of us.
As for the main topic of the post:
Believers and unbelievers alike share in the image of God in men, Likewise they share in the providence of God. Matt 6:45 tells of God causing the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and that it rains upon the just and the unjust alike. So that pesky image of God in all men can’t help but break forth even in unbelievers, causing them to do good, even though all men are sinful.
So what would it be like if men did not have the image of God within?
Perhaps like a feral animal, instinctively doing what would be seen of as evil were it a person. Assuming we humans all agree that waiting in a tree to pounce on and devour a small child straggling behind a crowd would be an act of evil for a human.
Perhaps it would be like another being who lacks the image of God, namely Satan. Scripture says he comes to steal, kill, and destroy. He is only interested in himself and opposition to God, despite the revealed end of the story for him is the Lake of Fire. And not as a ruler there, but as an inmate in the deepest, darkest, worst-est part.
I have never had an issue with moral acts being done by unbelievers. But I am curious as to the deep-down reason they give themselves for doing good. Is it because they want people to treat them the same way? That sounds nice in the surface, but is self-serving in the end. Is it because they feel bad when they don’t do good things? That is motivation by guilt, and self-serving as well, if the reason is to just not feel guilty. Is it because they love the person they do good things for? (Matt 5:46-47). That seems to also be self-serving, if the fear is that they will not be loved if they fail to do the good thing.
The cool (and oh, so difficult) thing about living as a believer is that we are to do moral things simply because they are the right thing, and what God wants us to do. We are to love unconditionally, even those who hate us. Tough to do, but Jesus didn’t say the Christian life was easy to do. Our love for God should compel us to show love to all. The Messiah Himself asked the Father to forgive the very people putting Him to death. And He says that whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Him cannot be His disciple (Luke 14:27). But thank God that we are not asked to do any of it in our own power, but with the help of the Holy Spirit. When I finally man up and live humbly and love unconditionally those who hate me, I am manning up with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So I agree fully with Christianity being needed for the “why” of good acts. I know that my deeds are often selfish, even when they appear purely altruistic, and I work daily, with God’s help, to change that. The praise of men and their admiration can be a strong distraction from the true reason to do good. We live in a fallen give-to-get world that tells us to look out for number one. Jesus messes that whole philosophy up by teaching the last shall be first, and the first last, and that God judges the motivations of the heart. It is also why Paul urges us not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing our our minds (Romans 12:2) Interestingly, that verse says that by testing we will discern what God’s will is, and what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Dave
Hebrews 13:16 (ESV) – Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
P.S. – As a self-identified fan, I do find you hilarious. It is what drew me to this blog. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, humor is in the eye of the… um… humor-hearer. Perhaps people who do not find you funny were born with a heart three sizes too small. Jesus can grow their hearts back to normal size, and they will then see how funny you are, Either that, or your humor goes over their heads because they are so low-minded… could that have been a Freightback? I made it up… but he can use it.
I think we get an idea of what creatures are like when they don’t have the image of God in them when we look at the animal kingdom. Instinct dominates behavior. Some animals seem to exhibit empathy. Dogs, for example, are considered ‘man’s best friend’. But only dogs who are domesticated. Wild dogs are not compelled to be friendly. And we don’t say a pack of wild dogs is behaving immorally when it kills the family goat.
People are the only animals on Earth who have opinions about how others ‘ought’ to behave.
John,
I agree completely. So do Peter and Jude, so that places us in good company.
2 Peter 2:12 (ESV) – But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction,
Jude 1:10 (ESV) – But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
While these verses are specifically targeting false prophets and teachers, they can be applied to anyone who speaks against the truth of Scripture. An unbeliever hostile to God and the Gospel is certainly not a teacher of the truth, and do blaspheme. Some of the poster on this blog are not just unbelievers, but anti-believers, desiring that the believers here abandon their faith. That would please them. They are certainly passionately preaching their non-faith, which is really faith — asserting that there is no God. They must bank on we believers being wrong, else they must admit they, like us, are sinners in need of a Savior.
I continue to pray for their salvation, that God moves in their hearts.
Dave
Romans 8:27 (ESV) – And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
P.S. – I like the new format of the pages, where there is a like to click (but you can only use it if you have an account… no biggie), and, more importantly, the reply now seems to work better, where you can reply to any post, not just some.
Well, I stand corrected. You actually are able to be hilariously funny. Who would have guessed!
Welcome to the fan club!
Thank you, JB for that sincere Fundamentalist welcome.
Tell me, is that the branch of your fan club where all the members consider you are nothing but a disingenuous ignorant half-wit?
I’ll bet they make up a fair proportion of your admirers,(sic) right?
Take notes, Ladies and Gentleman. This is how you become a Top Commenter, right here!
If you want it badly enough, then you too can earn more comments than either of the blog administrators. Believe in yourself! And don’t worry about staying on topic…
As far as I know, my fans consider me hilarious, like you said.
It seems that now you’re just trying to be mean. Is that right?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4L1xQIl0g
~CQW
I see this more as a human being’s ability to respond to good and to do good things without recognizing the source of that good. Why is that source hidden? I think it very well might be to reveal our sincerity or lack of it. God typically doesn’t make things overly easy, nor does he intimidate with obvious displays to unreceptive minds. But he can be sought and found by intellectually honest, open-minded people who are willing to do some persistent and careful thinking.
But he can be sought and found by intellectually honest, open-minded people who are willing to do some persistent and careful thinking.
There’s the humour-of-the-day claim. Love the use of such affirming terms. Again, completely antithetical to religious belief itself but it looks so good in print.
An excellent example of PoMo pseudo-thinking here… where up is really down and black is actually white.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E8G5gSP64D4
~CQW
As an obvious outsider you clearly don’t understand the mental processes involved in sincere faith. I can only speak from experience concerning Christianity. There are two millennia of thinking, writing, and scholarship that have grown out of this faith, and it was a major factor (along with Islam, oddly enough) in the preservation of culture and learning during the dark ages. One other point (and I honestly mean this helpfully): if you pride yourself in your intellect, why have you become so predictable in your responses? In reading the comment stream for this site, I have found it surprisingly easy to guess when you will respond and often how. When I made my comment, I expected you to do what you have just done, and I notice that you have recycled one of your unsupported fallback arguments. Do you ever have a desire to exhibit more range? Please don’t be offended. It’s a pretty rough forum, and I am assuming that those who wade in do so with a full knowledge of what to expect.
If you’re familiar with the comment stream, then you’ll know two things about me: I will not tolerate typical anti-atheist rhetoric JB slings with abandon without criticizing it (hence the similarity you note), and that I have done a prodigious amount of academic study of the bible in particular and what source it draws from. Much of what passes these days for Christian faith would be unrecognizable to the early founders. It has evolved over time in response to and not an advocate for the pursuit of knowledge. And this is why internet apologists like JB are so far out of their depth but passing themselves off as knowledgeable and insightful about their religion and getting away with it by the silent followers of the site that it almost screams for correction.
But note that JB doesn’t self correct. He ignores counter evidence. He waves away evidence that is inconvenient. He turns immediately to name calling and outward blame. And he actually thinks he’s being pious for doing so. This in itself is a wonderful example of what happens when we presume faith is a virtue when it does nothing but produce vice. And he doesn’t because he doesn’t know any better, doesn’t have the intellectual courage and fortitude to learn anew, to recognize that he knows no other way but to grant unreasonable levels of confidence to his own opinion and then maintain that confidence at all costs. JB presumes his opinion on religious matters to be what it is not: accurate. And if I don’t point it out, who will? Not co-host Amanda who slavishly follows JB’s lead and takes his dishonesty to new levels. So who will? You?
“Much of what passes these days for Christian faith would be unrecognizable to the early founders.”
One could also observe, “Much of what passes these days for scientific fact would be unrecognizable to the early founders.”
Why is change in scientific consensus considered a good thing, but change in religious consensus is considered bad?
Tildeb, this is the best response you have given me, and it actually contains some contentions with which I agree. Your position is admittedly more sweeping than mine in terms of what these mean for the Christian faith as a whole, but you are correct in stating that some of what passes for Christianity today is not truly part of Christain doctrine as laid out in the source document for this faith. On a personal note, I responded to you because you are the only person who has specifically criticized my comments. If someone else had, I would also have responded to them. Without disparaging anyone in particular, I have noticed antagonistic comments on this site from a variety of sources. This frustrates me because it shuts down meaningful debate. Although I generally keep out of this sort of thing, I felt that your comment merited a response, and I’m glad that we had this exchange. Hopefully, you’ve noticed that I don’t leave very many comments. Thank you for yours in return. I think this was the healthiest of the few disagreements we have had. Take care.
I am sorry that the commentary devolves so quickly into something petty and churlish. I wish it were not so. I would like nothing better than to have productive discussions. But at the very least, criticisms need to be seen and pondered even if poorly treated by the bloggers who invite it.
*sigh*
Another backhanded compliment I see, claiming moral behaviour from non believers is possible BECAUSE the supposed divine ‘law’ has been written on their hearts.
Good. Grief. Absolutely not true. (See contrary evidence under ‘slavery’ as one of hundreds of contrary examples to this claim.)
Have you ever noticed that religion (in the generic sense of representing some god) steals everything good and claims itself to be the source, but never the bad? Funny, that. And it takes a special kind of idiocy to go along with this thievery and not see it laid out in such claims..
Gosh it’s hard to make you happy, Dear Leader.
How is slavery evidence that the moral code is not written on the hearts of non believers?
And from whom has religion ‘stolen everything good’?
The god of the OT says its fine and dandy that some people can be property. This ‘fine and good’ is not stamped on the hearts of people any more than any other moral consideration that believers are only too willing to attribute to their god’s supposed moral ‘law’. If it’s a law, then believers should support slavery. They don;t because they don’t consider it a moral good… in spite of all the stamping going on. This evidence against the claim.
Anything and everything considered good is stolen by Religion and repackaged and falsely advertised as if derived from religion.
You have a kindergarten understanding of slavery in the OT.
Your objection to slavery needs to be LINKED to a religion. I recommend Christianity.
Your secular naturalism has no philosophical basis for determining moral values.
And you didn’t tell us from whom religion steals everything good.
You’re the one claiming non believers can be moral if it aligns with your god’s moral law. You god’s moral law includes accepting of slavery. Yet how is that your heart is not so imprinted?
To get around this incompatibility, you simply wave it away and claim the fault lies with the person who points it out. This too is absolutely typical of you. And these dishonest, intellectually vacuous tactics you employ in defense of your indefensible claims is a prime example of the accuracy of the “intellectually honest, open-minded people who are willing to do some persistent and careful thinking” claimed by RLJ III who supposedly find this god of yours so… compelling.
You may be a comedian, JB, but its your intellectual integrity about the religious claims you continue to make that is a running joke.
Morality is not a specific list of behaviors.
OT also allowed polygamy.
OT requires circumcision.
This is typical of you, Dear Leader. Demanding that I justify your ludicrous, inane version of “christisn theology”
Who does religion steal from?
Why the repeated question? I’ve answered it twice already.
You have answered it, not at all.
From whom does religion steal goodness?
Why ask the question if you are unwilling to accept the answer?
My unwillingness to accept your answers has never stopped you from your indoctrination attempts in the past.
I think you were just spewing rhetoric and weren’t expecting to be asked to support your claim.
You ought to know better than that! You’ve been here before, Dear Leader.
Spewing rhetoric? Oh that’s rich.
Is it possible in today’s internet age that anyone can be so naive as to think your question merits a serious answer?
Apparently so. That’s why you keep asking it and pretending it’s has any legitimacy.
I claim religion steals everything good and claims it for being its source.
Concerning your religion – Christianity – this is so painfully obvious that it boggles the mind anyone could seriously doubt it. Shall I begin to list these infractions?
Okay, let’s start with your scripture. Stolen. It’s founded on the stealing the Pentateuch, you nitwit. Let’s look the ‘additions’ to it. Stolen. Platonic philosophy. Aristotelian physics. Ptolemic astronomy. All stolen and claimed as it source. The virtues. Stolen. Morality. Stolen. The Golden Rule. Stolen. The Beutitudes. Stolen. Proverbs. Stolen. Acts. Stolen. Job. Stolen. The list goes on and on and on. Not one single thing uttered by Jesus original. It’s a religion founded on thievery.
Oh, but you’ve really called me out on asking from whom the religion has stolen.
Not.
Anyone should be able to figure this out all on their own… if one isn’t so completely bamboozled by nitwits like you reselling your ill gotten gains as if original and convincing the gullible to go along with the deceit.
.
Your original claim:
“Anything and everything considered good is stolen by Religion and repackaged and falsely advertised as if derived from religion.”
You have done nothing but restate that assertion.
… and you’ve completely ignored the examples I use to back it up.
That’s because I am my own moral agent and decided it was right to ignore your examples.
You gonna let me know if I am my own moral agent or just skip to another commenter and fling some ad hominem?
Don’t mind my dad, Tildeb.
Sometimes he forgets that all of his questions are terrible and it prevents him from appreciating your artistry.
Doesn’t “doing good” actually betray the advance of social order in a godless society? I was under the impression that the genetically advantaged were supposed to survive at the expense of the lesser, and permitting inferiors (any measure you like) to consume resources of any sort was a reckless and unnecessary invitation for jeopardy in the long run. Isn’t that how it works?